TUJ Studies 97

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY JAPAN STUDIES IN APPLIED

LINGUISTICS

TEACHING AND LEARNING THE ENGLISH SOUND SYSTEM

Number 97, February 2015

ii

Temple University Japan Studies in Applied Linguistics

Teaching and Learning the English Sound System

Editors of Part I: Adam Dabrowski, Derek Canning, & John Woolf

Editors of Part II: Vivian Lee

Series Editor, David Beglar

Number 97, February 2015

© Copyright 2015 Temple University, Japan Campus

iii

Studies in Applied Linguistics

Temple University, Japan Campus Graduate College of Education

PROGRAMS

Master of Education Degree Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages

Doctor of Education Degree

Curriculum, Instruction, and Technology with specialization in

Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages

FACULTY

Mitsue Allen-Tamai David Beglar

Eton Churchill Tim Doe

Paul Leeming Ron Martin

Tomoko Nemoto Edward Schaefer Tamara Swenson Donna Tatsuki

Correspondence should be addressed to: Studies in Applied Linguistics Graduate College of Education Temple University, Japan Campus Azabu Building, Minami Azabu 2-8-12 Minato-ku, Tokyo 106-0047 Tel: (03) 5441-9800 Fax: (03) 5441-9811

iv

Temple University Japan Studies in Applied Linguistics

1 Pronunciation Manual for the Sounds of American English, Fall 1984 (Vol. 1, No. 1) 2 Teaching the Grammatical Structures of English: A Manual for Teacher, Tokyo Ed., Spring 1985 (Vol. II, No. 1) 3 A Teachers’ Manual: Teaching the Grammatical Structures of English, Osaka Ed., Spring 1985 (Vol. II, No. 2) 4 First and Second Language Acquisition: A Survey of the Primary Research, Tokyo, Fall 1985 (Vol. II, No. 3) 5 First and Second Language Acquisition: A Survey of the Primary Research, Osaka, Fall 1985 (Vol. II, No. 4) 6 First and Second Language Acquisition: A Survey of the Primary Research, Osaka, Fall 1985 (Vol. II, No. 5) 7 Techniques in Teaching Pronunciation, Spring 1986 (Vol. III, No. 1) 8 Communicative Activities for Teaching Pronunciation, Fall 1987 (Vol. IV, No. 1) 9 Communicative Activities for Teaching the Grammatical Systems of English, Fall 1987 (Vol. IV, No. 2)

10 Strategic Interaction: Using Scenarios to Teach English as a Foreign Language, Fall 1988 Vol. V(1) 11 Classroom Activities for Teaching Listening and Speaking, Fall 1989 (Vol. VI, No. 1) 12 Communicative Grammar Activities, Spring 1990 (Vol. VII, No. 1) 13 Communicative Activities for Teaching Pronunciation, Fall 1990 (Vol. VII, No. 2) 14 Grammar Consciousness-Raising Tasks, Fall 1991 (Vol. VIII, No. 1) 15 The Communicative Teaching of Pronunciation, Spring 1992 (Vol. IX, No. 1) 16 Activities for Literature in Language Teaching, Spring 1993 (Vol. X, No. 1 17 Grammar Consciousness-Raising Tasks, Fall 1993 (Vol. X, No. 2) 18 Humanistic Techniques in the EFL Classroom, Spring 1994 (Vol. XI, No. 1) 19 Pronunciation Manual for the Sounds of American English, Spring 1994 (Vol. XI, No. 2) 20 Grammar Consciousness-Raising Tasks, Spring 1995 21 Collaborative Projects in Language Learning, Summer 1995 22 Action Research, Summer 1996 23 Approaches to Grammar: Tasks for the Classroom, September 1996 24 Communicative Activities for Teaching Pronunciation, Spring 1997 25 Grammar Activities for the Classroom, April 1998 26 English as a Stressful Language: Teaching Suprasegmental Pronunciation to Japanese Learners, July 1998 27 Phonology: Pronunciation and Beyond, February 1999 28 The Development of Teaching Materials for the EFL Classroom, February 2000 29 Activities for Teaching English Pronunciation, April 2000 30 Developing Teaching Materials for the EFL Classroom, July 2000 31 Teaching Materials for the EFL Classroom, November 2000 32 Consciousness-Raising and Communicative Grammar Activities, February 2001 33 The Development of Teaching Materials for the EFL Classroom, February 2002 34 Approaches to Grammar: Tasks for the Classroom, May 2002 35 The Development of Teaching Materials for the EFL Classroom, March 2003 36 Language Assessment, December 2003 37 The Development of Sound System Teaching Materials for the EFL Classroom, March 2004 38 Language Assessment, December 2003 39 I: Grammar Activities, March 2004; II: Materials for Teaching Pronunciation for the EFL Classroom, April 2004 40 Grammar Activities, May 2004 41 Teaching Vocabulary to Second Language Learners, June 2004 42 Activities for Building Confidence in English Pronunciation February 2006 43 The Next Great Leap: Using CALL in the Classroom, July 2006 44 Activities for Teaching Pronunciation Skills to Japanese Learners of English, November 2006 45 Bilingualism, November 2006 46 The Development of Teaching Materials for the EFL Classroom, April 2007 47 An Anthology of Grammar Activities, April 2007 48 Classroom Activities for Teaching Pronunciation, May 2007 49 The English Sound System Theory and Practice, October 2007 50 Developing Teaching Materials for EFL Classrooms, March 2008 51 Speaking and Listening in the Classroom, August 2008 52 Communicative Pronunciation Activities and Syllabi, July 2009 53 Issues in Second Language Writing: From Theory to Practice, July 2009 54 Content-Based Foreign Language Instruction in Japan, July 2009 55 Developing Materials for English Language Instruction in Japan, October 2009 56 Applying the Pillars of SLA Theory, November 2009 57 Grammar: Communicative and Consciousness-Raising Activities, January 2010 58 Studies in Second Language Acquisition: Theory and Practice, January 2010 59 Vocabulary Acquisition and Teaching, April 2010 60 Grammar: Communicative and Consciousness-Raising Activities, November 2010 61 Echoes from the Past: Foreign Language Education in Japan, November 2010 62 Activities for Pronunciation, February 2011 63 Teaching English Grammar to ESL/EFL Learners, February 2011 64 Developing Learner Pragmatic Competence Through Instructional Intervention, March 2011 65 Communicative Activities for Teaching the English Sound System, March 2011 66 Consciousness-Raising and Communicative Grammar Tasks for EFL/ESL Learners, March 2011 67 Vocabulary Teaching and Research, May 2011 68 Approaches for Teaching Vocabulary to Japanese EFL Learners, June 2011 69 Foreign Language Pedagogy in the Japanese Context, August 2011 70 Grammar Instruction for Japanese Learners of English, September 2011 71 Grammar Topics: Explanations and Teaching Activities, November 2011 72 Content-Based Instruction: Bringing Second Language Acquisition to the Foreign Language Classroom, November 2011

v

73 Issues in Teaching English as a Foreign Language in Japan, December 2011 74 Teaching the Sound System of English to Japanese Learners, May 2012 75 Vocabulary Instruction for Japanese Learners of English, June 2012 76 Classroom Research in Teaching the Sound System of English, June 2012 77 Teaching English as a Foreign Language in Japan, August 2012 78 Issues in Teaching, Learning, and Researching L2 Writing, August 2012 79 Developing Reading Skills and Strategies in a “Communicative” EFL Environment, August 2012 80 From Theory to Practice: Designing Courses Based on Beliefs about Language and Language Learning, January 2013 81 Studies in the Teaching of English Grammar, May 2013 82 Studies in Curriculum Development, May 2013 83 Teaching Materials for the Four Skills, June 2013 84 Teaching the Sound System of English, August 2013 85 Teaching Aspects of English Grammar, August 2013 86 Approaches to Teaching English to EFL Learners, August 2013 87 Qualitative Studies on Language Learners and Educators in Japanese Contexts, October 2013 88 Developing Pedagogical Materials for EFL Learners, October 2013 89 Communicative Vocabulary Teaching in Japanese Contexts, November 2013 90 Teaching the Sound System of English, May 2014 91 Developing and Validating Assessment Tasks, June 2014 92 Content-Based Instruction in the Japanese Context, July 2014 93 Applying Findings in Educational and Cognitive Psychology to the Teaching of Foreign Languages, August 2014 94 Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition, August 2014 95 Grammar Instruction in the Japanese Context, September 2014 96 Teaching Foreign Language Skills, January 2015 97 Teaching and Learning the English Sound System, February 2015

vi

Table of Contents PART I Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... vii Adam Dabrowski The Celce-Murcia, Brinton, and Goodwin Communicative Framework for Teaching Pronunciation: A Case Study ...................................................................................................................... 2 Derek Canning, Adam Dabrowski, and John Woolf A Japanese College Student’s Acquisition of /r/ and /l/ ........................................................................... 11 Kung-Cheen Howng and Kento Sato A Case Study in Targeting Pronunciation Errors in Japanese University Students ................................. 17 Chisa Fujita, Seiichi Kaneko, and Isra Wongsarnpigoon Raising Conscious Awareness in the Physical Articulation of /l/ and /r / ................................................ 28 Katherine Hrysyzen Form-Focused Pronunciation Tasks for /s/ and /z/ Suffix Deletions ........................................................ 35 Catherine Sudo Japanese Phoneme /ɕi/ as a Foundation for /si/, /Өi/, and /ʃi/ in English ................................................. 44 Tomomi Utsunomiya and Satomi Yoshimuta Focused Instruction in /ɪ/ and /æ/ and Its By-Products ............................................................................. 55 Harumi Suga PART II All You Need is Shadowing: A Quasi-Experimental Pronunciation Study ............................................. 63 Vivian Lee The Effect of Text Readability on the Acquisition of Connected Speech ................................................ 69 Christopher Nicklin Explicit Primary Stress Instruction and Reading Aloud to Improve Comprehensibility ......................... 80 Garrett S. DeOrio A Case Study: Can Raising Awareness of Suprasegmentals Improve Listening Comprehension? ....................................................................................................................................... 90 Mayumi Abe Teaching Pronunciation to an Adult Japanese L2 Learner Majoring in Nutrition ................................... 98 Safumi Kamiyama Tips for Teaching Pronunciation to Japanese Learners of English ........................................................ 110 Mayumi Abe Guidelines for Teaching Pronunciation .................................................................................................. 113 Christopher Nicklin Teaching English Pronunciation ............................................................................................................. 116 Garrett S. DeOrio Ten Guidelines for Teaching Pronunciation ........................................................................................... 120 Vivian Lee Guidelines for Teaching Pronunciation to Japanese Learners of English .............................................. 123 Safumi Kamiyama

vii

Introduction The following six papers represent the academic work of myself and my classmates in the phonology course offered by TUJ in the summer semester of 2013, taught by Dr. Noel Houck. Dr. Houck guided us through a rigorous course in phonology which included a focus on the practical pedagogical implications of decades of research regarding phonology. We also focused on the International Phonetic Alphabet set forth by the International Phonetic Association in order to properly document our research. The class was given the opportunity to work in teams or individually on short research projects. Each group set out to identify a phonological issue using a variety of diagnostics. Once an issue was identified, the participants were guided through applications of treatment based in current research in hopes of addressing each participant’s specific needs. This opportunity to conduct a case study offered myself and my classmates a unique experience in which we conducted research and reflected on our own processes. It also allowed us an understanding of how to approach issues our students might face in a practical sense. Please enjoy the following six case studies that represent our time spent under the advice and guidance of Dr. Noel Houck. Adam Dabrowski Tokyo, Japan September 18, 2014

1

PART I

2

The Celce-Murcia, Brinton, and Goodwin Communicative Framework for Teaching Pronunciation: A Case Study

Derek Canning, Adam Dabrowski, and John Woolf

In this paper we describe methodology and results of a case study regarding individual pronunciation instruction. The subject, an adult native-Japanese woman possessing a high level of English fluency, was diagnosed centrally with issues producing the contrasting phonemes regarding the contrastive phonemes /r/ and /l/, and /s/ and/ʃ/ in different linguistic environments (consistent with typical Japanese learners of English). Following unsuccessful early treatments, subsequent treatments were designed using a communicative task framework described by Celce-Murcia et al. (2010); these treatments elicited more accurate performances, suggesting that a communicative task cycle which progresses from explicit form focus towards less controlled, meaning-focused communication can benefit acquisition.

This paper is organized into three major sections: Common pronunciation issues for Japanese speakers of English, Methodology, and Discussion. Common Pronunciation Issues for Japanese Speakers of English Common pronunciation difficulties for Japanese speakers of English (JSE) can be classified into segmental and suprasegmental. Carruthers (2006) identified two segmental problem areas: sounds that appear in English but not in Japanese, and “differences in the distribution of phonemes and allophones” (p. 17). The first problem is particularly prominent in a comparison of English and Japanese vowels. Avery and Ehrlich (1992) note that unlike English, Japanese makes no distinction between tense and lax vowels. This can cause intelligibility problems when Japanese speakers of English (JSE) are unable to articulate the difference between minimal pairs such as /sit/ and /sɪt/. This problem can be compounded by the speaker’s failing to observe the corresponding differences in tense and lax vowel lengths (Carruthers, 2006).

Differences in the sound inventories of English and Japanese consonants can also cause intelligibility problems. Many are commonly known, such as the existence of only one Japanese liquid, often characterized as between /l/ and /r/. JSEs often make substitutions for sounds that do not occur in Japanese, including replacing the labiodental /v/ with a bilabial stop /b/. Additionally, JSEs commonly substitute /ʃ/ and /tʃ/ for /s/ and /t/, respectively, when they are followed by the high front vowels /ɪ/ and /i/ (Avery & Ehrlich, 1992). Combinations of consonant and vowel trouble spots can occur within a single word or syllable, and it can be a challenge to prioritize issues for treatment and instruction in limited class time.

Suprasegmental issues include significant differences in stress, rhythm, and intonation patterns between English and Japanese. Japanese is an open syllable language that relies on pitch to mark stress (Avery & Ehrlich, pp. 59, 137). In contrast, English has wider variation in syllable structure and methods of indicating stress. JSEs commonly use epenthesis to make English words conform to Japanese syllabic structure: strawberry cake becomes sutoraberry keki. JSEs can have difficulty manipulating syllable length or loudness to indicate the focus of a sentence, resulting in flatter intonation. The absence of the reduced vowel /əә/ in Japanese, aside from causing intonation problems in speech, can result in difficulty in perceiving function words (Carruthers, 2006).

This brief overview highlights pronunciation problems stemming from significant differences between Japanese and English. It is unclear which among this litany of differences most deserves treatment without consulting the learner(s) and analyzing his or her production of these phonemes in various lexical environments. Methodology In this section, we introduce the participant, her English background, and discuss what her own perceptions were of her phonological needs. We also outline the diagnostics used to identify the learner’s needs, a

3

discussion of these needs, and discuss the focus of the case study. Finally, we describe the materials used for instruction and a description of the data collection procedures. Participant The participant was a Japanese woman in her early twenties. Yumin (a pseudonym) grew up in the Japanese prefecture of Yamanashi. She spent about a year living in the United States, where she studied at an academic English preparation language school; therefore, her knowledge of English was quite high. During an initial assessment, she made few grammatical mistakes, yet she produced phonemic errors in casual conversations. At the time of this study, Yumin worked as a hairstylist in Tokyo, and was the only employee who could speak English. She worked in a district of Tokyo which was home to many foreign residents. Because of her English proficiency, she was tasked with catering to English-speaking customers when they visited the salon.

Prior to the diagnostic tests, Yumin stated that she was aware of difficulties producing /r/, /l/, /s/, and /ʃ/. This might have been a consequence of L2 interference, because Japanese lacks both the rhotic /r/ and /l/, although it does contain a variant of these sounds. Japanese speakers of English often confuse /r/ and /l/. These mispronunciations can lead to problems with intelligibility and comprehensibility in conversation. Yumin has stated that she is often confused by minimal pairs differentiated by /l/ and /r/, that is, words with different meanings with nearly identical pronunciations, except for exactly one contrasting phoneme (e.g., lip and rip).

Yumin explained a specific problem with the English word frying pan: she produced the word as flying pan because of a semantic attachment. She explained that when cooking with a flying pan, food literally flies (as the cook tosses the contents of the pan). It was determined that misattributions such as this, while logical on the part of the speaker, could be present in other items of her vocabulary and thus was monitored as treatment was administered. Apparatus In this section we describe the rationale and procedures involved in designing and administering the diagnostics used to determine which phonemes would be treated. Description of the Diagnostic Diagnostics were created to target the sounds that tend to be mispronounced by JSEs. These diagnostics were produced so that the targeted phonemes would be produced in a variety of linguistic environments, including: initial, medial, and final positions; before and after consonants/consonant clusters; and before and after variations of vowels with different degrees of frontedness, height, and roundedness. Diagnostic Procedures Per Yumin’s consent, each session was audio recorded in full. Before the diagnostic procedure, Yumin was encouraged to relax. She was offered water, tea, and snacks. I engaged Yumin in a casual conversation about what happened during her day before gradually shifting attention towards diagnostic procedures. Yumin performed each diagnostic exercise separately. She was encouraged to read through each block of text silently in order to identify words with which she was not familiar. She then discussed words she did not understand so that she would understand the term she was to pronounce, but she was not given explicit pronunciation coaching with the unfamiliar vocabulary. She then read the block of text aloud. Yumin completed all diagnostics in this sequence. Diagnostic results The errors Yumin made during the diagnostic are displayed in Table 1.

4

Table 1. Diagnostic Results Pronunciation error Process Number of occurrences

/d/ replacing /θ/ Stopping 5 Consonant insertion Addition 4 Vowel substitution Substitution 3 /ʃ/ replacing /s/ Substitution 3 /r/ replacing /l/ Substitution 3 /s/ replacing /z/ Final consonant devoicing 3 /ɾ/ replacing /r/ Substitution 2 /w/ replacing /l/ Substitution 2 /s/ replacing /z/ Substitution 1 /gret/ reduced to /gəәret/ Consonant cluster reduction 1 Needs Analysis The results of these diagnostic tests highlighted the phonemic issues that the student was experiencing. This section analyzes and gives weight to these errors in preparation for designating the focus of this case study. Stopping /θ/ with /d/ Regarding the five errors which occurred with the phonemes /θ/and /d/: the student made this process error in the final position of words. Jenkins outlines a convincing rationale for not treating this stopping error due to its “high level of difficulty [which] coincides with a low level of salience for EIL intelligibility” (2001, p. 137). Furthermore, these errors did not mitigate comprehensibility. Therefore, this issue was not addressed. Unusual epenthesis of consonants Yumin inserted unneeded consonants into clusters in four incidences. This was an unexpected phenomenon, considering that JSEs are more prone to the epenthesis of vowels in order to break up consonant clusters. It did seem to occur when the student was hesitant or lacking confidence regarding a word. Substitution and interchanging of /l/, /r/, and /ɾ/ Yumin’s biggest issue seemed to be the interchanging of the phonemes /r/, /l/, and /ɾ/. She produced three errors with each of these phonemes; in total, she produced nine errors regarding these phonemes. These errors occurred in various environments throughout the diagnostic. Marginal change of vowels On three occurrences, Yumin changed vowels slightly. These phonemic errors did not render her utterances incomprehensible, and therefore were not addressed during this case study. Substitution of /s/ with /ʃ/ Yumin's mispronunciation of /s/ and /ʃ/ when followed by the high front vowels /ɪ/ and /i/ was consistent with Avery and Ehrlich's description of problems typically faced by JSEs (1992, p. 135). Because they are highly contrastive, we decided to focus at least part of our treatment on these phonemes. Devoicing in the final position: /z/ to /s/ The errors Yumin produced regarding /s/ and /z/ in the final position of words seems to suggest a process issue with devoicing of the consonant in the final position. These errors appeared to be relatively minor in contrast to other errors, as they did not interfere directly with contrastive meaning. Gliding in consonant clusters: /w/ for /l/ On two occasions, Yumin substituted the phoneme /w/ for /l/ when it was part of a consonant cluster in the initial position of a word. This is a process error known as gliding. This error often occurs among children who are acquiring English. It could be that the student has observed the mouth of native speakers when

5

producing these words and learned to imitate the mouth shape which would not give clue to the gestural production of /l/. Devoicing in the medial position: /z/ to /s/ The student in one instance devoiced the /z/ phoneme to /s/ when it occurred in the medial position of a word. This error occurred in the final position, as previously mentioned. This mistake occurred only once and did not interfere with comprehensibility, and therefore did not receive focus in this case study. Epenthesis Surprisingly, there was only one occurrence of the student inserting a vowel into a consonant cluster. As noted above, this is a common issue for JSEs due to the transference of the structure of the Japanese language. Focus This section establishes the focus of this case study, based on diagnostic results and analysis of Yumin’s needs. As mentioned previously, Yumin expressed awareness of her propensity to interchange /r/ and /l/, as well as /s/ and /ʃ/. Based on the inventory of issues collected from the diagnostics, Yumin’s self-perception of efficacy regarding these phonemes was accurate. These items also carry the most semantic contrast; mispronunciations can change the entire meaning of an attempted word. Due to the high probability of incomprehensibility resulting from such semantic contrasts, and in consideration of the student’s stated interest in treating her pronunciation of these phonemes, this scope of this case study was limited to the phonemes /l/, /r/, /s/, and /ʃ/. Materials The materials that were created to address Yumin’s pronunciation problems are described in this section. Treatment 1 Due to Yumin’s self-awareness and high proficiency, initial treatments were designed without explicit focus on contrastive pairs, but rather as top-down, decontextualized listening discrimination and spoken production exercises. (As discussed in subsequent sections, these exercises proved less effective than hoped, necessitating efforts to incorporate additional linguistic scaffolding and contextualization.) Two activities were used, Same or different and Place the pictures. Same or different is a listening activity. The instructor reads a pair of words from a list of ten minimal pairs and the learner must state if the words heard are the same or different. The purpose of this activity is to raise the students' awareness of the contrasts between the target phonemes. Place the pictures is a speaking activity for practicing contrasting phonemes. Eight minimal pairs with corresponding illustrations are arranged on a 4 x 4 grid and given to the participant. She then instructed a partner to place an identical set of cards into the correct spaces on a corresponding blank grid by reading the word and giving the coordinates. The purpose of this activity was to give Yumin an opportunity to practice pronunciation in a communicative setting. Treatments 2 and 3 Following treatment 1, subsequent treatments were designed to follow an adapted version of the communicative framework for teaching pronunciation described by Celce-Murcia (2010). These treatments progress in five activity phases from explicit description and learner analysis of target forms through decreasingly structured communicative usage, and incorporate linguistic contexts meaningful for the learner, thereby facilitating acquisition.

Treatments 2 and 3 followed a similar format; Treatment 2 addressed /l/ and /r/, and Treatment 3 addressed /s/, and /ʃ/.Lexical units for these treatments were selected from English words related to Yumin’s profession, and were progressively recalled throughout each cycle of activities. These treatments, entitled R’s and L’s Go To Work and S’s and Sh’s Go To Work, respectively, each consisted of four activities.

6

Instruction/Repetition: Words with instances of the target phonemes are arranged in a table. For example, in Treatment 2, those with /r/ comprised the first column, those with /l/ comprised the second, and those with instances of both comprised the third. Students are given explicit, individualized instruction in forming the sounds and then asked to repeat each word after the instructor. Words are read first in columns and then in rows in order to highlight the phonemic contrasts. Listening discrimination: The instructor reads from a list of sentences. Listeners discriminate which of two words by circling they hear. Following the activity, the instructor provides feedback. Guided practice: This task is an information gap activity to be completed by communicating with the instructor. A chart with multiple columns is provided to the learner; the instructor has a similar chart. However, the learner and instructor possess different pieces of information, and must communicate (using the recalled lexicon, as well as additional instances) to assemble the full chart. Communicative practice: The learner is given a prompt and instructed to write a short response. Their response must use a predetermined number of words recalled from prior activities. After the learner finishes writing the prompt, they highlight the targeted contrastive phonemes using different colors. They are then given an opportunity to practice reading. Finally, they read their prompt to the instructor. In these materials, prompts take the form of open narrative response and a question-answer role-play. As demonstrated, the format of materials for Treatments 2 and 3was identical except for target phonemes, lexical content, and the communicative prompt. Discussion of procedural implementation of these materials, as well results of implementation, follows. Procedures The data collection procedures and how each activity was adapted to Yumin's situation is descibed in this section. Each session is described in Table 2, with more detailed discussions following. Table 2. Procedures

Session date Materials Purpose July 22, 2013 Diagnostics one through four aimed towards testing /s/

and /ʃ/, /v/ and /b/, /f/ and /b/, as well as /a/ and /əә/.

Identifying the learner’s phonological problems

July 23, 2013 Same or Different? Place the Pictures

Raising the learner’s awareness of phonological problems

July 28, 2013 Task cycle 1 /r/ and /l/ Go to Work Instruction/Repetition: /r/ and /l/ Discriminative Listening: /r/ and /l/ Guided Practice: /r/ and /l/ Communicative Practice: /r/ and /l/

Explicit instruction in pronunciation techniques for the phonemes /l/ and /r/ Speaking and listening practice in meaningful context

July 30, 2013 Task cycle 2 /s/ and /ʃ/ Go to Work” Instruction/Repetition: /s/ and /ʃ/ Discriminative Listening: /s/ and /ʃ/ Guided Practice: /s/ and /ʃ/ Communicative Practice: /s/ and /ʃ/

Explicit instruction in pronunciation techniques for the phonemes /s/ and /ʃ/ Speaking and listening practice in meaningful context

7

Treatment 1 (July 23, 2013) Session 1 was conducted during the evening. Yumin was encouraged to relax before the session began. This session included two tasks: Same or different, a listening activity, and Place the pictures, a productive speaking activity. The phonemes /s/, /ʃ/, /l/, and /r/ were taught before the tasks. The student was encouraged to look in the mirror, and to be aware of where her tongue was in her mouth for each of these sounds. She was then told that the tasks would include these phonemes.

In the Same or Different? activity, Yumin correctly identified the differences in the minimal pairs seed/she’d, seek/chic, seat/sheet, shit/sit, and blue/brew. She could not differentiate between the minimal pairs sin/shin, Serb/serve, gibbon/given, and clown/crown. At least two of these minimal pairs contained words Yumin had been unfamiliar with before the activity: gibbon and shin. This can indicate the degree to which top-down processing affects her ability to differentiate words containing problematic phonemes. Familiarity with the sounds might not be enough, and learners might need to “know” a word before they can hear it clearly.

Yumin had consistent problems with the /s/ /ʃ/ distinction during the Place the pictures activity, though here her difficulties seemed less dependent on her familiarity with the words. She substituted /ʃ/ for /s/ on three occasions, when pronouncing the words sin, seat, and once when pronouncing the letter C. There were five other instances of the phonemes /s/ and /ʃ/, and Yumin accurately produced the correct phoneme in each of these cases. Her difficulties here were consistent with those commonly faced by JSEs in producing these sounds, particularly when they are followed by a high front vowel such as /i/ or /ɪ/. Treatment 2 (July 28, 2013) Prior to conducting this session, it was determined that Yumin would benefit from a more structured, contextualized activity cycle, given concerns regarding her performance in Treatment 1, as well as her apparent frustration during the treatment.

Celce-Murcia et al. (2010) advocated a communicative task cycle for a number of reasons germane to these concerns. According to principles of communicative language teaching (CLT), language is best learned when it is meaningful to the learner, reflecting their interests and needs while enabling to communicate their ideas effectively in authentic communication. Furthermore, learners progress gradually through stages of acquisition of pronunciation features, and thus need opportunities to move from highly controlled focus-on-forms towards automatic processing and production in meaning-focused communication. Celce-Murcia et al. described a five-phase framework for communicative pronunciation teaching, highlighting the importance of learner-centric content and contexts: 1. Description and analysis. Learners carefully attend to the problematic phonemes in a variety of

environments, and are given oral and/or written illustrations of how to produce those phonemes, how they contrast, and when they occur.

2. Listening discrimination. Learners practice listening and receive feedback. Learners are asked to either identify or distinguish given features.

3. Controlled practice. Learners begin to produce spoken forms of the feature in controlled ways (e.g., oral reading of minimal pairs or short dialogues) in which the feature is made especially salient.

4. Guided practice. Learners produce spoken forms of the feature in structured communication exercises (e.g., information gap activities).

5. Communicative practice. Learners use the form in less structured fluency-building activities, attending to form and meaning

This framework was adapted and employed to facilitate Yumin’s acquisition, and treatment materials were adapted to be more relevant and useful to her interests and professional competence. The controlled practice and guided practice phases were adapted into a single activity, an information gap activity in which additional support is provided by the participating instructor, due to time constraints.

This session made the first use of the task-cycle derived from Celce-Murcia et al. (2010). The phonemes /l/ and /r/ were taught before the tasks. Yumin was encouraged to look in the mirror and to be aware of where her tongue was in her mouth for each of these sounds. She was then told that the tasks would

8

require her to use these phonemes. For the Instruction/repetition: /l/ and /r/ task, Yumin repeated a series of words related to her profession that contained the phonemes /l/ and /r/. For the Listening discrimination: /l/ and /r/ task she identified one of a set of minimal pairs in a sentence. We then conducted a Guided practice: /l/ and /r/ task that consisted of an information-gap activity in which Yumin collaborated with the instructor to complete a stylist’s weekly appointment book. The final Communicative practice: /l/ and /r/ was a short narrative that Yumin prepared about a day at work in the salon.

In the Instruction/repetition activity, Yumin made three substitution errors with the target phonemes. There were fewer errors in the less-formal, more communicative activities. This might indicate that the explicit instruction and careful practice at the beginning of the session was beneficial. Yumin made one substitution error with the target phonemes during the Communicative practice: /l/ and /r/ activity, but self-corrected when she realized she had said /lezəәr/ instead of /rezəәr/.

We felt that this session successfully raised Yumin's consciousness of the distinction between /l/ and /r/. The use of the communicative framework derived from Celce-Murcia (2010) was an improvement over the previous session. The subject matter and vocabulary were drawn from Yumin's daily life, which contextualized the language and increased her involvement in the lesson. The movement from highly formal reading of word lists to freer communication activities allowed Yumin to attend to mispronunciations early in the task cycle, and we saw few instances of substitution errors in some of the more casual speaking activities. This was unexpected given Major's (1987) ontogeny model, which predicts that interference is greater when speaking in a casual style in comparison to casual speech. (p. 107). This suggests that the sequence of tasks were effective in accruing greater phonological accuracy over the course of the cycle (See Table 3 for an overview).

The session was long, and might have been broken up over a number of shorter lessons. It would be interesting to see if Yumin's ability to correctly articulate the target phonemes in conversation changed when evaluated a matter of days after the more formal activities. Furthermore, Celce-Murcia et al. (2010) noted that because learning is non-linear, their framework is most effectively employed over many sessions, and students can benefit from revisiting various phases of the task cycle. Due to time constraints, this was not feasible. Treatment 3 (July 30th, 2013) In this session, we adapted the communicative framework task cycle used in Treatment 2 to address the phonemes /ʃ/ and /s/. The diagnostics and Session 1 had demonstrated that Yumin had more difficulty with these phonemes, particularly when /ʃ/ and /s/ were followed by a high front vowel. We hypothesized that by maintaining consistency in terms of activity types across Treatments 2 and 3, we could decrease the learning burden so that Yumin could more closely attend to these more troublesome forms.

Yumin was given instruction in how to form the sounds and encouraged to use a hand mirror to help move her mouth into the correct position. The activities Instruction/ repetition: /s/ and /ʃ/, Discriminative listening: /s/ and /ʃ/, and Guided practice: /s/ and /ʃ/ were carried out in the same way as those from Session 2, albeit with a focus on different phonemes. The Communicative practice: /s/ and /ʃ/ activity differed from Communicative practice: /l/ and /r/. For the final communicative activity, Yumin was asked to imagine interviewing a customer about how they would like their hair styled.

In the first activity, Instruction/repetition: /s/ and /ʃ/, Yumin correctly pronounced 30 of the 31 words she was asked to read. She twice mispronounced /ʃin/ as /sin/. Notably, this was the only occurrence in this activity of the target phonemes /ʃ/ and /s/ being followed by the high front vowel /i/. Yumin experienced similar difficulties in the discriminative listening: /s/ and /ʃ/ activity. She failed to correctly identify words when the target phonemes were followed by the high front vowel /i/ in five out of nine occurrences.

In the Guided practice: /s/ and /ʃ/ activity, Yumin mispronounced two words, only one of which involved the target phonemes: /ʃɪmpəәl/ for /sɪmpəәl/. In this case, the target phonemes were not followed by /i/. She correctly pronounced the target phonemes in 11 instances when /s/ and /ʃ/ were followed by /i/. Ten of these occurrences, however, were the pronoun she and the eleventh occurrence was the word see, both common words that Yumin was presumably familiar with. Also notable is the fact that these non-errors

9

occurred in open-syllabic environments. This activity might have been improved by the addition of more lexical units with word initial /s/ and /ʃ/ phonemes followed by the vowel /i/. We could have improved this activity further by including the target phonemes in both open and closed syllabic environments.

In the final activity, Communicative practice: /s/ and /ʃ/, Yumin wrote and asked 10 questions, each of which contained at least one occurrence of the target phonemes, for a total of 15 instances. After identifying these occurrences with a highlighter, she correctly pronounced each word containing the target phonemes. This included two occurrences of /s/ and /ʃ/ followed by the vowel /i/, in both open and closed syllabic environments: the words see and seat. As in the previous session, there were fewer mispronunciations in different phases of the task cycle. Again, this was unexpected, given the progression from formal to casual speech. The final activity, however, was more formal than we had anticipated, and we were unable to gauge how Yumin might have pronounced these or similar words in a more spontaneous, casual style.

As before, time constraints prevented us from breaking the cycle up over two or three sessions. We would like to be sure that Yumin's increased awareness of her pronunciation of these phonemes has long-term benefits. Table 3. Error Rates

Activity

Target

phoneme(s)

Number of occurrences of

target phoneme(s)

Number of listening errors

Number of speaking

errors

Percentage

(errors/occurrences)

Same or different /s/ and /ʃ/ /b/ and /v/ /l/ and /r/

10 4 — 40%

Place the pictures /s/ and /ʃ/ /b/ and /v/ /l/ and /r/

16 — 5 31.25%

Instruction/repetition: /l/ and /r/ /l/ and /r/ 24 — 5 20.8%

Listening discrimination: /l/ and /r/

/l/ and /r/ 15 0 — 0

Guided practice: /l/ and /r/ /l/ and /r/ 55 — 1 1.82%

Communicative practice: /l/ and /r/

/l/ and /r/ 11 — 1 9.09%

Instruction/repetition: /s/ and /ʃ/ /s/ and /ʃ/ 31 — 2 6.45%

Listening discrimination: /s/ and /ʃ/

/s/ and /ʃ/ 18 5 — 27.7%

Guided practice: /s/ and /ʃ/ /s/ and /ʃ/ 59 — 1 1.69%

Communicative practice: /s/ and /ʃ/

/s/ and /ʃ/ 14 — 0 0

Results After all the sessions had been administered, we rated the effectiveness of each activity on a three-point scale: 1 = Not effective, 2 = Somewhat effective, and 3 = Very effective. Yumin was asked to do the same. The results are shown in Table 4.

10

Table 4. Results

Session Activity name Learner-rated effectiveness

Teacher-rated effectiveness

July 23, 2013 Same or different 1 2 Place the pictures 1 1

July 28, 2013 Task cycle: /r/ and /l/ Go to Work

Instruction/Repetition: /r/ and /l/ 3 3 Discriminative Listening: /r/ and /l/ 3 3 Guided Practice: /r/ and /l/ 3 3 Communicative Practice: /r/ and /l/ 3 3

July 30th, 2013 Task Cycle: /ʃ/ and /s/ Go to Work

Instruction/Repetition: /s/ and /ʃ/ 3 3 Discriminative Listening: /s/ and /ʃ/ 3 3 Guided Practice: /s/ and /ʃ/ 3 3 Communicative Practice: /s/ and /ʃ/ 3 2

Discussion Yumin's difficulties with pronunciation were consistent with those faced by many Japanese speakers of English. Many did not affect comprehensibility to any great degree, and we decided to focus on errors that had the greatest possibility of impeding intelligibility. Following Jenkins (2001), we decided to analyze Yumin's production of consonants. Yumin stated that she had difficulty with the phoneme pairs /r/ - /l/ and /s/ - /ʃ/, and this was borne out in the diagnostics. Confusion of these phonemes can affect semantics, and we decided to make these the focus of our treatment and study.

Our initial activities further highlighted the difficulties Yumin was having in producing the target phonemes. We were not, however, able to see improvement over the course of a single session. Furthermore, the vocabulary chosen for the activities was either unfamiliar or abstract, and we were unsure if mispronunciations were stemming from a lack of familiarity with the word or from an inability to reliably produce the required phonemes. We then decided to base our treatments on a task cycle, adapted from Celce-Murcia et al. (2010), which moved from structured, formal exercises through more open, casual communicative activities, and which attends more strongly to student interests, needs, and motivations. Following tenets of CLT described by Celce-Murcia et al., we sought to contextualize language in order to more effectively engage Yumin and reduce affective interference. While we could not be sure before each session that Yumin would be familiar with all of the vocabulary we chose, we carefully selected words from her profession.

This improved Yumin's assessment of the effectiveness of the sessions and activities. We were also able to see clear improvements in the accurate pronunciation of the target phonemes in different phases of a single task cycle. This indicates that a meaningful, communicative framework can have a positive impact on a learner's awareness and production of problematic phonemes. References Avery, P., & Ehrlich, S. (1992). Teaching American English pronunciation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Carruthers, S. W. (2006). Pronunciation difficulties of Japanese speakers of English: Predictions based on a

contrastive analysis. Hawai’i Pacific University Archives: Working Paper Series, 4(2), 17-24. Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D., & Goodwin, J. (2010). Teaching pronunciation: A course book and reference

guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jenkins, J. (2001). The phonology of English as an international language: New models, new norms, new goals.

Oxford: Oxford University Press. Major, R. C. (1987). A model for interlanguage phonology. In G. Ioup & S. H. Weinberger (Eds.),

Interlanguage phonology: The acquisition of a second language sound system (pp. 101-124). Cambridge: Newbury House.

Roberts, S. (1983). Bert and the missing mop mix-up. New York, NY: Random House. Trew, G. (2006). Tactics for TOEIC speaking and writing tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

11

A Japanese College Student’s Acquisition of /r/ and /l/

Kung-Cheen Howng and Kento Sato In recent years, the explicit teaching of pronunciation has fallen out of favor and many people in the TESOL community feel that it is actually a waste of time to teach pronunciation. I have taught pronunciation at the request of my students and ended the class with them able to pronounce certain words correctly, but at the start of the next class, those words were once again pronounced incorrectly; so, I can understand why many teachers feel that teaching pronunciation is useless.

There is also the issue of what type of pronunciation to actually teach. In general people feel that standard American pronunciation is the easiest to understand and therefore should be the model to be taught, but that would offend people from Liverpool, who have “unique” pronunciation, who are able to claim that, “We were speaking English long before America was a country.” In addition, it is not uncommon for people to speak English with a foreign accent and be understood more universally than certain native speakers of English.

A good approach to take for pronunciation teaching would be to follow Jenkins’ (2001) Lingua Franca core, which is a set of guidelines for what specific pronunciation areas should be taught for better universal intelligibility. As noted above, people who speak English with an accent and do not sound native like can still be understood, so the focus of pronunciation teaching should not be to gain native like pronunciation but to improve pronunciation as to be more comprehensible.

This idea is further supported by the research done by Munro and Derwing (1999) where the information they gathered on intelligibility, perceived comprehensibility, and accent were not directly correlated. People who speak with an accent can still be 100% intelligible, but perceived comprehensibility, or the difficulty of the listener to understand what was said, can be affected. Therefore, it should be the goal of English teachers not to fix the accent of their students but to focus on certain problem areas that could help the student to be more easily comprehended by others. With this in mind, the question still remains if explicit pronunciation teaching is still a waste of time, or is a slight change in the mindset of how pronunciation is taught going to make a difference? Methodology Participant The learner was a 20-year-old Japanese male, referred to as R, who was a native speaker of Japanese. He was a junior at a Japanese University studying western cultures. Due to the nature of his study, he had a great interest in improving his English skills, which were at an intermediate level. R has also lived and studied in an English speaking country before, but only for a month in Australia. Needs Analysis The major problem areas for Japanese learners in general are related to sounds that are used in English that do not occur in Japanese. A short diagnostic was created to test several of the more common problems among Japanese learners of English. The initial diagnostic included a short three sentence paragraph designed to check whether the learner had difficulty with two common pronunciation problems differentiating /θ/ and /s/, and /l/ and /r/ differentiation. A second short one-sentence diagnostic was administered to see whether the learner had any difficulty with differentiating /v/ and /b/, as well.

According to the diagnostic, Ryohei (pseudonym) had problems typical of native Japanese speakers, including the pronunciation of /v/, /l/, /r/, /θ/, /ð/, and consonant clusters. These consonants, as well as consonant clusters, do not appear in Japanese and are not considered phonemes, which causes difficulties.

One of Ryohei’s most common errors was the substitution of /b/ for /v/. He also had problems with the /l/ and /r/ sounds. He often switched or deleted the /l/ and /r/ sounds when speaking casually. However, he

12

was able to pronounce the two sounds when concentrating. Ryohei faced additional problems with consonants, substituting /s/ for /θ/, and /z/ or /d/ for /ð/ and he reduced consonant clusters. Likewise, he substituted one of the five Japanese vowels for English vowels. In particular, he often substituted /əә/ for /æ/. The other vowel substitutions were less systematic.

While the diagnostic showed that Ryohei had the most difficulties pronouncing /v/ and /b/ sounds, for several reasons we decided to cater our lessons towards fixing his /l/ and /r/ pronunciation. First, we had limited time to meet with Ryohei. Because his /l/ and /r/ problems were the least severe, the chance of him making noticeable progress in four short lessons was far greater. If he noticed his own progress during the four weeks, he would also gain motivation for the future. The second reason for choosing /l/ and /r/ was that these sounds are notorious for causing problems with Japanese learners and thus hold a greater importance in the eyes of Japanese native speakers. Ryohei reported that he paid special attention to them as he was learning English due to the special interest these sounds receive. Finally, according to Jenkins’ (2001) Lingua Franca core, the use of a clear rhotic /r/ rather than other variations of /r/, which would include /l/ substitutions for Japanese speakers, is important. Thus, we set about creating materials specifically directed towards improving pronunciation of /l/ and /r/. Materials The materials start off in a basic format and then become increasingly difficult providing the learner with more realistic tasks. The materials also start off in a more formal format and gradually decrease in formality to provide the same effect. /l/ and /r/ Fun The first set of materials used is a simple list of minimal pairs containing /l/ and /r/ sounds. For minimal pairs, the importance of distinctive sounds is presented at a basic level. The task includes three separate sets of minimal pairs: the first with /l/ and /r/ at the beginning of the words (e.g., light/right), then in the middle of the words (e.g., collect/correct), and then with the sounds in a consonant cluster (e.g., splint/sprint). Multiple lists are used because the different environments can cause different problems for learners. The Clozer The second set of materials increases in difficulty slightly through the use of a cloze dictation. A paragraph containing many blanks needed to be filled in by the learner after listening to the paragraph being read aloud. The context provides hints to the correct answers, so the increase in difficulty is manageable. No word list is provided but the words were familiar to Ryohei. Read Between the Lines This set of materials once again focuses on training Ryohei to hear the difference between /l/ and /r/ minimal pairs. Unlike the first set of materials, the focus is on differentiating between minimal pairs in the context of a sentence. The first part of the task consists of ten independent sentences with one member of a minimal pair with the choice of either word resulting in a meaningful sentence (e.g., The teacher will (collect/correct) the papers tomorrow. This set of materials also demonstrates how a small pronunciation error can produce sentences with different meanings and possible misunderstandings. Not Accidental The final set of materials involves a full paragraph that does not directly utilize minimal pairs. Instead, certain words containing /l/ and /r/ are systematically mispronounced throughout the paragraph, and the learner must identify which of the words were mispronounced. The possible errors were placed in parentheses so that the learner could focus attention on specific words rather than the entire paragraph to make the materials easier to work with.

13

Procedures Utilizing these four sets of materials, eight tasks were performed. Each of the four lessons consisted of two tasks and a break down of the materials used for each lesson is shown in Table 1. Table 1. Timetable of Material Use Session Date Materials Purpose of the materials

1 July 10, 2013 Diagnostic Diagnose the problems of the learner

2 July 17, 2013 /l/ & /r/ Fun The Clozer

Check if the learner is able to differentiate the /l/ and /r/ sounds within various positions of words using minimal pairs

3 July 24, 2013 Read between the lines Not Accidental

Test the learner’s ability to differentiate between /l/ and /r/ sounds in context

4 July 31, 2013 /l/ & /r/ Fun The Clozer

Check if the learner is able to pronounce the /l/ and /r/ sounds correctly within various positions of words using minimal pairs

5 August 2, 2013 Read between the lines Not Accidental

Test the leaner’s ability to pronounce /l/ and /r/ sounds correctly in context

For the first couple of lessons, the task that were performed with R focused on listening only; then

while listening was reviewed in the third and final lessons, the focus shifted more onto speaking. This was done because we tend to agree with Celce-Murcia et al. (2010) that, “Conventional wisdom in pronunciation teaching holds that a learner’s ability to produce a sound in the L2 is closely related to his or her ability to perceive the sound.” July 17, 2013 During Session 2, Ryohei completed two pronunciation tasks. In the first task, The Clozer, Ryohei listened to a slow-speed recording of the text and filled in the blanks. Out of 13 words missing in the cloze dictation, he wrote four words correctly. Ryohei substituted katy for killer, millar for mirror, play for pray, fly for fry, flying for frightening, and elect for erect. For this first run, the activity was used as a warm up, so no feedback was provided.

In the second task, /l/ and /r/ Fun minimal pairs, there were 18 pairs. A recording of one word in each pair was played and Ryohei wrote which word he thought had been played. After the first round of the second task, we explained to Ryohei his correct and incorrect answers, and played the recording again so he could practice listening to the sounds once more. Once he was understood his mistakes, a different set of recordings was played. After both runs of this task, Ryohei made 12 mistakes out of 36 words. The accuracy rate was 60% in the word-initial group, 75% in the word-middle group, and 64% in the consonant cluster group. In this task, Ryohei substituted ram for lamb, right for light, leaf for reef, rental for lentil, jelly for jerry, miller for mirror, pirate for pilot, flight for fright, green for glean, sprint for splint, fright for flight, and fly for fry.

Finally, we returned to The Clozer and Task 1 and Ryohei trued to fill in the blanks again. After this run, his mistakes from oth the first and second runs were reviewed. A full natural speed recording of The Clozer was then played. Ryohei wrote 9 words out of 13 correctly during the second run of the cloze dictation. This occurred despite not being given the answers after his first run and having a long task in between, which was purposely included to make him forget what was said in the dictation. The mistakes he made during the second run included substituting pray for play, flying for frightening, and elect for erect. July 24, 2013 One week after conducting the first and second tasks, Ryohei completed the Read Between the Lines and Not Accidental materials sets.

14

The first task included sentences with /l/ and /r/ minimal pairs in a sentence from in which the choice of either word would result in a meaningful sentence (e.g., The teacher will collect/correct the papers tomorrow.). Ryohei was shown the sentences, he listened to the recordings of the sentences, and he chose the word that he thought he had heard. After that, his mistakes were reviewed, and the task was repeated two more times but with different answers.

In task 3 Ryohei made 9 mistakes out of 30 questions. The two main areas of difficulty were the collect/correct pair, for which he only got the correct answer once out of three tries and the election/erection pair, for which he was unable to get one correct answer. Ryohei also made one mistake each for lamb/ram, pilots/pirates, lead/read, and flight/fright pairs. For the three runs, the accuracy rates showed no improvement.

Afterwards, Ryohei completed the fourth task, which involved error noticing utilizing the paragraph Not Accidental. The ten keywords in the paragraph were sometimes pronounced correctly and sometimes pronounced incorrectly. Ryohei marked a circle when he thought a word was pronounced correctly and an X when he thought the word was pronounced incorrectly. Three recordings with different errors were provided; on the final recording all of the keywords were pronounced correctly. Each time, Ryohei’s mistekes were reviewed and he listened to the sounds again.

In task 4, Ryohei accurately identified properly and improperly pronounced words 20 out of 30 times. He was unable to recognize if Jerry was pronounced properly for all three runs. Ryohei marked rental, cram, light, right, green, and ram incorrectly once each, and fright twice. Like the result of the third task, his accuracy ratings showed no improvement after consecutive runs.

Ryohei reported that the decrease in formality with the words now in a sentence caused him difficulties. He was told that he should try to notice the length of /l/ and /r/, and that if it sounded short, it was most likely /l/, and if it sounded slurred or elongated it was most likely /r/. The tasks were not repeated afterwards, but he practiced some of the examples until he felt more comfortable identifying /r/. His accuracy rating for the practice tasks was nearly perfect. July 31, 2013 For the two tasks conducted in this session, the focus was on pronunciation instead of listening. For the fifth task, the same materials utilized in the second task, /l/ and /r/ Fun, were used. First, Ryohei practiced pronouncing these two sounds in isolation, and then he read the minimal pairs list. He chose one word from each pair to pronounce and I had to decide which word he pronounced. After he finished, we went over the results, studied the sound differences in each pair explicitly, and he practiced prodicing them.

For the first minimal pairs group, in which /l/ or /r/ is word-initial (e.g., lead/read), Ryohei accurately pronounced the words on the list. Likewise, for the list containing minimal pairs with /l/ or /r/ in the middle of word (e.g., miller/mirror), he was able to pronounce the words with 100% accuracy. However, when minimal pairs with /l/ or /r/ in a consonant cluster were used, Ryohei made one mistake for each reading through of the list. He substituted green for glean and play for pray.

Afterwards, Ryohei read The Clozer paragraph out loud. We then filled in the blanks of the cloze dictation based upon what we heard Ryohei say. Ryohei made six mistakes out of the 18 items after both runs. Ryohei substituted miller for mirror all four times. He also substituted fry for fly, and pray for play on separate runs. He had no trouble with the miller/mirror pair when they were on a word list, but he struggled with pronouncing the words accurately when they were embedded in a paragraph. August 2, 2013 Four tasks were used in the final lesson. First, the listening tasks performed on July 24 were used to serve as a warm-up and review. Ryohei performed Task 3 with 100% accuracy and Task 4 with 80% accuracy, which was an improvement from the July 24 lesson. Next, Task 7, which utilized Read Between the Lines, was used but this time with Ryohei reading the sentences. The instructors had to choose which word in the minimal pair they thought had been said. The task was performed two times and Ryohei finished with the instructors having 90% comprehension accuracy. The two mistakes made were with the fright/flight pair, but we also

15

needed Ryohei to repeat a few sentences during the task because he had difficulty clearly pronouncing the minimal pairs with consonant clusters.

To address this issue, Ryohei was instructed to exaggerate the tongue placement for the /l/ and /r/ sounds by touching his teeth rather than the alveolar ridge for /l/ and moving his tongue as far back as possible for /r/. We then went through all of the sentences where consonant clusters appeared for additional practice, and Ryohei ended by pronouncing every sentence accurately.

Finally, task 8 made use of the paragraph Not Accidental. Ryohei read the paragraph while intentionally mispronouncing the key words. We were able to spot intentional errors with 80% accuracy for the first two runs. Extra practice with the exaggerated tongue positions was done again and Ryohei practiced making /r/ after pronouncing a /k/ sound. This activity seemed to help him more than moving his tongue as far back in his mouth as he could. The third and final run of the task resulted in 90% accuracy with the only mistake on the lam/ram pair. Analysis Overall, the materials created and the tasks were successful due to Ryohei’s personal satisfaction and the improvement in pronunciation that he showed at the end of the course; however certain materials and tasks were more successful than others. Table 2 displays the results of how Ryohei rated the materials and our own ratings. The ratings were not based only upon the statistical results of the tasks ran with them, but also on a subjective feelings about how smoothly the lessons progressed. Table 2. Materials Survey

Title Ryohei Researchers /l/ and /r/ Fun 4 4 The Clozer 5 2 Read Between the Lines 4 5 Not on Accident 4 4 Note. Ratings are from 1-5; 1 is lowest and 5 is highest.

The ratings of the materials were fairly consistent between Ryohei and the researchers with the exception of The Clozer. This set of materials and the corresponding listening and speaking tasks seemed difficult for Ryohei and the repeatability of the tasks were questionable as well because the answers were well known after one run. To prevent Ryohei from knowing the answers for the second run we ran a different task between runs and were unable to give explicit feedback until the end of the day. Overall, we felt that this set of materials was too limited in how it could be used. By contrast, The Clozer was Ryohei’s favorite materials. He felt that it was appropriately challenging and that it made him focus.

Although Ryohei rated /l/ and /r/ Fun as a 4, he did not like the list of minimal pairs and the corresponding tasks. We believe that a minimal pairs word list is a useful tool to base pronunciation exercises around because of its repeatability, simplicity, flexibility, and the fact that explicit instruction can be given on a pair by pair basis. However, Ryohei felt that the tasks were like taking a test rather than having a lesson and that they were dry.

Not on Accident was stylistically the least formal set of materials, and because of that we believe that it was effective. The speaking task with this set of materials produced interesting results and Ryohei reported that the extra challenge of purposely making mistakes and trying to make words he wanted to sound correct perfect added an extra dimension to his learning. The task was difficult, but the tasks built around this task set seemed to serve as a good learning tool.

Finally, Read Between the Lines was our favorite set of materials. The balance of difficulty, formality, and context was good. The fact that the choice of either word resulted in a meaningful sentence also added extra relevance to Ryohei. By the end of the course, Ryohei also showed the greatest improvement in /l/ and /r/ distinction and pronunciation through the tasks built around this set of materials.

16

Discussion When we compare first two sessions and the second two sessions, Ryohei’s ability to distinguish /l/ and /r/ improved considerably. Even though the first two sessions consisted primarily of dictations where Ryohei was shown the phonological differences between /l/ and /r/ explicitly and he practiced listening to them several times, the progress he showed in distinguishing the two sounds was minimal. In Session 2, Ryohei performed the third and the fourth tasks with 66% accuracy with no improvement even after explicit teaching and practice. However, his ability to distinguish the sounds showed great improvement when he started the pronunciation activities.

When the listening tasks were repeated in the final session, Ryohei performed the third task with 100% accuracy and the fourth task with 80% accuracy. It can be argued that the improvement might have been because of task familiarity, but during the final sessions a completely different set of recordings was used. Moreover, the focus was only on pronunciation tasks in the previous lesson. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Ryohei’s sudden increase in accuracy was not due to task familiarity; the focus on pronunciation helped him to distinguish the two sounds.

Unfortunately, we realized this increase in Ryohei’s ability to distinguish /l/ and /r/ in the last lesson so we are unable to confirm what task helped him to improve. If we had more time we would tried a slightly different approach to the lesson formats to test if a mix of listening and speaking tasks would result in faster and greater improvement. We would like to use a different pair of phonemes to test this hypothesis.

Ryohei also seemed to perform better in more formal tasks, such as the minimal pair word lists, compared to the paragraph readings. Ryohei reported, and his results supported the fact, that hearing and pronouncing words with /l/ and /r/ in a paragraph was much more difficult than pronouncing the words in individual sentences, and that the word lists were by far the easiest. Task difficulty increased as the formality of the task decreased; in addition, he made far more /l/ and /r/ errors during casual conversation, a findings that supports Major’s (1987) ontogeny model, which says that as style becomes more formal, interference decreases.

In the final lesson when Ryohei provided feedback about the course, he reported that the pronunciation lessons had made him more conscious about his pronunciation. He said that he now pays closer attention to his pronunciation of /l/ and /r/ sounds when speaking and that because of this he feels that he is able to improve his pronunciation outside of class. Once again another aspect from Major’s (1987) research, being consciously aware of the pronunciation difficulties facilitates improvement, has been supported by the results of this study. References Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D., & Goodwin, J. (2010). Teaching pronunciation: A course book and reference

guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jenkins, J. (2001). The phonology of English as an international language: New models, new norms, new goals.



Munro, M., & Derwing, T. (1999). Foreign accent comprehensibility and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 49(1), 285-310.

17

A Case Study in Targeting Pronunciation Errors in Japanese University Students

Chisa Fujita, Seiichi Kaneko, and Isra Wongsarnpigoon Japanese speakers learning English, in the same way as native speakers of many other languages, often have difficulty pronouncing certain English sounds. Although communicative ability has been emphasized in English instruction in Japan, pronunciation has received less attention. Scholars such as Wong (1987) and Jenkins (2001) discussed the importance of teaching features of English pronunciation, as well as the effects of incorrect pronunciation on a speaker’s comprehensibility. With this in mind, the authors decided to target a group of sounds that are often difficult for native speakers of Japanese and which, if mispronounced or improperly substituted for, can affect intelligibility or cause misunderstandings: /s/, /ʃ/, and /θ/. Over the course of five weeks, we taught pronunciation to two students and evaluated the effectiveness of multiple materials for teaching pronunciation. The purpose of this project was to assess the /s/, /ʃ/, and /θ/ produced by two Japanese learners of English, identify their pronunciation errors, implement tasks to improve these sounds, and finally, to evaluate the effectiveness of such tasks. Methodology In the following section we describe the methodology employed in this study, including a description of the two participants, a detailed listing of all materials, and a record of the procedures followed in this case study. Participants The two learners were native speakers of Japanese studying at Yokohama City University. Both were relatively advanced-level L2 students. Pseudonyms are used for the privacy of the learners. Ken had a TOEIC score of 600 (January, 2011), while Hiro had a score of 640 (October, 2011). Both were students in an elementary accounting class in English taught by one of the researchers and were, as such, reasonably motivated. Ken was going to be employed by a leading Japanese electric appliance company the next April. He had been told by the company that after eight years in Japan, he would be assigned to work at an overseas subsidiary for five years, and that new employees had an average TOEIC score of 800. Hiro was going to begin his job search in the winter and was fully aware that a higher TOEIC or TOEFL score would give him an advantage over other job-seekers. Materials This section describes the materials used in this project. We decided early in the project to target /s/, /ʃ/, and /θ/, which were interchangeably substituted for each other by the learners. Native speakers of Japanese often have difficulty producing these sounds, a problem that can hinder their comprehensibility. The plan was to generally follow the progression of phases suggested by Celce-Murcia et al. (1996) for teaching pronunciation. The results of an early recognition exercise, however, made us decide to adopt a slower pace than originally intended in order not to proceed beyond the students’ ability and in response to the instructor’s concerns about discouraging or embarrassing the students. Subsequent exercises were designed based on the results of previous sessions and the performances of the two students. Additional factors affecting the progression to more advanced stages included time constraints and Ken’s availability. Diagnostic Reading (focus on /s/ and /ʃ/) The diagnostic reading text is a short paragraph including multiple words containing the sounds /s/ and /ʃ/, which, as stated by Avery and Ehrlich (1992), are often confused by native speakers of Japanese learning English. The sounds are present in word-initial, mid-word, and word-final position and in various phonetic environments. The text has a general financial theme, which makes it appeal to students interested in finance and prevents it from being arbitrary “nonsense” text. Learners read the text out loud in order to help instructors detect any problem areas in pronunciation.

18

Circle the Minimal Pairs Sounds This worksheet contains 12 questions in which each answer choice is a member of a minimal pair and 5 questions containing, in differing orders, minimal pairs or sets of three words which differ in one phoneme. About half of the questions include nonsense words, following Nation and Newton’s (2009) recommendation that learners of pronunciation begin with such words to avoid pre-existing notions of pronunciation. Learners listen to the words read aloud and circle which option they hear. The questions are intended to push learners to distinguish between the sounds. For further practice, they practice reading the words after checking their answers. Sammy Diagrams Sammy Diagrams are used by the instructor as visual aids to illustrate the proper pronunciation of the target sounds. The diagrams are intended to help learners gain a better understanding of the physical motions of the articulators involved in producing the sounds. After the instructor’s explanation, learners try to replicate the same motions in their own pronunciations. Visualizing Articulation This homework assignment uses the University of Iowa Phonetics: The Sounds of American English website. Learners are given the URL for the website, along with basic instructions on its navigation, and, as homework, instructed to view the sections on the target sounds. By viewing the diagrams and animations on the site, learners can better visualize the proper pronunciation of the sounds. Diagnostic 2 (focus on /l/ and /r/) This is an additional diagnostic paragraph including multiple words containing /l/ and /r/. Learners read the paragraph. The reading is analyzed to reveal any additional major problems in pronouncing /l/ and /r/ or substituting the two sounds for each other. Toy horn, tissue paper, and straw This task uses simple, common objects to help reduce learner shyness: A child’s toy horn, a piece of tissue paper, and a drinking straw. They are used in Exhalation Exercise Using Various Gadgets. One reason for the Exhalation exercise is that English pronunciation requires much more pulmonic pressure than Japanese does, a major difference in articulatory settings between the two languages. This view is widely held by English pronunciation instructors in Japan (e.g., Matsuzawa, 2010). Bad Words The first part of the Bad Words worksheet contains four sets of phrases and words in which mispronouncing a single segment creates a different word with a potentially embarrassing or offensive meaning (e.g., sit down and shit down). The second part contains three humorous dialogues including the target sounds. Learners read the text in both parts with guidance from the instructor. The phrases and dialogues are intended to raise learners’ awareness of the potential hazards of mispronunciation, as well as provide a fun environment for learners to practice both producing and listening to the differences in sounds. Voiced Counterparts This exercise sheet briefly explains the voiced counterparts to the target sounds (/s/, /ʃ/, and /θ/). It has four sets of items to practice: the sounds /z/, /ʒ/, and /ð/ themselves, and three sets of words containing each of the three sounds respectively. By practicing production of the voiced counterparts, learners’ pronunciation of the voiceless target sounds will also be affected correspondingly.

19

Listen and Read This worksheet was designed to target both listening and production of /s/ and /ʃ/. The first half has four sentences with a minimal pair containing /s/ and /ʃ/. Learners listen to the sentences and circle which sound they hear. The second half of this worksheet contains shorter phrases and sentences that include the words from the first half. Learners try reading the sentences themselves. Citibank Dialogue This short humorous dialogue from the Bad Words Exercise listed above contrasts the differences between /s/ and /ʃ/ and illustrates the potential hazards of confusing the two sounds. Learners read the dialogue aloud. The purposes of this exercise are to show learners how a simple pronunciation error can drastically change the meaning of their message and to allow them to practice communicating with each other in a controlled situation. Tic-Tac-Toe This worksheet has two tic-tac-toe grids. Within the boxes of each grid are words including the target sounds (here: /s/, /ʃ/, and /θ/). Learners play tic-tac-toe against each other, but before making their circle or X marks, they must read the word within the box aloud. Each learner has his own sheet, so he must listen to his opponent’s pronunciation in order to mark his sheet. This exercise tests both the learners’ production of the sounds as well as their recognition of each other’s pronunciation. It was inspired by a similar activity suggested by Noll (2009). Read and Repeat Words and Sentences (for /θ/) The first part of this exercise has four words containing /θ/ for learners to repeat. Learners begin by reading the whole word. In the second step, learners read the sound /θ/ by separating it from the rest of the word. The separation is intended to focus on the target sound within the word. In the second part, learners read four sentences that include the same four words. The exercise is designed to give learners the opportunity to practice the target sounds both at the word level and in full sentences. It was inspired by a “hold the sound” activity suggested by Noll (2009). Correct the Sentences This exercise contains four sentences, each with an underlined word that must be corrected by the learner before he reads the sentence aloud. The “error” might be misspelled, factually incorrect, or an antonym of the appropriate word. Besides pronouncing the target sounds in full sentences, the learners must also think about the content of the sentences. Procedure The sessions were held in a seminar room during the university’s lunch break for about 25 minutes. The first three sessions were conducted by a single instructor, while an additional instructor joined and led the last two. The data for each session were recorded, transcribed by another team member, and confirmed by the third member. Each session consisted of (a) short conversation leading up to the diagnostics/exercise, and for Session 2 onward, a summary of the students’ achievements during the previous session; (b) diagnostic/exercise; and (c) when time allowed, short cool-down conversations and reflection, with an explanation that the session data would be analyzed and that the next session would be based on those results. During the earlier sessions, it was confirmed that the learners had difficulties distinguishing between the target sounds. Team members worked on encouraging the learners and on reflecting the learners’ ability in the creation of materials. Table 1 shows the schedule of meetings and activities during the five sessions.

20

Table 1. Meeting Schedule, Materials Used and Purpose Session:

date

Materials

Exercise

Purpose 1: July 2 • Diagnostic Reading • Reading the Diagnostic text • To predetermine learners’ ability to

produce /s/, /ʃ/, and /θ/.

2: July 9 • Circle the Minimal Pairs Sounds • Diagnostic Reading • Sammy Diagrams • Diagnostic 2 • Visualizing Articulation

• Listening exercise and reading practice: Circle the Minimal Pairs Sounds • Reading the Diagnostic text • Practice pronunciation with Sammy Diagrams • Reading Diagnostic 2 • Homework: Visualizing Articulation

• To test learners’ ability to distinguish between /s/, /ʃ/, and /θ/ and produce the sounds that they hear • To judge progress in producing the target sounds • To visualize the mechanics of articulation • To explore additional potential pronunciation problems.

3: July 16 • Toy horn, tissue paper, and straw • Bad Words Worksheet • Voiced Counterparts Sheet

• Exhalation exercise using various gadgets • Bad Words exercise • Practicing voiced counterparts

• To practice and improve pronunciation of /s/, /ʃ/, and /θ/ sounds and practice the necessary exhalation. • To improve pronunciation of /s/, /ʃ/, and /θ/ and be aware that mispronunciation can result in embarrassing situations • To practice voiced counterparts of /θ/, /s/, and /ʃ/ in order to positively affect the production of the target voiceless sounds.

4: July 23 1. Listen and Read Worksheet 2. Citibank Dialogue 3. Tic-Tac-Toe

• /s/ and /ʃ/ listening exercise/production exercise • Citibank dialogue • Tic-tac-toe focusing on /s/, /ʃ/, and /θ/

• To improve the ability to distinguish /s/ and /ʃ/ and evaluate progress. • To improve production of /s/ and /ʃ/ and to become aware of the potential effects of mispronunciation • To produce and comprehend /s/, /ʃ/, and /θ/ during a game.

5: July 30 1.Read and Repeat Words and Sentences 2. Correct the Sentences 3. Diagnostic Reading

• Listen and read the exercise on /θ/ sound • Pronunciation practice using Correct the sentence exercise • Read Diagnostic 1 on /s/, /ʃ/, and /θ/

• To practice listening to and producing /θ/. • Practice of /θ/ in an informal environment. • To assess overall progress.

To assess the learners’ pronunciation of /s/, /ʃ/, and /θ/, a diagnostic was created for use during Session

1. During Session 2, a second diagnostic was implemented. It was focused on /l/ and /r/, two other sounds that are problematic for native speakers of Japanese. Results of both diagnostics were transcribed and analyzed to find the learners’ weaknesses. After it was confirmed that /s/, /ʃ/, and /θ/ were problem areas for the learners, tasks such as audio exercises, sound practices, and short dialogues were implemented during five sessions. In addition to transcriptions, notes were taken on any observations made during the session, including pronunciation irregularities and improvements. Session 1 The instructor explained the purpose of the sessions. He emphasized that the sessions would help Ken and Hiro improve their pronunciation, particularly of /s/, /ʃ/, and /θ/. As an introduction to the project, Ken and Hiro were asked their thoughts about English pronunciation. Both learners voiced concerns that they might have Japanese accents and hoped that they would improve by participating in the sessions.

Ken and Hiro were then shown the Diagnostic Reading. The instructor explained that the text was designed to analyse potential problems in their pronunciation. After asking the instructor about unclear points,

21

they read the diagnostic text. They read it twice after getting help from the instructor on points they had difficulty reading. The instructor identified problems in their pronunciation but did not point them out to Ken and Hiro unless they specifically asked for advice. Hiro asked where the stress should be placed in certain areas of the diagnostic. The instructor answered that the stressed word could vary according to the speaker’s intent and gave examples.

The transcription revealed a low level of comprehensibility and a deviation from a native accent for both Ken and Hiro (see Table 2). They showed tendencies toward the same pronunciation and recognition errors. They were unable to distinguish between /s/, /ʃ/, and /θ/. /θ/ was replaced by the /ʃ/ sound, and /s/ and /ʃ/ replaced each other. According to Celce-Murcia et al. (2010), this is a common problem among Japanese L2 speakers. They lack knowledge of the sound system of the English language and tend to transfer the rules and features of Japanese to English. Table 2. Diagnostic Results

Ken Hiro /ʃ/ replaced by /s/ 2 (100% deviation) /s/ replaced by /ʃ/ 3 (60% deviation /θ/ replaced by /ʃ/ 1 (100% deviation) /θ/ replaced by /ʃ/ 1 (100% deviation) Session 2 After the transcription of the diagnostic on /s/, /ʃ/, and /θ/ revealed that both Ken and Hiro had difficulty pronouncing these words, the research team decided to try different activities that might improve their pronunciations. The instructor began the session by explaining that the analysis of Session 1 showed that the problems concerned producing /s/, /ʃ/, and /θ/. An audio exercise focused on /s/, /ʃ/, and /θ/ was developed to analyse potential problems in the participants’ ability to distinguish the sounds. A recording of a native speaker was played on an IC recorder, and Ken and Hiro wrote their answers on the Circle the Minimal Pairs Sounds Worksheet. Next, the instructor showed the Sammy Diagram and explained the differences in the shape of the inner mouth in the three sounds. He also explained how the lips would be rounded and slightly pushed out in /s/. I asked the learners to produce /s/, /ʃ/, and /θ/. Both Hiro and Ken had difficulties with the task. Ken tended to pronounce all three sounds as /ʃ/. Ken and Hiro were given the URL to the University of Iowa Phonetics: the Sounds of American English website and were encouraged to practice at home.

The instructor played the audio exercise again and asked Ken and Hiro to pronounce the words while looking at the worksheet. Progress was observed. Finally, the instructor showed them Diagnostic 2, focused on /l/ and /r/, and after explaining difficult words, asked the learners to read it. The learners showed problems in areas that had not been explained by the instructor at the beginning of the session. The instructor played an audio version of the diagnostic and asked the learners to read it again. The first time Ken and Hiro listened to the audio exercise, Ken’s answered correctly 60% of the time, while Hiro was correct 47% of the time (Table 3). Both learners missed one of the two-choice questions and both of the three-choice questions. The result was almost the same as would be achieved if the answers had been chosen randomly, which suggests that Ken and Hiro were unable to distinguish between the sounds. Progress was observed the second time they listened to the recording. One reason for the Circle the Minimal Pairs Sounds exercise results could be their sole reliance on an audio recording. If they had been able to observe the lip movements of a live reading and use other acoustic input, they might have scored better. Table 3. Diagnostic Results for the 10 Multiple-Choice Questions Ken Hiro /ʃ/ replaced by /s/ 3 4 /θ/ replaced by /ʃ/ 1 1 /s/ replaced by /ʃ/ 1 3 /θ/ replaced by /s/ 1 0 Note. Scores of the one two-choice and two three-choice questions not included.

22

Session 3 Ken was sick and could not join the session. Hiro said he had viewed the University of Iowa site and practiced with it. He also said that he and Ken practiced together a couple of times when they found time at school.

The first task of the day was an exhalation exercise. The instructor asked Hiro to blow a toy trumpet. This was intended to eliminate shyness. The exercise was effective because the trumpet the instructor purchased was difficult to blow without exhaling quite difficult. Next, the following exercises were performed: For /ʃ/: Putting a straw between the teeth and blowing air through it; for /ʃ/ or /θ/, imagining a target and aiming breath at the target (A tissue was used as the target.). For /θ/: Imagining that the tongue is hot, and cooling it off by sticking it out between the teeth. This was followed by what the instructor called the Hot dog exercise, in which Hiro was forced to move his tongue quickly in and out. The Hot dog exercise was particularly effective. This might have been due to Hiro’s muscle for moving his tongue quickly in and out being quite underdeveloped. This is another major characteristic in native Japanese speakers’ articulatory settings pointed out by many English pronunciation teachers in Japan such as Walker (2000).

The second task was a Bad Words activity. The instructor began the task by telling an apocryphal story in which the Japanese mama-san (female proprietor) of an expensive bar said to an American businessman, “Werukamu, shito down, shito down, pureezu!” The American said, “OK, OK,” and pretended to loosen his belt. Hiro was amused and at the same time alerted by the significant changes in meaning caused by mispronunciation. As this was the first time for Hiro to read full sentences apart from his practice with the diagnostic, the instructor had him repeat the individual words before reading the entire dialogue.

One of the purposes of the apocryphal story was to see how Hiro would deal with the pronunciation of the /s/ and /ʃ/ phonemes and whether his performance applied to Avery and Ehrlich’s (1992) assessments of common difficulties in pronunciation among Japanese L2 learners. The fact that he made the same mistake as the bar proprietor supports Wong’s (1987) belief that pronunciation training should be a part of classroom instruction.

The third activity was an exercise on voicing sounds. Hiro was shown how to feel the vibration of his vocal cords. Throughout the task, Hiro showed improvement but still had difficulty producing strong continuous sounds /s/ and /ʃ/. The instructor showed the Sammy Diagram again and explained the differences in tongue positions. Hiro enjoyed the session but was unable to produce the sounds accurately in the Voiced Counterparts exercise, particularly /ʒ/, the voiced counterpart of /ʃ/. However, the task proved effective in raising Hiro’s awareness of the differences between target sounds and their voiced counterparts. Session 4 Session 4 consisted of about 20 minutes of exercises in the form of listening comprehension and pronunciation of words, short sentences and a short dialogue, as well as a tic-tac-toe activity. After a brief introduction of the second, native-English-speaking instructor, the session began with a listening exercise on /s/ and /ʃ/. The worksheet contained four sentences with minimal pairs. The instructor read each sentence twice, pronouncing one of the words in the minimal pair. Hiro and Ken were asked to listen to each sentence and circle the word that they had heard. The instructor reminded them that they could observe the movement of his mouth to interpret the sound better. The instructors had slightly disappointing results in Session 2 when they tried a Circle the Minimal Pairs Sounds exercise using an audio recording, so they decided to use a similar exercise in order to determine whether live pronunciation made a difference in Hiro and Ken’s performance. Indeed, both Hiro and Ken were able to correctly identify the sounds in all four sentences. They both commented that being able to observe the instructor’s mouth helped them understand the sound that was being produced. However, it is difficult to isolate the effect of observing a live teacher, as the students’ listening ability might have improved through the past sessions and homework.

Next, Ken and Hiro were asked to read a four sentences or phrases containing /s/ and /ʃ/ words from the worksheet. Some of the words were those used in the first part of the Listen and Read Worksheet, and others were minimal based on those words. The sentences were kept short in order not to force the two learners to produce a sentence beyond their level. Hiro had few problems producing the correct sounds, but Ken had difficulty distinguishing the sounds. The second instructor, observing the lessons after having led the

23

first three, noticed that Ken was exaggeratedly widening his mouth when attempting to produce /s/. After having this pointed out, Ken improved slightly.

Ken and Hiro were then asked to read the Citibank dialogue. They first read the dialogue without prior assistance, having been instructed to practice it in advance. They then reread it, switching parts, and finally repeated the dialogue following the instructor’s model reading. This dialogue had been presented in Session 3, but it was repeated due to Ken’s absence the previous week. The instructors felt that it was important to take advantage of the presence of both learners and allow them to perform the dialogue together. As in the previous exercise, Hiro was largely able to successfully produce /s/ and /ʃ/ separately, but Ken had difficulty, particularly in the final line of the dialogue (Citibank is not a shitty bank.).

The session concluded with a game of tic-tac-toe using the Tic-Tac-Toe Activity, focusing on /s/ and /ʃ/ in Game 1 and adding /θ/ in Game 2. After an explanation of the rules, they were instructed to play against each other, using separate sheets. This activity was designed to test both learners’ production, as well as their ability to recognize each other’s pronunciation. In addition, the instructors were able to check Ken and Hiro’s production by following along on their own sheets and later confirming the results. Minimal pairs were included among the word choices in order to make the activity more challenging and make correct production more vital.

Hiro won the first game of tic-tac-toe. Both the students and instructors, however, were confused about which sounds had been produced. Ken had misheard a /ʃ/ produced by Hiro (which had been correctly identified by the instructors), and Ken had produced a sound that was confusing for Hiro and the instructors. The second game added /θ/ to the target sounds. Hiro won the second game as well, though this was possibly due to a faulty (non-English-related) strategy on Ken’s part and confusion as to whether he was the X or O player. After the game, both Ken and Hiro and one of the instructors (a native speaker of English) had the same results on their sheets, though the other instructor had different results. The cause of this difference was unclear. In addition, Ken misread shiver as silver, and produced [ʃilva]. As there was no minimal pair for this word in the game, the error caused no confusion. This activity revealed that, though both Ken and Hiro were improving their ability to recognize the sounds, they still had room for improvement in listening to other non-native speakers and in producing the sounds. Session 5 Session 5 was the final one for the project. It began with the introduction of the session’s main instructor, the third member of the project team. The focus of the session was /θ/. In Repeat and Read Words and Sentences, four words with an initial /θ/ were read by the instructor. Ken and Hiro took turns repeating the words. To make them more aware of the pronunciation of /θ/, the instructor explained that /θ/ is affected by the sound that follows and that this sound could determine the ease in sliding from /θ/ to the next sound. Ken and Hiro were asked to separate /θ/ from the rest of the word to focus on producing /θ/. The instructor had prepared answer cards for the words, on which there was a line separating the th from the rest of the word. The cards were shown to Ken and Hiro as they pronounced the words. In spite of the visual aids, the exercise proved more difficult than expected.

In Correct the Sentences, Ken and Hiro were asked to read the four sentences and correct the mistakes by replacing the wrong word with an appropriate one containing /θ/. Of the four incorrect sentences, Ken and Hiro answered three sentences correctly. They were unable to correct the pronunciation of Margaret Thatcher, which was written on the worksheet as Sacher. Ken and Hiro practiced pronouncing the name Thatcher and were told that the /æ/ that follows /θ/ is somewhat lengthened while the t is silent. Thus, the name should be pronounced, Th – æ – cher and not Thachaa. The instructor had prepared answer cards that were shown to Ken and Hiro when necessary.

As Ken had been absent when the exhalation exercise was conducted in Session 3, he was asked to practice the Hot dog exhalation exercise. He had difficulties pronouncing the /θ/ as he practiced moving his tongue back and forth. Hiro, on the other hand, showed no such difficulties, having practiced during the previous session. As a final assessment, Ken and Hiro read Diagnostic 1 on /s/, /ʃ/, and /θ/ again. The diagnostic was then read aloud by the instructor and reread by Ken and Hiro.

24

Analysis Over the five weeks, the learners’ progress in the pronunciation and listening comprehension tasks were noted. This section analyzes their progress and also provides an overview of the material and task effectiveness as perceived by the researchers and learners. Learners' Progress Pronunciation The learners showed significant progress during the five sessions. The progress was not uniform, and the learners showed different progress according to the tasks. Progress was observed in simple tasks such as the exhalation exercise and word list readings, included in the Bad Words exercise. On the other hand, mispronunciations continued to occur in the diagnostic reading, as explained in detail below. This result can be explained by the following two factors: (a) five 25-minute sessions were not enough to improve the learners’ pronunciation, and (b) the different styles (word list reading vs. formal sentence reading) led to different performance outcomes (Major, 1987).

The results of the two learners’ readings of the Diagnostic Reading from the first and final sessions were compared to find evidence of progress. The results were somewhat mixed; there were signs of improvement in the final readings, yet some errors were repeated from the initial session five weeks earlier. From these transcriptions alone, it would appear that Ken showed more signs of improvement, as he approximated the target sounds more closely, if not always producing them completely accurately, in three locations. Hiro also moved closer to producing certain sounds correctly but continued to make some of the same pronunciation errors as in Session 1, in particular substituting /s/ for /ʃ/ (see Tables 4 and 5). Table 4. Improvements in Pronunciation by Ken in the Diagnostic Reading

Word Sound produced in Session 1 Sound produced in Session 5 thinks ʃiŋks siŋks (1x) θiŋks (1x) sink ʃiŋk çiŋk (or a sound close to siŋk) seashore ʃiʃsoa siʃoa

Table 5. Improvements in Pronunciation by Hiro in the Diagnostic Reading Word Sound produced in Session 1 Sound produced in Session 5

thinks ʃiŋks siŋks (1x) θiŋks (1x) therefore zeafoa deafoa

Although Ken did not completely overcome all pronunciation errors, he moved closer to the intended sounds. Substituting /s/ for /θ/ or /ç/ for /s/ are closer approximations to the intended sounds and would be less detrimental to his comprehensibility.

Although the researchers agreed that Hiro performed better in the exercises, his diagnostic reading did not improve remarkably in the final session. There are several possible explanations for this discrepancy. First, Hiro’s English level might already have been slightly ahead of Ken’s, as evidenced by his higher TOEIC score. He also seemed more comfortable reading out loud and was subjectively perceived by the researchers to have better control over his English rhythm and intonation. These abilities could have affected the researchers’ perceptions of his performance but might not have helped his pronunciation when reading the Diagnostic Reading.

In addition, the factors affecting Hiro’s pronunciation might not have been targeted as much as those affecting Ken. Ken’s continued difficulties could be related to problems in his articulatory settings (Pinker, 1995), as he missed a session in which the instructor targeted the articulators. It seemed that even with limited practice focusing on the articulatory settings, he showed improvement and could have improved further with more practice. Hiro’s continued substitution of /si/ for /ʃi/ is an unusual error for Japanese learners of English,

25

as /si/ does not exist in the Japanese sound system. It is possible that overgeneralization, as discussed by Tarone (1987), was affecting his pronunciation. Perhaps different types of exercises would have benefitted him more in regards to these kinds of errors. For example, because /ʃ/ is only used before /i/ while /s/ is used before other vowels in Japanese, exploring Japanese and English pronunciation of words such as shinkansen (the bullet train) might have been effective.

Hiro’s pronunciation could also have been affected by the nature of the verbal task. He was able to produce the target sounds more comfortably at the word, phrase, or short-sentence level but had more difficulty reading a paragraph of text. This gap in performance could be similar to the effect of style or verbal task on learners’ phonologies, as discussed by Dickerson and Dickerson (1977). Finally, it is possible that both learners, being aware that the researchers were assessing their progress, were nervous in their final readings of the Diagnostic Reading and that this anxiety affected their performance. Indeed, they improved slightly upon reading the text a second time in Session 5, after a model reading from the instructor; though the model reading might have helped them, they also might have been more relaxed the second time. Listening In Session 2, a listening exercise was conducted using minimum pairs. The learners were aware of and motivated by the implications of their low scores. A similar listening exercise was administered during Session 4. This time the learners answered all the questions correctly. There were differences between the two tests: (a) the number of questions was fewer in the second test; (b) an audio recording was used for the first test and live speaking for the second; (c) in the second test, the instructor explicitly advised the learners to watch his mouth while listening. Mixed performance was also observed in listening. In Session 4, the learners did a challenging Tic-Tac-Toe exercise, in which the learners exhibited difficulty in identifying the minimum pair sounds produced by their counterpart. Again, this could be explained by difference in pronunciation—a native speaker’s perfect pronunciation vs. an L2 learner’s incomplete pronunciation.

Overall, the learners’ pronunciation and listening progressed in tandem. If this had been foreseen at the beginning, the listening exercise could have been placed in Session 1 instead of the second, and would have conducted a more extensive listening exercise again in Session 3, rather than in Session 4, the results of which would have influenced the design of the subsequent sessions. Learners' Feedback A questionnaire was sent to the learners after Session 5. The questions and the participants’ responses are shown in Table 6. Table 6. Questionnaire Items and Results Ken Hiro List the three most effective materials. Minimal Pairs, Sammy, Listen and

Read Minimal Pairs, Listen and Read, Repeat and Read Sentences

List the three least effective materials. Diagnostic 2, Tic-tac-toe, Correct the Sentences

No answer

List the three most enjoyable materials. Tic-tac-toe, Correct the Sentences, Minimal Pairs

Tic-tac-toe, Minimal Pairs, Bad Words

List the three least enjoyable materials. Diagnostic 2, Citibank, Repeat & Read Sentences

No answer

Explain your choices above. Game element most enjoyable Tic-tac-toe most enjoyable because it requires listening and speaking.

Write your impression of the sessions and how they will affect your learning.

Pronunciation used to be out of scope. Want to solidify pronunciation & hearing.

Learning directly from teacher improves pronunciation. I feel I am closer to native level.

Both Ken and Hiro answered by the deadline. Their responses for the most effective and enjoyable

materials were surprisingly similar. Circle the Minimal Pair Sounds was both learners’ first choice for the most effective materials. Ken and Hiro chose Listen and Read- ‘s’ and ‘sh’ as the third and second

26

respectively. Tic-tac-toe was the first choice for the most enjoyable materials by both learners. Ken and Hiro chose Circle the Minimal Pair Sounds as the third and second respectively.

Hiro did not provide an answer to the least effective and enjoyable materials, saying that he “found no materials” that were neither effective nor enjoyable. Ken answered the question but specified that it was only if he “had to choose.” It should be noted that Ken chose Tic-tac-toe as the second least effective material. To him, the exercise was enjoyable but not effective, suggesting the material was a little too difficult for him.

The above answers reveal difficulties for choosing appropriate materials for adult learners. The learners got bored with simple exercises and enjoyed game elements, but apparently felt stress when the game was too difficult. Effective Tasks/Materials The learners enjoyed difficult and challenging tasks such as Tic-tac-toe and the Citibank Dialogue. At the same time, the learners performed rather poorly in complex sentence reading. This situation puts teachers in a difficult situation with regard to choosing materials that fit the learners’ proficiency level and are interesting enough to keep them motivated. We propose the following: (a) Include word reading using humorous materials, (b) clearly distinguish pronunciation exercises and articulatory muscle development exercises (e.g., the Hot dog exercise and Production of /s/ and /ʃ/). Articulatory muscle development exercises are particularly necessary for Japanese learners of English, as the two languages are so different. Adult learners can understand this if it is explained. Discussion and Conclusion The learners’ improvements can be explained by the learners’ motivation and our efforts to develop effective sessions. In addition, the level of the learners’ pronunciation was low in the first place. The two learners were a senior and a junior at one of the best local-government-owned universities in Japan. The university emphasizes English education, and a minimum TOEIC score of 600 is required to be a junior. In order to help students achieve this requirement, Practical English Courses are offered in which lectures are entirely in English with small class sizes. The university also has a Practical English Center, where a sizable collection of graded readers and audio materials and university staff are available for students. The university recently began to offer classes on technical subjects in English. Our learners are in an ideal situation, and they are highly motivated. Ken has been told by his post-university employer that the average TOEIC score of his peers is 800. With a score of 600, Ken said, “I know that I am an outlier.” Hiro hoped to find a job with a global infrastructure-building company and thought that good English ability would put him in an advantageous position.

The fact that two highly motivated learners at a university emphasizing practical English education have serious pronunciation problems suggests that the Japanese education system is not functioning well in this area. The Japanese English education system has been criticized as being biased toward a grammar-translation method. The government has recognized the problem and ten years ago, began requiring an emphasis on communicative ability (MEXT, 2003). Some scholars have pointed out significant changes in university entrance examinations since then and an increased emphasis on communication in current examinations (in some, comparable to TOEIC and other tests [e.g., Torikai, 2013]). If this is the case, the emphasis on communicative education has not extended its benefit to pronunciation. When asked about English pronunciation education in high school, Ken answered, “The teachers seemed busy letting us prepare for the university entrance examinations and seemed to have no interest in actual pronunciation at all. Pronunciation is tested in entrance exams but only on the paper.” Hiro agreed with this observation. In a sense, Japan is in a similar situation to that of the United States in the late 1980s, when Rita Wong emphasized the importance of pronunciation at a time in which the communicative method prevailed in academic circles and in schools (Wong, 1987). At the time, Wong cited a need for good pronunciation textbooks. Our research findings that interesting materials and muscle development exercises should be simultaneously used for adult learners contributes to development of such materials.

27

References Avery, P., & Ehrlich, S. (1992). Teaching American English pronunciation. Oxford: Oxford University

Press. Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D., & Goodwin, J. (1996). Teaching pronunciation: A reference for teachers

of English to speakers of other languages. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D., & Goodwin, J. (2010). Teaching pronunciation: A course book and reference

guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dickerson, L., & Dickerson, W. (1977) Interlanguage phonology: Current research and future directions,

In S. P. Corder & E. Roulet (Eds.), The notions of simplification, interlanguages and pidgins. Neauchatel: Faculte des Lettres.

Jenkins, J. (2001). The phonology of English as an international language: New models, new norms, new goals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Major, R. C. (1987). A model for interlanguage phonology. In G. Ioup & S. H. Weinberger (Eds.), Interlanguage phonology: The acquisition of a second language sound system (pp. 101-124). Cambridge: Newbury House.

Matsuzawa, K. (2010). Eigomimi (trans. English ear). Tokyo: Asky. MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology) (2003). Regarding the

establishment of an action plan to cultivate ‘Japanese with English abilities’. Retrieved from http://warp.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/286794/www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/15/03/ 03033101/001.pdf

Nation, I. S. P., & Newton, J. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking. New York, NY: Routledge.

Noll, M. (2009). American accent skills book 2: Vowels and consonant sounds. Oakland: Ameritalk. Pinker, S. (1995). The language instinct. New York, NY: William Morrow and Company. Tarone, E. E. (1987). The phonology of interlanguage. In G. Ioup & S. H. Weinberger (Eds.),


Torikai, K. (2013) Eigo communication nouryoku wa hakareruka? (trans. Can we measure communicative ability in English?). In Y. Otsu, H. Erigawa, C. Saitou, & K. Torikai (Eds.), Eigo kyouiku, semarikuru hatan (trans. The imminent collapse of English education). Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo.

Walker, S. (2000). Eigo kakumei (English education revolution). Tokyo: Jingles Resonance. Wong, R. (1987). Teaching pronunciation: Focusing on English rhythm and intonation. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.

28

Raising Conscious Awareness in the Physical Articulation of /l/ and /r/

Katherine Hrysyzen Amongst the many common pronunciation problems for native Japanese speakers, the phonemes /l/ and /r/ pose great difficulty as there is only one liquid in Japanese. This causes many Japanese learners to make substitution errors in production and also errors in distinguishing contrasting words receptively. Such inaccurate production and inability to distinguish these phonemes can often be detrimental to communication. The Lingua Franca Core (LFC) proposed by Jenkins also includes the accurate production of /r/ for phonological intelligibility (2001). This case study includes eight tasks focused on /l/ and /r/ through a communicative framework proposed by Celce-Murcia, Brinton, and Goodwin (1996). The purpose of this study is to explore the effectiveness in raising consciousness awareness through the progression from form-focused to less-structured communicative tasks combined with an explicit teaching of physical articulation. Methodology This study was conducted by one researcher through the observation of a native Japanese speaker over the course of five sessions in two weeks. After identifying common problem areas of Japanese learners, the researched designed a diagnostic test targeting the specific phonemes of /l/ and /r/. I then analyzed the recordings to develop eight tasks focusing on a single linguistic environment to help the learner accurately identify and eventually produce the target sound. Participant The participant, Carrie (pseudonym), is a 56-year-old native Japanese speaker. Her first exposure to formal English instruction was during junior high school in Japan, in which classes were taught with a focus on knowledge-based grammar, reading, and writing. At the age of 21, she moved to Hawaii to improve her oral communication skills. After about a year, she discontinued her studies when she reached a speaking proficiency that enabled her to complete day-to-day tasks and communicate effectively. At the age of 25, she married a native Standard American-English speaker that shared her L1 and had two native English-speaking children, who she communicates to in the L1. Her closest friends were also native English speakers, but with a regional accent, who she communicated with in the L1 as well. Because her purpose of developing her communicative skills was achieved naturally, she had no incentive to continue studying and also avoided difficult input, such as watching English news or reading English newspapers. After about 10 years in Hawaii, she returned to Japan, where she spent the next ten years and rarely had the opportunity to speak English. At the age of 46, she moved to China where she currently lives and frequently communicates in English for both business and social purposes, often with non-native speakers. When she encounters difficulty in understanding technical or professional vocabulary, she relies on others for translation. Her reading and writing skills are of the beginner level while her speaking and listening can be considered upper-intermediate to advanced, depending on the content. While she has an accent, there are little discernable traces of a Japanese accent and this has had little effect on impeding comprehensibility and intelligibility. Although she occasionally makes minor substitution or deletion errors, she stated that her pronunciation has not caused communication problems that she is aware of; thus, pronunciation is not a concern for her and her motivation to improving her English proficiency is low. She has been using English daily for about 30 years. Needs Analysis There are six main pronunciation problems for native Japanese speakers caused by a lack of certain English sounds in Japanese as well as the difference in combinations of vowels and consonants (Avery & Ehrlich, 1992). First, consonant clusters do not exist in Japanese, which means Japanese learners often insert vowels between consonant clusters. Also, there is only one liquid in Japanese, which means that /l/ and /r/ are not

29

used contrastively. Thus, Japanese learners often substitute /r/ with /l/ and delete the liquid at the word final position and before a consonant. The /v/ sound also does not exist in Japanese, often causing learners to substitute /v/ with /b/. In addition, /ʃ/ and /t ʃ/ are followed by high front vowels of /I/ and /i/ in Japanese. This means that when /s/ and /t/ occur before /I/, Japanese learners often pronounce them as /ʃ/ and /t ʃ/. Another difference in vowel and consonant combination is /w/ and /y/. In Japanese /w/ and /y/ are not followed by high vowels, which causes the learners to omit initial glides before high vowels. Finally, the last common problem for Japanese learners is the insertion of a vowel after the final consonant. This problem stems from the fact that all words, with the exception of /ŋ/, end in vowels in Japanese.

Because Carrie stated that she has had few communication problems due to her pronunciation and could not self-identify specific pronunciation problems, I selected the sounds of /l/ and /r/ as a focus for this case study. These sounds were selected because they are common errors for Japanese learners that affect intelligibility and comprehensibility. According to Jenkins (2001), who developed the Lingua Franc Core (LFC) based on intelligibility, teachability, and learnability, the rhotic /r/ and substitutions can affect the change in meaning and cause communication problems. Thus, these phonological features are imperative for intelligibility in English as an international language. In addition, Major (1987) stated that learner awareness is important for improving pronunciation. Thus, explicit instruction in promoting learner awareness of the physical articulation is included in the study.

First, a diagnostic test containing the /l/ and /r/ sounds in various lexical environments was administered. After the test, I identified nine mispronunciations out of 30 for /l/ and /r/ in various lexical environments. The data showed that the most common error was the substitution of /l/ for /r/ in initial positions and consonant clusters. Due to time constraint and the low motivation of the learner, I only selected /l/ and /r/ in initial positions as the focus of this case study. Finally, the communicative framework suggested by Celce-Murcia, Brinton, and Goodwin (1996) was selected to teach these phonological features, which consists of tasks moving from analysis and consciousness raising to listening discrimination and production. Table 1. Diagnostic Test Results

Environment Number of

occurrences Number of

errors Process Initial 7 4 Substitution of /l/ for /r/ Beginning of syllable 6 3 Substitution of /l/ for /r/ Middle of word 7 0 Substitution of /l/ for /r/ Consonant cluster 6 3 Substitution of /l/ for /r/ End of word 7 0 Substitution of /l/ for /r/ Materials In order to identify the problems areas of the participant, an initial diagnostic test was designed using the /r/ and /l/ in various lexical environments. After identifying the participant’s specific set of problematic sounds, a series of 8 tasks were selected following Celce-Murcia, Brinton, and Goodwin’s (1996) communicative framework. This framework gradually progress from form-focused proceduralization to automatization in meaning-focused tasks in the following five stages: (a) Description and Analysis, (b) Listening Discrimination, (c) Controlled Practice, (d) Guided Practice and (e) Communicative Practice. The following section describes the initial diagnostic test and the eight tasks in detail.

The initial diagnostic test, Not a Love Story, is a short 64-word story consisting of /r/ and /l/ in different lexical environments, such as initial, middle, consonant cluster, and final positions. Prior to the oral reading, I confirmed with the participant that there are no unknown vocabulary words and the meaning of the text is understood. This is important in order to allow the participant to read the text with accuracy and fluency and to determine the participant’s pronunciation weaknesses naturally.

The initial stage consists of the reading of True Stories and The Pencil Trick by Melody Noll to help the participant analyze the articulatory features of /r/ and /l/ and allow the learner to notice and raise awareness of the particular feature, which is an important prerequisite for acquisition (Schmidt, 1990, 2001).

30

True Stories is an example of a story about a Japanese woman who went to the store to exchange her coupon for free shampoo, but was told by the store owner, “This is not a pet shop”. The purpose of this story is to promote learner awareness of the importance of accurate, distinct pronunciation of /l/ and /r/. For The Pencil Trick, the learner places a pencil lengthwise between the teeth while they pronounce the sounds of /l/ and /r/. The learner is instructed that the difference between pronouncing /l/ and /r/ is that the tip of the tongue does not touch the pencil when pronouncing /r/. The learner is also instructed to pay attention to the rounding of the lips when pronouncing /r/ compared to the neutral movement of the lips of /l/.

The tasks implemented in the second stage are listening discrimination tasks to promote the learner’s ability to perceive the sounds as this ability is related to production ability. There are three tasks used in the second stage of listening discrimination. The first one is Bingo, which is a game that allows the student to listen and identify the correct word they hear on a bingo board. This game can be a simple and fun task for learners with low motivation and those that have difficulty in reading as it is assisted with pictures. The second task “Which words do I mean (Word Version)?” consists of a list of 20 minimal pairs of /l/ and /r/ in initial positions. The teacher reads the words as the student listens and circle word they hear. The third activity, “Which words do I mean (Sentence version)?” is a task consisting of 20 sentences with minimal pairs of /l/ and /r/ in initial environments, in which the learners are required to circle the correct word. This is another exercise to help the learner practice distinguish the contrasting sounds they hear in a meaningful, sentence format.

The listening discrimination stage is followed by three controlled production exercises. This stage is important to help the learner draw attention and monitor the production of the target language features, allowing the learner to improve performance (Celce-Murcia, Brinton, & Goodwin, 1996). The focus of this stage is form and accuracy as the learner’s attention is directed to accurate production with continuous guidance and feedback from the teacher. The first controlled practice, Say words like you mean it, consists of 20 minimal pairs of /l/ and /r/ in initial environments. The second task, Say sentences like you mean it, consists of 20 sentences focusing on words with /l/ and /r/ in initial positions. The last task is “What are you doing today?” which consists of a list of daily errands featuring words with /l/ and /r/ in initial positions. The learner is required to rank the errands in the order they will complete them in day. Unlike the first two controlled practice tasks, this activity provides a more meaningful context as well as all the necessary target input intended for production.

The next stage of guided practice focuses on accuracy and fluency, progressing from controlled practice to semi-controlled practice, where the context is provided but with much less language input (Celce-Murcia, Brinton, and Goodwin, 1996). The “What are you doing this month?” task is an example of an information-gap activity containing two versions of a monthly calendar, each containing different pieces of hypothetical information about the learner’s plans. Compared to the previous activities, this activity is less form-focused and incorporates context and interest that is relevant to the learner to help promote motivation. The information in the calendar contains plans featuring words /r/ and /l/ in initial positions. The activity requires two people to fill in the missing information by asking each other questions regarding the blank dates on the calendar (Celce-Murcia, Brinton, & Goodwin, 1996).

The last stage is communicative practice, in which “learners encounter tasks that require them to use the newly acquired phonological feature in genuine exchanges of information” (Celce-Murcia, Brinton, & Goodwin, 1996). This final phase of the framework is intended for the learner to produce the target features accurately and fluently in a meaningful way. Describe your dream retirement plan is a communicative practice task, in which the student is provided with a list of words with /l/ and /r/ in initial environments. In this case, dream retirement is chosen as the subject matter as this is relevant to the learner’s interest. In this phase, it is important that the scenario is meaningful and easy for the learner to promote fluency in production of genuine information. This task is an open-ended task that requires negotiation of meaning to produce meaningful language to describe their fantasy retirement situation as they focus both on the content of the message and form of the targeted linguistic features.

31

Procedure This section includes a table of information of the meeting schedule, the type of exercise, their specific purpose, followed by a table of the scores of each task. It also includes a detailed description of each meeting and my observation of the participant’s progress. Table 2. Schedule of Meetings and Activities

Meeting Activity Exercise Purpose July 17, 2013 • 10 minutes of free

conversation • 5 minutes of diagnostic test

Initial Diagnostic Test: Not a Love Story

• To identify specific problematic areas of error regarding the use of /l/ and /r/

July 25, 2013 • 10 minutes of teaching • 30 minutes of listening discrimination with feedback

• The Pencil Trick • Reading of True Stories • Listening Discrimination Task: Bingo • Listening Discrimination Task: Which words do I mean (Word Version)? • Listening Discrimination Task: Which words do I mean (sentence version)?

• To raise learner awareness of articulatory features of /r/ and /l/ • To distinguish the contrasting sounds of /l/ and /r/

July 27, 2013 • 5 minutes of free conversation • 30 minutes of minimal pair instruction regarding /r/ and /l/

• Controlled Practice: Say words like you mean it • Controlled Practice: Say sentences like you mean it • Controlled practice: What are you doing today?

• To monitor production of /r/ and /l/ in minimal pairs • To raise awareness that /l/ and /r/ are contrasting sounds in English

August 1, 2013 • 5 minutes of free conversation • 40 minutes of semi-controlled to open-ended production practice

• Guided Practice What are you doing this month? • Communicative Practice: Describe your dream retirement plan

• To transition into less controlled production

August 2, 2010 • 10 minute discussion of the rating the tasks • Re-administration of initial diagnostic test

Initial diagnostic tests are re-administered to the learner

• To evaluate the tasks • To gauge the learner’s progress

∫ Meeting 1 (July 17, 2013) During the first meeting, Carrie and I discussed areas of concern in her pronunciation. After Carrie said that pronunciation was the least of her concerns in English, a diagnostic test focused on /r/ and /l/ in various lexical environments was administered. Because she was unconcerned about her pronunciation and confident in her speaking ability, she was indifferent to the purpose of this study. Prior to the recording, I confirmed Carrie’s understanding of the words and the text in entirety by having her paraphrase the story. After the meeting, I transcribed the recording and selected /l/ and /r/ in initial positions as the focus of the study. Meeting 2 (July 25, 2013) The second meeting began with a discussion of the importance of accurate pronunciation of /l/ and /r/ and how substitution errors can lead to miscommunication. In order to emphasize this, Carrie read the True Stories to understand how such errors can cause miscommunication. Carrie confirmed her understanding of the importance of /l/ and /r/, but did not show any more enthusiasm for participating in the study or the possibility of improving her pronunciation. The Pencil Trick was conducted by an initial modeling followed by Carrie producing the /l/ and /r/. During this exercise, I called attention to the tip of the tongue and instructed Carrie to notice the shape of her own lips in producing the sounds. I also modeled and then emphasized that the shape of the lips was important when listening to the speaker’s speech as well.

32

Soon after calling the participant’s attention to the shape of the speaker’s lips, the Bingo activity was conducted. Carrie had little difficulty in completing the task. For words that she had difficulty, she asked the me to repeat the word and selected the correct answer after paying attention to my lip movement. This became a strategy of hers in the following two listening discrimination tasks, “Which words do I mean (Word Version)?” and “Which words do I mean (sentence version)?” She found the tasks relatively simple and when she was unsure about the answer, she continued to pay attention to my lip movement, which helped her achieve a high score for the tasks. My feedback included praising her for noticing the contrasting lip movement and emphasizing its importance for the coming production tasks. Meeting 3 (July 27, 2013) The third meeting consisted of controlled practice exercises that began with a reminder of the contrasting lip movement. Carrie confirmed that she had not forgotten this and also reiterated the position of the tongue tip. Carrie’s awareness of this articulatory feature helped her complete the tasks, Say words like you mean it and Say sentences like you mean it with success. In producing the target words, she paid particular attention to the movement of her lips, almost in an exaggerated manner in rounding her lips when producing /r/. She scored a perfect score in the first task and 85% on the second task. Carrie seemed indifferent to the high scores, despite my positive, enthusiastic feedback regarding her success in completing the tasks. The third task, What are you doing today? provided the learner with the majority of the language needed for completion. As the list contained errands that were relevant to her real life, she had little trouble sequencing them in how she would have completed them in a hypothetical situation. Carrie scored 64% and made four substitution errors out of eleven words with /l/ and /r/ in initial positions. Meeting 4 (August 1, 2013) Session 4 began with What are you doing this month?, which contained plans and names of real people relevant to the learner. First, Carrie and I reviewed the articulatory differences before /l/ and /r/. As this review was done in all the previous sessions, Carrie had little difficulty in explaining and physically demonstrating the differences between /l/ and /r/. Before the activity, I explained the instructions in detail and confirmed Carrie’s understanding. The task was completed with ease but Carrie seemed confused about the purpose of the task, as it was less structured and less form focused than the initial tasks. Carrie scored 81% in this task, with two errors in which she substituted /r/ for /l/ in pronouncing the word landlord. This seemed like an anomaly as the majority of her errors have been the substitution of /l/ for /r/. The word itself could have been a difficult one to pronounce and posed difficulty due to a tongue-twister effect.

The last task, Describe your dream retirement plan, was a fluency-building exercise to allow Carrie to naturally talk about her dream retirement plan with the provided vocabulary. The subject matter and the vocabulary were easy and genuine as they were derived from Carrie’s life and interests in order to promote ease of production and involvement in the task. First, I confirmed Carrie’s understanding of the words and the instruction of the task itself. Then, I allowed time for Carrie to think about the scenario before the recording. Due to the relevant subject matter and the simplicity of the target vocabulary, Carrie only needed a few minutes to prepare for the recording. Out of 15 words with /l/ and /r/ in initial environments, she only made four substitution errors. Although I was pleased with the ease of her production, Carrie seemed confused again as to the purpose of the task. Meeting 5 (August 2, 2013) The last session began with a discussion with Carrie regarding the evaluation of each task, which is discussed in detail in the following section. Then, the initial diagnostic test was administered. The diagnostic test results showed little improvement in the production of /l/ and /r/. Carrie also replaced the name of Gabriela as was written in the text to Gloria. During this session, Carrie had continuously expressed her exhaustion and also the fact that she was too preoccupied that she needed to finish the session as soon as possible. This had an effect on her lack of focus as well as her applying top-down processing to replace a few words of the text instead of reading it word for word.

33

Table 3. Task Scores and Error Type

Task Score Percentage Error type Bingo Game 8/10 80% /l/ in consonant cluster, /r/ in initial position Which words do I mean (Word Version)? 17/20 85% /r/ in initial position, /r/ in beginning of syllable Which words do I mean (Sentence Version)? 10/10 100%

Say words like you mean it 20/20 100% Say sentences like you mean it 17/20 85% Substitution of /l/ for /r/

What are you doing today? 7/11 64% 3 Substitutions of /l/ for /r/ 1 Substitution of /r/ for /l/

What are you doing this month? 9/11 81% Substitution of /r/ for /l/

Describe your dream retirement plan 11/15 73% 2 Substitutions of /l/ for /r/ 2 Substitution of /r/ for /l/

Results After completing all the tasks, the effectiveness of each activity was rated on a three-point scale: 1 = Not effective, 2 = Somewhat effective, and 3 = Very effective. As discussed above, Carrie was continuously confused regarding the purpose of the less form-focused tasks. Thus, she gave a zero rating for the last three tasks and also commented that it was too cognitively demanding and she could not concentrate on the form when producing the phonemes of /l/ and /r/. I rated these tasks with a score of 1 as the relevant subject matter of the tasks enabled fluency and ease of production. Table 4. Rating of Tasks

Task Learner-rated effectiveness

Teacher-rated effectiveness

Bingo Game 1 1 Which words do I mean (Word Version)? 2 2 Which words do I mean (Sentence Version)? 2 2 Say words like you mean it 2 2 Say sentences like you mean it 1 1 What are you doing today? 0 1 What are you doing this month? 0 1 Describe your dream retirement home 0 1

The re-administration of the diagnostic test showed little improvement. However, this could have been

due to the lack of interest and motivation on the part of the learner, as it had been expressed that she was too tired and too busy. The test was administered after least structured communicative practice. Table 5. Readministration of Initial Diagnostic Test

Environment Number of

occurrences Number of

errors Process Initial 7 4 Substitution of /l/ for /r/ Beginning of syllable 6 3 Substitution of /l/ for /r/ Middle of word 7 0 Substitution of /l/ for /r/ Consonant cluster 6 2 Substitution of /l/ for /r/ End of word 7 0 Substitution of /l/ for /r/ Discussion Applying Celce-Murcia, Brinton, and Goodwin’s communicative framework was appealing in the sense that it provided a guideline for a case study such as this. However, the time constraint of the study and the lack of motivation of the learner had a major impact on the learner’s performance. Due to the limited time allotted for the study, there was little opportunity for me to find and select a learner most appropriate for this study. As expressed by the learner herself, she felt she had no need to improve her pronunciation, as she had been able

34

to function appropriately in English for 30 years. This learner’s perception had a negative impact on her involvement in the study.

The results from the tasks show that Carrie’s performance excelled in formal speech and decreased in less-structured, casual speech. This is consistent with Major’s (1987) Ontogeny Model that predicts an increase of interference in formal style compared to casual speech. Explicit instruction in promoting awareness of the physical articulation process was also effective in increasing accuracy in production as reflected by the high scores in the form-focused tasks. Thus, this study shows that there is an important link between learner awareness of physical articulation and accurate production. However, as the tasks became less structured and more cognitively demanding in the later stages, the learner’s attention on form decreased as her focus shifted in producing meaningful language. This was detrimental to the learner’s performance as well as her motivation and awareness of the purpose of the tasks. Although imbedding interesting, relevant subject matter to the communicative framework had a positive impact on promoting ease of production, the limited proceduralization tasks could not effectively lead to automatization of the target sounds in communicative speech. Further exploration of the effectiveness of this framework can be made possible by more flexibility in time and wider selection of subjects available for the study. References Avery, P., & Ehrlich, S. (1992). Teaching American English pronunciation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Celce-Murcia, M. Brinton, D., & Goodwin. J. (1996). Teaching pronunciation: A reference for teachers of

English to speakers of other languages. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Hrysyzen, K. (2013). Not a love story. Jenkins, J. (2001). Pedagogic priorities 1: Identifying the phonological core. In The phonology of English as

an international language: New models, new norms, new goals. New York, NY: Oxford. Major, R. (1987). A model for interlanguage phonology. In G. Ioup & S. Weinberger (Ed.), Interlanguage

phonology (pp. 101-123). New York, NY: Newbury House.

35

Form-Focused Pronunciation Tasks for /s/ and /z/ Suffix Deletions

Catherine Sudo Language teachers can be described as traditionalists or progressivists in their methods and approaches to language instruction. Traditionalists continue to promote structuralist methodologies such as grammar translation focusing on phonological and grammatical units and lexical items (Brown, 2007). Progressivists promote interactional approaches such as communicative language teaching, which focuses on the exchanging of meaning and building communicative competence. Alumna of traditionalist classrooms are often said to be skilled at taking written English tests of discrete forms but lack confidence and ability in speaking, while students from progressivist classrooms are often said to speak English with fewer reservations but with many errors. Current trends in language teaching, such as in the Task-Based Language Teaching model, seek to establish a balance between focus on meaning and form. Research and teacher training continues to grow. In the meantime, there are many English learners who feel there are gaps to fill in their language education. These learners often express a desire for improvement in their pronunciation.

While native language, age, exposure, innate phonetic ability, identity, language ego, motivation, and concern for good pronunciation (Brown, 2007) are all factors that affect pronunciation, there is emerging research on how teachers can help students improve intelligibility and comprehensibility in their target language. When considering theories of language learning, Brown stated that process-oriented theories include exercises in habit formation, induction, inferencing, hypothesis-testing, and generalization. Catford (1987) focused on distinct processes involved in the teaching of pronunciation that include selection, arrangement, and presentation of material and believes five principles of special importance are precise description, concentrations on basics, silent introspection and practice, utilization of all sounds known to students, and use of imitation and slowed down speech. Celce-Mercia, Brinton, and Goodwin (2010) advocated a five-phase communicative framework which starts at description and analysis, moves through listening discrimination, controlled practice, guided practice, and communicate practice. Brown listed several kinds of tasks for assessing speaking which include imitative tasks, intensive tasks, responsive tasks, interactive tasks, and extensive tasks. Majors (1987) stated that phonological processes are largely unconscious but also that speakers are usually able to overcome phenomena of which they are consciously aware and Schmidt (1990, 2001) concurred that awareness on the part of learners is an essential prerequisite for acquisition to take place. With the objective of improving a student’s pronunciation, the teacher’s toolbox continues to grow. The task of the teacher is to determine which techniques can best address the learner’s needs.

In this paper, I discuss a case study of a pronunciation treatment designed for an adult-learner of English. A series of adapted materials are piloted in an attempt to improve two phonemes in a final position environment. In the study I address this research question: To what degree can the pronunciation of a target sound be improved with a series of form-focused tasks in three weeks? Methodology A single-subject case study of acquisition of selected phonemes conducted over three weeks will be discussed. While no one particular method is instituted, all exercises are informed by a focus-on-form approach. Sounds are presented in context, decontextualized for close study, and then gradually scaffolded into meaningful contexts. Participant The subject in this case study is a Japanese female in her early thirties living in Japan and working for a Japanese company. Mari (a pseudonym) has had formal English instruction in public junior high school and private senior high school, both in Japan. While she does not use English at her place of work, Mari does use

36

English daily for informal, spoken communication with a native speaker of English and often with a bilingual family member as well as bilingual friends. Mari is usually intelligible to native or native-like English speakers who are accustomed to Japanese speakers of English, but her comprehensibility might be low if she were to interact with native speakers abroad. Although Mari was not engaged in any language training at the time of the study, she had previously been the subject of a pilot case study in which it was determined in a diagnostic interview that she was unable to produce either the past tense or future form in unrehearsed speech. It is hypothesized that issues in pronunciation can be linked to lack of acquisition of basic English morphemes.

Because Mari does not use English in high-stakes settings such as business, her motivation for accuracy in pronunciation is moderate at best. Therefore, it is desirable to target the most pervasive pronunciation error that impedes communication. Several areas of English pronunciation in which Japanese speakers can experience difficulty have been identified by Avery and Ehrlich (1992). Japanese speakers are required to produce both tense and lax vowel sounds in English. This distinction between is not made in Japanese. Moreover, some consonant sounds prove problematic for Japanese speakers, including difficulty distinguishing between fricatives /s/ and /ʃ/, voiceless stop /t/ and voiceless affricate /ʧ/, voiced stop /b/ and voiced fricative /v/, and liquids /l/ and /r/. Likewise, Avery and Ehrlich report that Japanese is a syllable-timed language, while English is stress timed so problems with rhythm and intonation often arise. Celce-Mercia, Brinton, and Goodwin (2010) found that learners whose native language has a simplified syllable structure tend to simplify English words by dropping final consonants altogether, especially important grammatical endings (e.g., car instead of cars or put instead of puts). In order to create appropriate pronunciation exercises for Mari, it is necessary to administer both a general and focused diagnostic test. Apparatus Two diagnostic tests were administered and recorded, and errors in production of consonants were transcribed. The initial test was an 11-sentence diagnostic accent inventory by Prator and Robinett (1985) that included wh-questions, yes-no questions, tag questions, several kinds of vowels, and combinations of consonant and consonant clusters. Mari read the passage through once silently and then aloud. The general diagnostic test revealed several patterns of errors, many in the areas of rhythm and intonation. During the post-diagnostic interview, Mari indicated that several vocabulary words in the diagnostic were unfamiliar, and that she could not predict stress and intonation. Therefore, a second diagnostic test, simpler lexically and semantically from the initial diagnostic test, was selected.

The second diagnostic test was on a topic familiar to Mari, namely Nail Art. The six-sentence passage contained only declarative sentences and sought to isolate the liquids /l/ and /r/ in initial, medial and final positions, as well as voiceless fricative /s/ and voiced fricative /z/ in the final position, which were deleted in the initial diagnostic test. After reading through the passage silently, Mari indicated that there were no unfamiliar words, although some were foreseen as difficult to pronounce, (in particular commercial, attractive, and acrylic). I pronounced these words, and Mari repeated them several times in isolation, before the oral reading diagnostic test was administered. Needs Analysis In the general diagnostic test of 175 words, Mari made 23 pronunciation errors. Three of the errors were a kind of substitution for /θ/. Five errors were in the pronunciation of /l/ and /r/. The most frequent error was deletion of grammatical suffixes. Mari did not pronounce a suffix of a word 13 times and 10 of those deletions were of suffix -s for plural nouns or third person singular verbs. An outline of Mari’s errors is shown in Tables 1-4.

37

Table 1. General Diagnostic Results: Errors in Final Position Consonants (Suffixes) Type of error Error frequency

-s suffix deletion /s/,/z/ 10 -ly/ suffix deletion /li/ 2 -ing/ suffix deletion /ŋ/ 1 -s suffix addition /s/ 1

Table 2. General Diagnostic Results: Errors in Consonants Type of error Error frequency

/l/ for /r/ 3 /r/ deletion 2 /t/ for /θ/ 1 /d/ for /θ/ 1 /s/ for /θ/ 1

In the focused diagnostic of 82 words, Mari made 11 errors in pronunciation of consonants. Only one of these errors was in the pronunciation of /l/ for /r/ while nine errors were in alveolar fricatives. There were three occurrences of deletion of final /z/, one insertion of medial /z/, four deletions of final /s/, and one substitution of /s/ for /θ/. A summary of Mari’s errors is displayed in Tables 3 and 4. Table 3. Focused Diagnostic Results: Errors in Final Position Consonants (Suffixes)

Error type Error frequency -s deletion 7 (Final position /s/ deletion) (4) (Final position /z/ deletion) (3) -ed deletion 1

Table 4. Focused Diagnostic Results: Errors in Consonants Error type Error frequency

/z/ consonant insertion 1 /s/ for /θ/ 1 /l/ for /r/ 1 Pedagogical Focus Catford (1987) recommends that teachers concentrate on a phoneme or phonemic oppositions based the principal of functional load, or the frequency of occurrence of a phoneme or phonemic opposition per thousand words of text. Catford states that teachers should give more attention to words with a higher functional load and gives less attention to those with a low functional load. The diagnostic tests revealed that Mari could benefit from pronunciation treatments on /l/ and /r/ in clusters and medial positions and also on /s/ and /z/, particularly in final position. Both /l/ and /r/ and /s/ and /z/ are within the first fifteen of 100 sounds with the highest functional load. According to Catford, initial consonants /l/ and /r/ have a relative functional load of 83% while final consonants /s/ and /z/ have a relative functional load of 38%. Although there is a significantly higher functional load of /l/ and /r/ than /s/ and /z/, research suggests the latter sounds in the final position do have impact in intelligibility. While loss of a final consonant is a common form of reduction in unstressed function words (Celce-Mercia et al., 2010), Jenkins (2001) states that medial and final clusters can be simplified only according to L1 rules of elision. Celce-Mercia, Brinton, and Goodwin (2010) stated that a middle consonant is often dropped by native speakers in final clusters of three or four consonants to simplify clusters created by the addition of grammatical endings, as in the simplification of facts /faekts/ to /faks/ and

38

is regularly employed when pronouncing fractions. However, the final /s/ is preserved. Additionally, Gilbert stated that a pronunciation priority for beginner learners is to include consonants that serve as grammatical signals (Celce-Murcia, 2010). Finally, Laufer (1990) stated that synforms with a consonantal difference were the fourth most difficult category (e.g., price/prize). Upon further discussion with Mari, it was determined that the focus of the case study would be the pronunciation of /s/ and /z/. Materials Once the phonemes /s/ and /z/ in final position were determined to be the focus of the treatment, conditions of the pronunciation of the sounds were reviewed. Dickerson stated that some phonological environments are more favorable to the production of /s/ than /z/ for Japanese learning of English. Difficult environments include when the segment occurs initially in front of a high front vowel (e.g., see, zip), when the /s/ or /z/ is between an initial front vowel and high front vowel in a medial position (e.g., easy, Lassie), and between initial central back vowel and a following high front vowel (e.g., music, position). These environments were considered when selecting and adapting materials. Also, Avery and Ehrlich (1992) stated that the third person singular present tense and the possessive are pronounced in exactly the same way as the plural form. If a noun ends with a voiced sound, the plural is pronounced /z/ while if the noun ends with a voiceless sound, the plural is pronounced /s/. Additionally, if a plural noun ends with a sibilant sound, the plural is pronounced /iz/. Neither the general nor focused diagnostic tests required Mari to produce final position /iz/; however, it is likely Mari might also find this sound problematic, so it was included in some of the materials. Final /s/ and /z/ deletion was unnoticed in Mari’s informal oral production but surfaced when words were read aloud in formal written contexts. Therefore, paper-based materials were adapted from existing textbook and Internet resources. The materials were scaffolded so sounds were presented as isolated words, grammatical forms were progressively introduced and materials gradually began to form contexts similar to those presented in the diagnostic test. Conditions of materials development were that the instructions be easy to follow so that sessions could be conducted entirely in English, that each activity would quickly and directly address sounds so sessions would not exceed 20 minutes due to Mari’s busy schedule, and that the activities be enjoyable and interesting. The following is a brief description of the materials in order of presentation, followed by a table indicating the session in which the activity was administered. • Minimal Pairs: 18 minimal pairs are imitated and discerned. • Bingo: 24 words are arranged in two Bingo boards. The participants alternate in pronouncing and listening

for the words. The activity ends when one participant has completed a row of words. • Distinguish the Sounds. Voiced and voiceless sounds are discussed. A list of 10 words is pronounced and

the target sound is indicated. • Sort and Explain the Sounds. Eighteen words are sorted into groups based on their differing sounds. Rules

for why the sorted groups have differing sound is discussed. • Find the Odd Sound Out. Words in groups of three or four are compared. The one sound that was unlike

the other sounds in the group of words is circled. • Choose and Classify Sounds. Words in groups of three are compared. The word containing the indicated

sound is circled. The other contrasting sounds in the group are labeled. • Infer the Sound. A list of 15 base forms is presented. Hypothesized missing sounds are indicated. • Fix and Pronounce the Sentence. Ten sentences are presented. Each sentence contains a grammatical error

that is related to the target sound. The error is fixed and the target sound indicated. • Listen to and Pronounce the Sounds in a Paragraph. The learner listens to a 20-sentence paragraph and

writes the word that is heard. Once the gaps are filled, the learner indicates the target sound of the supplied words.

39

Table 5. Overview of Materials Session Activities Purpose

Needs Analysis: July 1, 2013

General Diagnostic Test Identify prominent areas of errors in pronunciation

Needs Analysis: July 8, 2013

Focused Diagnostic Test Isolate errors not related to intonation

Session 1: July 10, 2013 20 minutes

Activity 1: Minimal Pairs Comprehend final position /ts/ and /dz/


Activity 2: Bingo Activity 3: Distinguish the Sound

Identify and produce final position /z/ Identify and label /s/, /z/, and /iz/ different sounds in the final position


Activity 4: Sort and Explain the Sounds Activity 5: Find the Odd Sound Out Activity 6: Choose and Classify Sounds

Raise consciousness of rules for use of final position /s/, /z/, /iz/ Compare pronunciation of words with similar spelling based on stated rules Compare pronunciation of words with similar spelling based on stated rules with increasing complexity

Session 4: July 19, 2013

Activity 7: Infer the Sound Activity 8: Fix and Pronounce the Sentence

Predict pronunciation of plural nouns and third person singular final position /s/, /z/, /iz/ in base forms based on constructed rules Determine and correct written errors in third person singular -s and identify final position /s/, /z/, /iz/ at the sentence level

Session 5: July 25, 2013

Activity 9: Listen to and Pronounce the Sounds in a Paragraph Posttest

Isolate heard sounds in third person singular and plural nouns and identify final position /s/, /z/, /iz/ at the paragraph level Determine progress made after treatments

Procedure Sessions were scheduled over three weeks and lasted from about 20 minutes per session. One to three activities were administered in each session, depending on the time and energy of the participant. Sessions were scheduled by mutually agreeable meeting times, and generally commenced no earlier than 9:00 p.m. on weeknights. Session 1, Activity 1 A minimal pairs activity was selected from Grate (1974). I pronounced and indicated tongue placement and voicing of /s/ and /z/ for the subject to repeat. Words in lines one, two, and three, which contained the sound /ts/ in the final position were read aloud by by me and repeated by Mari. She then read the words aloud independently. I offered corrections if needed, such as in the case of /kats/ for /kots/ and then repeated the procedure with the rows containing /dz/. The words rots and rods were eliminated from the exercise because they were difficult and frustrating. Next, I pronounced one word from minimal pairs A-E. Mari noted the word she heard and was able to identify all five words accurately. Mari then read the minimal pairs from lines two and three, and I offered corrections. Mari then pronounced one word from minimal pairs A-E in lines 3 or 4. I was able to identify all words produced accurately. Finally, I pronounced one word from minimal pairs A,

40

B, D, and E in lines five or six as Mari noted what she heard. She was able to identify three of the four words accurately. Because she was performing well identifying and producing sounds in minimal pairs, Mari practiced pronouncing two sentences contain the /ts/ and /dz/ sounds using the backwards build-up technique. After about three attempts, she was able to pronounce the sentences accurately.

During-task discussions included the comparison of the sound /tsu/ in Japanese to /ts/ in English. During the post task discussion, Mari asked the meaning of several of the words within the minimal pair activity. A pre-task confirmation of meaning of the words presented words were included in additional tasks. Mari also expressed negative feelings about the sound /z/. She associated the /z/ sound with relatives who live in the countryside in Akita, Japan. She believed that because of living in a cold climate, her relatives adjusted their way of speaking which made words sounds sharper. She indicated that she did not like this sound and that she felt it did not sound “pretty.” This was the first indicator of a potential conscious or subconscious effort to avoid pronouncing the /z/ sound in English and Japanese. Session 2, Activities 2 and 3 Based on Mari’s performance and the post-task discussion, final position /z/ was practiced using a Bingo game with 24 pluralized nouns. The instructor pronounced each word once and Mari was able to accurately reproduce each word. The instructor confirmed that all words were known and attempted to explain boughs. Mari indicated she understood all words. The instructor and Mari each received one Bingo board which included the same words in a different order. The instructor and Mari played, Rock, Scissors, and Paper. The winner of each Rock, Scissors, and Paper round read a word from their board aloud while the other participant listened to the word. Both participants marked the said word on their respective Bingo board. To corroborate responses, participants watched each other mark the words on the Bingo boards. All responses were corroborated. The game continued until one member achieved Bingo. The instructor pronounced five words, and Mari pronounced four words.

In the latter part of the session, final position /s/ was reviewed and final position /iz/ was introduced. Several example words were pronounced for Mari to repeat such as /kats/, /boyz/, and /lediz/. Then, the instructor motioned to the listed words on the worksheet. Mari was hesitant to pronounce the first word, quizzes, so the instructor pronounced the word for her to repeat. Mari was able to correctly indicate final /iz/. Mari continued to pronounce each word aloud, sometimes several times, and indicated the final sound. The instructor reminded Mari to touch her throat to see if a sound is voiced when she seemed unsure of the ending sound of /drəәgz/. Mari correctly pronounced and indicated the final position sound of all 10 words. Session 3, Activities 4, 5, and 6 Mari was led through three linked activities which involved classification of 18 pluralized nouns and third-person singular -s verbs. First, final /s/, /z/, and /iz/ were reviewed. Mari then quietly read a list of 18 words, 14 of which were pluralized nouns and four of which were third person singular verbs. As she read through the list, she placed a checkmark in the column to indicate what she believed was the final position sound. Once finished, the instructor asked Mari to read the list of words that she indicated ended in /s/ only. Mari correctly identified four words. Next, Mari read the list of words that she indicated ended in /z/ only. Mari misidentified “handkerchiefs” as having final /z/. The instructor pronounced the word for Mari to repeat and Mari revised her response to indicate the word ended in final /s/. Finally, Mari read the column of words she indicated ended in /iz/. Mari misidentified the third word in her list, knives, as having final /iz/, and the instructor asked Mari to repronounce the previously indicated words watches and houses. The instructor warned Mari that similar spelling might not be an indicator of final sounds. After three additional repetitions, Mari was able to indicate final /z/ for knives. Mari pronounced envelopes as employees and the instructor pronounced the word three times for Mari to repeat. After the third repetition, Mari was able to classify the ending sound as /s/. As this point in the activity, Mari muttered that the activity was becoming difficult. Nonetheless, she was able to correctly pronounce the remaining four words.

Once all of the words were sorted, the instructor asked Mari to review words which contained the suffix –es but were not pronounced with the /iz/ ending sound. Mari correctly indicated the words. The

41

instructor then guided Mari towards consciousness-raising about the sounds and suggested that there is a pronunciation rule which guides the ending sound of /s/, /z/, and /iz/ and asked Mari if she thought she knew what the rule might be. After a hesitation, the instructor asked Mari to pronounce the base word of the words in the /iz/ column, followed by the written suffix. Mari first suggested it was a spelling rule about changing -y to i when adding -es, and the instructor reviewed the grammatical rule of pluralization. Then, Mari said the /iz/ sound might be because of the sound that comes before it. It was a first indication that Mari was moving away from rationalizations that had to do with grammar and spelling and more to do with phonemes. Next, Mari pronounced the base words of the words listed in the final /s/ column. She said that those base words ended in a “strong sound.” For the final column, those words which ended in /z/, she suggested the base words ended in sounds like /b/, and made a vibrating noise. The instructor than confirmed that voiceless ending sounds like /k/ are followed by a /s/ while voiced sounds like /v/ are followed by /z/. Mari said that she understood. Then, the instructor repronounced the /iz/ words for Mari to repeat while feeling her throat for voicing.

In the next activity, Mari pronounced a group of words and was asked to circle the word with a different ending sound than the other words in the group. When Mari hesitated when pronouncing a word, as in the case of pronouncing the word, washes and wives the instructor pronounced the word for Mari to repeat. The instructor told Mari that wives is the plural form of wife and Mari indicated understanding of meaning. Mari pronounced each set of words about three or four times before making a decision. In group 3, the instructor reminded Mari to touch her throat to indicate voicing. Mari correctly identified the odd sound out in each group. At the end of the exercise, Mari said that she felt that if she understood what the word meant or heard the word aloud, she could tell the sound. This might be due to Mari’s strength in communicative competence rather than in reading.

The final activity required Mari to find the final /iz/ sound in each group of words. Mari pronounced each set of words once before selecting the word. She correctly identified all the /iz/ sounds. Then, the instructor indicated for Mari to label the ending sounds of the words that did not end in /iz/. Mari repronounced the words and wrote the ending sound over the words. She correctly identified all sounds. Finally, the instructor asked Mari to review the rules that govern why some words ending with -s have different sounds. Mari was able to discuss it had to do with whether the ending sound of the base word is voiced or unvoiced. Session four, Activities 7 and 8 At the beginning of the session, the instructor asked Mari to summarize the difference between words which have a final /s/, /z/, and /iz/ sound. Mari was presented with a list of 15 base words and asked to assign a final sound to each word. Mari consulted the Sort and Explain the Ending chart from the previous session when assigning sounds. The instructor pronounced the words appoint and raise for Mari at her request. Once ending sounds were assigned, the instructor asked Mari to pronounce the base word alone and with its assigned ending sound. Mari self-corrected her response for need; she originally assigned a /s/ ending sound rather than /z/. She also reviewed her response for the suffix of name, but was correct. Mari correctly assigned the ending sound to 14 words on the first attempt and one word on the second attempt.

In the second activity, Mari was presented with 10 sentences, each of which contained one grammatical error with third person plural -s. Mari read through the sentences silently and attempted to isolate the mistake. Once finished, the instructor asked Mari what part of speech the mistakes had in common. Mari correctly answered that the pattern of mistakes were with verbs. Seven of the ten mistakes were corrected while in three instances Mari added an -s to a word that did not require it. In two instances Mari did not correct do as does. In the third instance, “Her supper smell great...” Mari added an -s to great instead of smell. Mari said that she did not understand the sentence because she did not know the word, supper. Once the instructor supplied a synonym, dinner, Mari was able to correct the mistake.

42

Mari read the sentences aloud. In sentence two, although Mari added an -s at the end of want, she did not pronounce it on the first attempt. The instructor indicated that a mistake was made and Mari self-corrected the pronunciation. After each sentence was read, Mari indicated the final sound of the corrected word. Session 5, Activity 9 In the final activity before the posttest, the instructor read a paragraph containing 20 gaps aloud at reduced speed. Mari listened to and wrote the words she heard. Mari was able to revise her responses if necessary. Sentences were at Mari’s request. Once all the gaps were attempted, the instructor read the passage aloud again while Mari checked her answers. Once read through fully, the instructor asked Mari if she would like any sentences repeated, and two sentences were requested. Mari self-corrected love to loves and pair to pairs. Once the gaps were confirmed, Mari read the passage aloud. Despite correctly writing the words with a -s suffix, Mari deleted the final /s/ or /z/ sound in five instances (want, use, pair, and choose). Mari self-corrected shoe to shoes in one instance. Once Mari finished reading, the instructor had Mari repeat the words with the sounds she deleted in the context of the sentence. Mari reread the passage from the beginning to end again. This time, when Mari made an error, the instructor prompted Mari to repeat the phrase containing the error at the end of the intonation unit by saying, “Once again please.” In most instances, Mari could self-correct the error on the second attempt. Next, Mari read aloud the 20 words used to complete the gap and indicated the final position sound. The instructor modeled pronunciation in several cases. Once all the final sounds were confirmed, Mari reread the passage from beginning to end. She deleted the final /s/ from pair in one instance and self corrected when prompted. At the end of the activity, Mari seemed tired but happy with her progress. Analyses Richards (2001) suggested several factors to consider when piloting materials. Richards’ factors were condensed and adapted so that the learner to provide feedback on the activities described in this case study in the target language. The learner was asked to answer yes or no to the following questions in regards to each of the nine activities presented: Were the instructions clear? Did the materials practice the sounds that were set out to be practiced? Did the materials address your pronunciation needs? Was the pacing appropriate (not too fast or too slow)? Was there a good amount of material to practice (not too much or too little)? Was the activity fun and/or interesting? Mari’s feedback was positive in nearly all aspects in every activity. She only answered “No” to one question. Mari stated that she enjoyed the Bingo game, but that it was too short. She would have liked to spend more time doing the activity. Perhaps additional rounds could be added to the activity so that new game-boards with different words and sounds can be practiced. Additional players in the Bingo came could also help extend this exercise. Mari was then asked to indicate her three favorite activities and why she liked them. Mari’s favorite activity was Bingo played in Session 2 because she said it was fun and made it easy to learn the sounds. Her second favorite activity was Sort and Explain the Sounds in Session 3 because she found the graph was easy to see and after the lesson she could continue to use the materials for self-study. Her third favorite activity was the last activity, Listen to and Pronounce the Sounds in a Paragraph, because she said she could check and correct her pronunciation and the story helped her to imagine how to use the sounds in context. Overall, the series of treatments was well received by Mari. Results In the focused diagnostic test, Mari made 11 errors in pronunciation of consonants, four which were deletion of final /s/ and three which were deletion of final position /z/. The posttest was administered seventeen days after the diagnostic test. Between pretest and posttest Mari participated in five 20-minute sessions of nine form-focused activities. On the posttest, Mari only made one error in the pronunciation of final position /s/; she deleted /s/ at the end of point. Both Mari and I were satisfied with the results.

43

Conclusion The research question was: To what degree can the pronunciation of a target sound be improved with a series of form-focused tasks in three weeks? A series of activities was designed to build upon previous knowledge, increase in complexity but still remain concise and learner-focused in an attempt to produce maximum results in little time. This learner showed great improvement over a short period of time. These results might be atypical; research shows that there are far more complex sounds for Japanese learners of English to master. However, this small-scale case study might motivate and encourage teachers to include short pronunciation activities within the curriculum. References Avery, P., & Ehrlich, S. (1992). Teaching American English pronunciation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. Catford, J. C. (1987). Phonetics and the teaching of pronunciation. In J. Morley (Eds.), Current perspectives

on pronunciation: Practices anchored in theory (pp. 83-100). Washington DC: TESOL. Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D., & Goodwin, J. (2010). Teaching pronunciation: A course book and reference

guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grate, H. G. (1974). English pronunciation exercises for Japanese students. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice

Hall Regents. Jenkins, J. (2001). The phonology of English as an international language: New models, new norms, new

goals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Major, R. C. (1987). A model for interlanguage phonology. In G. Ioup & S. H. Weinberger (Eds.),


Prator, C. H., & Robinett, B. W. (1985). Manual of American English pronunciation. Chicago, IL: Holt, Rinehard and Winston.

Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tarone, E. E. (1987). The phonology of interlanguage. In G. Ioup & S. H. Weinberger (Eds.), Interlanguage phonology: The acquisition of a second language sound system (pp. 70-85). Cambridge: Newbury House.

44

Japanese Phoneme /ɕi/ as a Foundation for /si/, /Өi/, and /ʃi/ in English

Tomomi Utsunomiya and Satomi Yoshimuta In the field of English language teaching, a growing number of teachers are not native speakers of English. Both native English teachers and nonnative-English-speaking teachers have their strengths respectively; however, it has been argued that only native speakers of a language should teach English pronunciation, as they can provide accurate pronunciation models for learners. The current debate about the phonology of English as an International Language (EIL) encourages all English teachers to think about the aim of language teaching, especially teaching English pronunciation. Jenkins (2001) stated that the recent growth in the use of EIL has led to changes in learners’ pronunciation needs and goals, and she proposes the Lingua Franca Core (LFC): a list of features which are presumably the minimum required to result in intelligible communication among non-native speakers of English (NNSs) to avoid problems between learners with different L1s. To a non-native English-speaking teacher, her proposals, based on teachability, learnability, and intelligibility, to help facilitate and standardize pronunciation instruction was impressive. In Japan, phonetic symbols (the broad transcription of IPA) were used for junior and senior high school textbooks and learning dictionaries until recently. They were removed from the English curriculum when so-called yutori education started. Yutori education is a Japanese education policy that reduced the hours and the content of the curriculum in primary education, introduced about 10 years ago. The question arises as to how non-native English-speaking Japanese teachers can improve the pronunciation of Japanese English learners without using phonetic symbols. Standard techniques for teaching pronunciation such as articulatory explanation, imitation and repetition, visual aids are introduced in some junior high schools, but students’ L1 phonology plays a significant role in his/her phonological ability in a second language. Nation and Newton (2009) stated that teachers can take account of first language influence by being familiar with the sound system of the learners’ first language and thus gaining some idea of the amount of effort and attention needed to bring about a desired change (p. 80). Many English phonemes do not exist in Japanese. For example, Japanese does not have any phonemes corresponding to English, and Japanese learners tend to substitute the voiceless bilabial fricative /Φ/ for /f/, voiced bilabial stop /b/ for /v/, and voiced alveolar tap of flap /ɾ/ for both /l/ and /r/. English and Japanese are quite different languages, but Japanese has phonemes similar to those of English. It is difficult for the non-native English teachers to teach the articulatory difference between /l/ and /r/, but we can explain how these sounds differ from the voiced alveolar tap /ɾ/ from a native Japanese point of view. In this project, we focus on other problematic English phonemes such as /s/, /ʃ/, and /Ɵ/, and provide various activities, which include the Japanese phoneme /ɕ/; a sound similar to English /s/, /ʃ/, and /Ɵ/. In general, even a native speaker of Japanese does not know what /ɕ/ phoneme is. Therefore, they have decided this study by helping the learner understand the articulation of /ɕ/ before teaching the phonemes in the target language. Our purpose of this research is to examine how Japanese phoneme can affect production of phonemes in English and how improve the learner’s pronunciation of the target language can be improved through an awareness of L1 phoneme. Methodology In this section I present the methodology of the project from different aspects; I describe the details of (a) the participant profile, (b) the initial diagnosis of the learner’s needs, and (c) the focus of the research and determination of the area of pronunciation to work on. Next I describe practical aspects of the lessons, the materials and procedures, explaining how I used the materials and what responses those materials elicited. Participant We chose to focus this study on a 21-year old Japanese male senior at a university in Tokyo, called Hiroshi. His first language was Japanese, and he learned English as a foreign language for more than ten years. He also

45

received informal lessons from ECC Home Teacher (private English lessons provided jointly by a native teacher and a Japanese teacher in a casual environment). He enjoyed learning English through games and basic conversations with the ECC teachers. Although English was a foreign language, his age and lack of preconceptions made it possible for him to accept the foreign language as it was. At age 15, he passed the third grade of the EIKEN (STEP) Test just before graduation from junior high school. His latest proficiency test was TOEIC, on which he received 530 points in January, 2011 and 465 points in August 2012. Initial Diagnosis, Needs Analysis and Focus Avery and Ehrlich (1992) stated that when /s/ occurs before the high front vowel /i/, as in the English word sip and sea, Japanese speakers might pronounce them as /ʃi/, producing words that sound like ship and she (p. 135); however, this is incorrect in a strict sense. Japanese native speakers use the voiceless alveo-palatal fricative, /ɕi/ rather than /ʃi/ in this environment. /ɕi/does not involve the rounding of the lips, unlike the pronunciation of English, /ʃi/.

The initial diagnosis revealed difficulties in his production of the voiceless fricatives /s/, /ʃ/, and /Ɵ/, which are typical for those who were brought up in a Japanese-speaking environment. It was discovered through the diagnostic that the participant’s English pronunciation was greatly affected by his mother tongue. The diagnostic passage for the initial meeting was created by them to measure the L1 influence on Hiroshi’s pronunciation of English, especially focusing on /s/, /ʃ/, and /Ɵ/ and to determine whether his pronunciation varied depending on the following vowel: The following are characteristics of Japanese speech: /s/ is realized as [ɕ] when it is followed by the high front vowel /i/; however /s/ is realized as /s/ when it is

followed by /a,u,e,o/ s → ɕ / i s →s / a, u, e, o [s] and [ɕ ] are allophones of /s/, and the phonological change is conditioned by the rules stated in the above. English /s/ tends to be pronounced with relatively more muscular energy and stronger breath force than Japanese /s/, but both phonemes are called voiceless alveolar fricatives. When Japanese speak English, the following substitutions are common: /Ɵ/ is realized as [ɕ] when it is followed by the high front vowel /i/, however /Ɵ/ is realized as /s/ when it is followed by /a,e,o/ Ɵ →ɕ / i Ɵ →s / a, e, o There is no interdental /Ɵ/ in Japanese. /ʃ/ is realized as [ɕ] when it is followed by /i/, however /ʃ/ is realized /ʃ/ when it is followed by /a.u.o/. ʃ→ ɕ / i ʃ→ ʃ / a, u, o There is /ʃa, ʃu, ʃo/ in Japanese but not /ʃi/ The substitution patterns used by Hiroshi coincided with those of Japanese English language learners in the beginning stages. An English native speaker who studies Japanese generally thinks that Japanese [ɕi] is the same as English [ʃi], but it is not. [ɕi] is articulated further forward than [ʃi] and does not involve rounding of the lips. The Japanese hiragana syllabary consists of 62 syllables, each of which is a combination of a consonant and a vowel. The SA-row syllables /sa, shi, su, se, so/ are identified as [sa, ɕi, su, se, so], this means, the Japanese /si/ is phonetically different from the other consonants in the /sa/ column, but ordinary Japanese are not conscious of this difference. Although Hiroshi pronounced those five Japanese sounds clearly, he didn’t seem to realize that the tongue position for /ɕi/ was different in the SA-row syllables. In order to acquiring English /s/, /ʃ/, and /Ɵ/, Hiroshi needed to perceive and understand the Japanese /ɕ/. There is no interdental fricatives /Ɵ/ in Japanese while palato-alveolar /ʃ/ appears when it is followed by /a/,/u/, and /o/ although Japanese /ʃ/ does not involve the rounding of the lips, unlike pronunciation in English (Tsujimura,

46

1997, p. 13). According to Edwards (1997), the problems with /Ɵ/ are many and varied. A dentalized /t/ occurs when there is insufficient breath support. With an /f/ or /s/ substitution, the problem is not with airflow but with placement. This sound requires considerable effort to stabilize in all contexts (p. 118). In contrast with common substitutions, native speakers of Japanese are inclined to substitute Japanese / ɕi/ for English /Ɵi/ and /sa, se, so/ for English /Ɵa, Ɵe, Ɵo/. This was also true of Hiroshi. Therefore, we assumed that the focus of the lessons should target differentiation of the different sounds which sound similar to Japanese and which tend to be approximated by Japanese SA-row sounds: Japanese [ɕ], [s], [Ɵ], and [ʃ]. This approach is planned to facilitate acquisition of the clear /Ɵ/ and its articulation, which is different for Japanese. Materials The following list explains the materials that we used for implementing pronunciation lessons. They are basically utilized to instruct the participant, Hiroshi, how to differentiate those four sounds: /s/, /ʃ/, /Ɵ/, and /ɕ/. Which one sounds different? The learner listens to them and imitates the L1 sounds such as Japanese /sa/, /su/, /se/, /so/, and /ɕɪ/. This is designed to demonstrate how differently s/he places the tongue when articulating particular L1 sounds (e.g. the Japanese SA-row of the hiragana system). Diagrams for pronunciation (Identifying sounds using pictures) The phonetics website of the University of Iowa is highly useful to visually show how the tongue and other parts of the mouth articulates the target sounds. It was used to explain articulator of English: /s/, /Ɵ/, and /ʃ/. Minimal pairs The minimal pair exercise utilizes a pair of words that have one different phonetic segment and that are different in meaning. For this research, the approximated pairs of English and Japanese comparables such as seat /sit/ and a L1 katakana form /ɕit/. Combining it with Japanese vowels This activity is designed to distinguish Japanese consonants /s/, /ɕ/, English /s/, /Ɵ/ from /ʃ/. Through combining five vowels, /a/, /ɪ/, /ʊ/, /ɛ/, or /o/ with different consonants, the participant will be able to tell the different position and movement of the tongue clearly. Distinguishing sounds (Nation & Newton, p. 84) They say a pair of words with the same or different sounds. The learner guesses whether they are the same or different. The targets are Japanese /ɕi/ and English /si/, /Ɵi/, and /ʃi/. The difference between /ɕi/ and /ʃi/ lies in whether you round your lip to say English /ʃi/ or you do not to say Japanese /ɕi/. This is to familiarize the learner with the differences among those sounds that he typically articulates as the same sound. Stretch it The learner listens to the model pronunciation of a word or phrase and tries pronouncing it very sluggishly and exaggeratedly to differentiate it from similar phonemes. Tongue sliding exercise (Nation & Newton, 2009, p. 88) The participant practices to sequential placement of the tongue from /Ɵ/ through /s/ and /ɕ/ to /ʃ/. The task is modified to have the participant realize the different positions of the tongue placement in the mouth and the different roundedness of lips.

47

Get to know the phonetic symbols /si/and /ɕi/ The learner is shown phonetic input of /si/and /ɕi/ and learns to write the phonetic symbols to reinforce the knowledge of the difference. Identifying sounds and a variation (Nation & Newton, 2009, p. 85) First, they write three words with the L1 form and English form (e.g., シック[ɕɪk], sick, thick) on the blackboard, and draws a hand next to one of the words. Whenever the teacher says a word that begins with the same sound as the word on the picture, the learner must move his right hand. This is to learn the differences of the sounds he typically articulates as one sound. A variation is for the learner to look at two pictures describing a set of minimal pairs while hearing a statement or a question concerned with one of them. The learner uses the phonetic knowledge, identifies the word, and then responds to what he has heard in pragmatically appropriate English. Don’t be tricked (Nation & Newton, 2009, p. 86) Some words are written on the board. The learner points to one of them and the teacher pronounces it. Sometimes the teacher pronounces the wrong word. The participant must guess if the teacher is right or wrong. This activity makes a monotonous lesson fun. Testing the teacher (Nation & Newton, 2009, p. 88) The participant secretly looks at an instructional card that says same or different. He pronounces a pair of words according to the instruction on the card. They determine if the sounds are the same or different. Shinkansen Shin Osaka made Shiteiseki (Shizuka, 2009, p. 60) The participant looks at a sheet of paper that reads loud (a) the Japanese chunk including multiple /ɕ/, ɕɪnkəәnsɛn ɕɪnosaka madɛ ɕɪtɛɪsɛkɪ, (b) the same phrase with /ɕ/ parts substituted by /s/, (c) the same phrase with /ɕ/ parts substituted by /Ɵ/, and (d) the same phrase with /ɕ/ parts substituted by /ʃ/. Commonly, (b), (c), and (b) sound odd or less developed to most Japanese L1 speakers, so it is designed for learners to feel it odd to hear themselves articulate the sounds produced by the wrong consonants. Cindy’s still single (Shizuka, 2009) This is a variation of Shinkansen Shin Osaka made Shiteiseki. The chunks are in English. There are other phrases or sentences in Japanese and English for this activity such as Lucy likes seafood (p. 61). Underline and utter The learner underlines all the target phonemes (e.g., /s/ in sea) in words or sentences on a worksheet. When there are multiple targets, underlines can differ by color, depending on each target. The learner reads aloud the word including the target phoneme with the Stretch it technique, and repeats it recurrently until confident and comfortable. In this task, the eye-catchers can help learners to increase learners’ concentration on the target sounds. Procedures Table 1 provides the tasks that were presented in the lessons over four weeks. It provides an overview of the pronunciation lessons implemented for the participant, including the materials used and the purposes of each of the materials.

48

Table 1. Tasks Used in the Study Session: Date Material activity Purpose of the materials

1: July 3 Diagnostic 1 Identify the participant’s needs 30 minutes

2: July 9 30 minutes

Diagnostic 2 Diagnose how well the participant can differentiate /ɕ/, /Ɵ/, and /ʃ/s, with an emphasis on /ʃ/

Which one sounds different? Identify the phonetic difference between Japanese /ɕi/ and other phonemes

Diagram for pronunciation for introduction of /s/

Understand the visual illustration of the placement and movement of the articulators for /s/

Minimal pairs Differentiate /si/ and /ɕɪ/

Diagnosis 2 “She went to see a play on Sunday.”

Check if the participant can produce /ʃ/ more accurately than during Diagnosis 2


Combining it with Japanese vowels Distinguish /ɕ/, /Ɵ/, /ʃ/, /ɪ/

Distinguishing sounds of minimal pairs

Compare and contrast similar consonants /ɕ/ /s/ /Ɵ/

Minimal pairs for /s/ and /Ɵ/ Distinguish sounds and pronounce them correctly


Stretch it Emphasize and differentiate the targeted phonemes

Distinguishing sounds of minimal pairs

Compare and contrast similar consonants /ɕ/, /s/, and /Ɵ/

Tongue sliding exercise Reinforce tongue positions

Getting to know the phonetic symbols /sɪ/, /Ɵ/, and /ɕɪ/

Build on knowledge of phonetic symbols so that he can pronounce them differently

Identifying sounds using pictures, another variation

Use knowledge of phonetic differences in practical English

Don’t be tricked Produce /ɕ/ /s/ /Ɵ/ more accurately

Testing the teacher Determine that the participant’s newly acquired pronunciation is communicative

Shinkansen Shin Osaka made Shiteiseki

Learn and reinforce that /ɕ/, /s/, and /Ɵ/ are different consonants

Cindy’s still single. Learn and reinforce different consonants


Tongue sliding exercise Reinforce the tongue positions

Listening diagnosis 1-(5) Distinguishing sounds

Identify the differences among /s/, /ɕ/, and /Ɵ/ included in simple and complex vocabulary

Diagram for pronunciation Recognize the visual placement and movement of the articulators for /ʃ/ and imitate it

Minimal pairs Recognize the difference between /s/, /Ɵ/, and /ʃ/ in word pairs

Distinguishing minimal pairs Compare and contrast similar consonants: /ɕ/, /s/, /Ɵ/, and /ʃ/


Review the sounds and rate the activities

Review and remind him of the past activities

(14) Underline and utter

Concentrate on the target sounds

Diagnostic 1 & Diagnostic 2 Determine the learner’s progress

49

They began the sessions first focusing on differentiating Japanese /ɕɪ/ from others, then introducing of /s/, /Ɵ/, and lastly /ʃ/. Native Japanese speakers tend to approximate /s/, /Ɵ/, and /ʃ/ with Japanese SA-row syllables and even SA-row syllables which sound similar but are not exactly the same as English /s/. Then they decided to introduce him to other approximated SA-row sounds in the order of proximity to SA-row sounds. Task Implementation Day 1 (July 3, 2013 ) The opening session consisted of the diagnostic and the interview with Hiroshi about his history of learning English and experience of a one-year study-abroad program in UK. First they provided him with the diagnostic passage and audiotaped it. He read it twice silently and asked how to say urge. Still it seemed that he knew all of the other words and was able to pronounce all the target sounds.

Next they asked him if he had nay experience learning English pronunciation and he said, “No,” in that he was not aware of pronunciation in English classes in high school. Subsequently they asked him if any misunderstandings had occurred due to his pronunciation, particularly during his study-abroad program in the United Kingdom. He said, “No,” and explained that if he had been misunderstood, it would have resulted from his lack of grammatical knowledge. The participant was one of the most diligent and serious students in the English class, but a keen awareness was not observed as of English pronunciation. Day 2 (July 9, 2013) At the onset, they posed a consciousness-raising question whether Hiroshi had realized anything new about his pronunciation, only to receive a negative reply. However, he said that he practiced before he went to bed daily. They provided him with the second diagnostic, a collection of sentences with a focus on /Ɵ/ and /ʃ/.

The target for the latter half was to help the Hiroshi differentiate Japanese /ɕi/ from the rest of the SA-row syllables and to familiarize him with /s/s and differentiate them from /ɕi/. They first explained the SA-row syllables, combined with the different vowels and that only/shi/ had a different consonant the other SA-row syllables such as /sa, shi, su, se, so/ is realized as /sa, ɕi, su, se, so/. They provided Which one sounds different? for him and demonstrated the different syllables of SA-rows exaggeratedly so that he could follow and imitate. He looked surprised as he had not been aware of the different syllables. Next they showed him Diagram for pronunciation on the website of Iowa University as an introduction to /s/. The website helped him to identify the placement and movement of the tongue for /s/. They administered the Minimal pair, eliciting pronunciation of /ɕ/ and /s/ from him. They provided him with feedback that he had made a great progress in acquiring the pronunciation of /s/, which seemed to have been challenging to him. They supplied him with the minimal pair cards and assigned him to review them. The discovery that /ɕi/ was a combination of a consonant which is not used for the other SA-row syllables and /i/ was eye opening to him. In this sense, this initiative was successful in raising his consciousness. Day 3 (July 10, 2013) The focus was the introduction of the consonant /Ɵ/. It initiated with the reading passage, Diagnosis 2, which was to diagnose if Hiroshi could produce the decent articulation of /ʃ/. The diagnosis was a collection of sentences useful for basic business conversation. He read it silently for a while and then read it out without difficulty. Then he practiced combining /s/ and /Ɵ/ with Japanese vowels /a/, /ɪ/, /u/, /ɛ/, and /o/ and practiced them using sentences to practice /Ɵ/. It seemed that /Ɵ/ sounded almost identical with Japanese /s/ or /ɕ/ to him and could not tell the difference. They told him to emphasize and exaggerate the /Ɵ/. The activity, Distinguishing sounds of minimal pairs, followed. Sometimes it was difficult for him to differentiate /ɕ/ from /Ɵ/, so it was explained that Japanese words borrowed from English had /Ɵ/, which are all approximated as Japanese SA-row sounds, such as authority, athlete or athletic. His tongue position and its movement was checked with Diagrams for pronunciation. Then he practiced pronouncing Minimal pairs for /s/ and /Ɵ/ in closing.

Throughout the session, Hiroshi was asked multiple times to articulate /Ɵ/ more clearly, emphasizing that the space in his mouth should be much smaller and the airstream path should be much narrower. It

50

happened because he was substituting Japanese /ɕ/ with /Ɵ/. He had a more difficult time distinguishing word-medial /Ɵ/ from /s/ by the end of the lesson, and he was having a much more difficult time in articulating English /s/ rather than /Ɵ/, which he had learned in the previous session. It was a curious phenomenon because Japanese speakers have an almost identical sound /s/ in Japanese phonetic system but not /Ɵ/. Day 4 (July 16, 2013) Session 4 focused mainly on a review, targeting introduction and internalization of /s/ and /Ɵ/. They began the lesson with a review of the previous lessons, having Hiroshi pronounce words, such as procedure, receipt, and emergency, to practice /s/ and /Ɵ/. Because he had trouble articulating /s/, he practiced stretching /s/ as in Stretch it activity. It was suggested that he should pronounce /s/ more exaggeratedly (e.g., [iimmmɘɘrrrʤɘnsssiii] and [prasssɪiiʤɘr]).

Next was the Distinguishing the sounds. Hiroshi listened to three sets of minimal pairs and had to determine whether they were the same or different. He failed to tell the difference in one of the three sets, /sɪk/ and /Ɵɪk/. The third minimal pair was sick /sɪk/ or [ɕɪk]. He was unsure of the answer but said “Different?” in the rising intonation. He was given the same minimal pair again and he said “same” in a determined tone of voice, so he was not able to identify the difference between /sɪ/ and /ɕɪ/.

Hiroshi was helped to identify the differences between the Japanese SA-row sounds [sa], [su], [sɛ], [sɔ], and [ɕɪ]. He understood that there were differences between the consonants and then he attempted a Tongue sliding exercise. After being shown how to slide his tongue, Hiroshi maintained the tongue position for each consonant for at least five seconds and then moved on to another position from /Ɵ/ through /s/ to /ɕ/. He had difficulty maintaining /ɕ/, but he managed to articulate /s/. Then through (8) Getting to know the phonetic symbols, he was informed of the phonetic symbols /sɪ/ and /ɕɪ/ and of the visual formation of the sound that consisted of the respective phoneme. He pronounced words using every phoneme that might confuse him at a slow speed: sip, sick, seem, or therapy. He understood that /sɪk/, /Ɵɪk/, and /ɕɪkʊ/ (Japanese sound) all differ from one another.

Next Hiroshi tried Identifying sounds using pictures. The researchers selected one of the pictures and talked about it and Hiroshi determined which picture was being talked about and continued the conversation by offering a pragmatically acceptable response. For example, when Hiroshi was looking at two pictures describing a boy feeling sick and a thick book, they said, “I feel sick.” Then Hiroshi replied, “Are you all right?”

In Don’t be tricked, Hiroshi pointed at one of two pictures and then they pronounced a word representing what was drawn or wrong if it did not. He continued to answer the first four questions successfully although he missed the distinction between seem /sim/ and theme /Ɵɪm/. He was able to differentiate /sɪ/ and /Ɵɪ/ when he heard them but was not able to hear the difference between /si/ and /Ɵi/. Thus, the process of internalization can differ depending on the different following environment. He commented that this problem occurred because it was the first time that this minimal pair was introduced in this session’s activity and that he had forgotten that it would be difficult to distinguish the sounds until he has his own phonetic “default” restored.

Hiroshi tried Testing the teacher. He pronounced the words accurately. It was noteworthy to discover that he could internalize the sounds more promptly because he reviewed them individually. He mentioned that he reviewed before going to bed as many times as possible. Finally he did the activity called Shinkansen Shin Osaka made Shiteiseki. This is a typical phrase in Japanese used to buy a bullet train ticket to Shin Osaka Station. In order to become further accustomed to /ɕ/, /s/, and /Ɵ/, Hiroshi practiced the underlined part with the different consonants. In this task he compared and contrasted Japanese /ɕɪ/ and other English voiceless fricatives: /sɪ/ and /Ɵɪ/. What he produced with English voiceless fricatives sounded like premature articulation in Japanese, so it was the funniest and most exciting moment of the lesson. He enjoyed this activity. This activity was followed by similar replacement activities with English target sentences: Cindy’s still single and Lucy likes seafood.”

51

When asked about his progress, he stated that he felt it easier to pronounce /Ɵ/ than /s/. He had made progress in differentiating /s/ and /Ɵ/, but he still had trouble articulating /s/. However, he remained determined and motivated, so he continued to practice the minimal pairs as homework. Day 5 (July 17, 2013) The first half focused on reviewing the sounds that had been introduced so far and on introducing /ʃ/ in the latter half. The session started with Tongue sliding for review. Hiroshi was instructed to develop a very narrow path of a strong outgoing airstream. He had trouble differentiating Japanese /ɕɪ/ from English /sɪ/. The session then initiated with Distinguishing sounds, in which Hiroshi heard one of the minimal pairs, each of which included /s/, /ɕ/, or /ʃ/, such as bush/bus/booth and guessed which one he heard. Hiroshi had begun to grasp the tip in the first diagnosis when confronted with elementary vocabulary, but he needed more time to develop his ability to clearly differentiate the sounds in the nonsense words.

The latter half of the lesson was focused on introduction and reinforcement of /ʃ/. In Diagram for pronunciation, Hiroshi looked at the phonetics website of the University of Iowa, which demonstrates the tongue movement of /ʃ/. Hiroshi had trouble in the beginning, but he soon understood how to differente the sounds. Then they compared two diagrams of /s/ and /ʃ/ with an emphasis on open space in the mouth created when native speakers of English pronounced /s/ and /ʃ/.

Hiroshi next read aloud Minimal pairs of /s/-/Ɵ/, /s/-/ʃ/, and /ʃ/-/Ɵ/, such as sea-she, seat-sheet, starting with Japanese /sʊ/, which helped him to pronounce /s/ clearly. Pronouncing the word-final /s/, he tried to create the narrow path with a strong outgoing airstream and was able to articulate an exaggerated word-final /s/ as in worse-worth. At the end of the second round, he was able to articulate the minimal pairs correctly.

The Distinguishing sounds exercise was next. As successful as he was in identifying most of the similar consonants, the word-medial /Ɵ/ as in Lithuania was still challenging, so he practiced pronouncing it. Day 6 (July 25, 2013) In the final session the content was divided into a review and a diagnosis of Hiroshi’s final product. In the review session, Hiroshi reviewed all the activities. Before the diagnosis was administered, he completed the Underline and utter activity. He underlined all the key consonants and syllables including /s/, /Ɵ/, and /ʃ/ in different colors, practicing reading it aloud repeatedly.

In concluding this section, Hiroshi, who had never had a pronunciation lesson, was provided with six lessons targeting at articulation of and acquisition of ability to hear the difference between /s/, /Ɵ/, and /ʃ/ with the aid of knowledge of approximated Japanese SA-row syllables. Thirteen activities were implemented during the sessions. He successfully differentiated the sounds, almost overcoming the SA-row approximation in the L1, which is discussed in the next section. Results Hiroshi made rapid progress for such a limited period of time. As seen in Table 1, there were no striking errors in his production in the post-session diagnosis. Except for a few word-medial /Ɵ/ and /ʃ/, he successfully removed SA-row substitution from his English articulation. The initial part of this section describes the salient features in his improvement and considerations for further improvement in terms of: (a) Hiroshi’s use of /ɕi/, (b) Hiroshi’s production of /Ɵ/ in the word-initial and word-final positions, and (c) Hiroshi’s pronunciation of /ʃ/ before /a, u, o/. The latter part assesses the materials as to which activity was of practical use from the perspective of the participant and them. Hiroshi displayed the following changes in pronunciation.

Hiroshi’s use of /ɕi/ has diminished. In the beginning, Hiroshi substituted /ɕi/ for /si/, /ʃi/ and /Ɵi/; however, his use of /ɕi/ diminished. He still produces /ɕi/ at in word-final position as in emergency. They explained how a Japanese /ɕi/ is articulated, compared to English /si/, /ʃi/, and /Ɵi/, then told him not to use /ɕi/ when he speaks English as it does not exist in English. This teaching method of differentiating /ɕi/ from /si/, /ʃi/, and /Ɵi/ seemed to lead to noticeable progress.

52

Hiroshi produced /Ɵ/ correctly in the word-initial and word-final positions, but he still felt it difficult to pronounce /Ɵ/ in the word-medial position. When Hiroshi pronounced /Ɵ/ in word-medial position, a combination of /Ɵ/ and /s/ appeared. Major (1987) claimed that in the early stages of acquisition, interference processes predominate and then decrease over time, while in the early stages developmental processes are very infrequent, later they increase in frequency, and they decrease over time. Hiroshi might have been the boundary between the interference and developmental processes.

Hiroshi pronounced /ʃ/ correctly before /a, u, o/. /ʃ/ seemed to be easy for Hiroshi to pronounce from the beginning, but he still displayed difficulty pronouncing /ʃ/ in front of /i/, and he used /s/ as /ɕi/ in she. Japanese has /ʃ/, but it appears only before /a,u,o/, not before /i/. Major (1987) stated that partial transfer can operate if L1 and L2 share a common phoneme but that phoneme does not operate in all the L2 environments. In those cases, learners will be able to learn the phenomenon in the L2 environments more easily than if the phenomenon did not occur at all in the L1 (p. 106). As stated above, Japanese /ʃ/ appears only before /a,u,o/ not /i/. According to Major’s hypothesis, even if Japanese words have no /ʃ/ before /i/, Japanese speakers have no difficulty pronouncing /ʃi/ because /ʃ/ occurs in other positions in Japanese. This hypothesis, however, did not work in case of Hiroshi, as he did not produce /ʃi/ correctly.

The following section discusses how useful and meaningful the materials were for improvement of Hiroshi’s articulation. In the last session, Hiroshi rated the activities according to usefulness to improve his English pronunciation. Table 2 shows the ratings of the materials from the perspectives of the learner and them.

Hiroshi ranked four activities as the most useful: Diagrams for pronunciation, Minimal pairs, which include the related activities using minimal pairs, Distinguishing sounds and Identifying sounds, Don’t be tricked, and Underline and utter before the final diagnosis. These activities gave him a sense of achievement.

Both they and the participant agreed that Underline and utter was the most useful. Before the final diagnosis, Hiroshi underlined the key consonants and read them aloud repeatedly in the Stretch it approach. The activity required intense concentration, and highlighting key consonants promoted his concentration.

Hiroshi discovered meaning in all of the materials, but he valued Cindy’s still single/Lucy likes seafood the least. In this activity, he replaced all the /si/ with /ɕi/, /ʃi/ or /Ɵi/ every time he read it aloud. It was designed to accentuate the consonantal differences. He enjoyed a similar activity of reading aloud the Japanese phrase Shinkansen Shin Osaka made Shiteiseki with [sh] substituted for /s/ /ʃ/ /Ɵ/, but in this activity, when he had to pronounce /ʃi/ or /Ɵi/, he found difficulty in articulating, for instance, /z ʃ/ or /z Ɵ/ when combining Cindy’s and still or /ʃ ʃ/ or /Ɵ Ɵ/ when combining likes and seafood. Table 2. Rating of the Materials

No. Title of the activity Hiroshi The researchers 1 Which one sounds different? 2 2 2 Diagrams for pronunciation 3 2 3 Minimal pairs 3 2 4 Combining it with Japanese vowels 2 2 5 Distinguishing sounds 3 2 6 Stretch it. 2 3 7 Tongue sliding 2 3 8 Getting to know the phonetic symbols 2 2 9 Identifying sounds as a variation 3 2 10 Don’t be tricked 3 2 11 Testing the teacher 2 2 12 Shinkansen Shin Osaka made Shiteiseki 2 3 13 Cindy’s still single./ Lucy likes seafood. 1 2 14 Underline and utter 3 3

Note. 3 = Highly useful, 2 = Useful, 1 = Not very useful.

53

Not all the materials rated high by Hiroshi were enjoyable, but they highlighted his weaknesses and articulatory differences from standard pronunciation. For instance, he seemed to have been absorbed in Shinkansen Shin Osaka made Shiteiseki so it was rated 3; however, he rated it 2. He enjoyed it, accomplishing it without difficulty. Due to his seriousness and ambition, he rated more challenging activities higher, as they helped him develop and acquire greater accuracy in his production of English, approximating a native-like standard of spoken English.

This section displayed the learner’s phonological process and the practicality of the materials. Hiroshi had acquired pronunciation of /si/, /Ɵi/, and /ʃi/, based on the differentiation from Japanese /ɕi/. He also showed a great improvement in production of /Ɵ/ in word-initial and word-final positions but still had occasionally substituted /s/ when articulating word-ending /Ɵ/, and Hiroshi pronounced /ʃ/ before /a, u, o/ successfully, but had not fully automatized accurate /ʃi/. The utility of the activities rated by the preferences of the learner and uncovered the learner’s drive for native-level pronunciation, which led to a tension between native-level pronunciation and permissible pronunciation with intelligibility. Discussion and Conclusion According to Shimo (2002), L1 interference presents a major obstacle to L2 oral performance for Japanese learners of English and suggests that Japanese learners should forget how to pronounce English words in their own language as English pronunciation is completely different from their L1 language, and L1 interference can impede native-like pronunciation. However, English is now regarded as the world’s major second language, and used as global means of communication as much as a foreign or second language. This in turn suggests that the goals and methods for the teaching of this variety of English might need to be redefined.

Jenkins’ (2001) Lingua Franc Core lists indicates that most substitutions of /Ɵ/ permissible; however, Hiroshi acquired /Ɵ/ in a short time. Thus, he was able to pronounce [Ɵaŋkyu] not [teŋkyu] as Lingua Franca Core. Shimizu (2011) offered tentative guidelines for teaching Japanese learners of English to achieve minimal intelligibility in international communication, based on the LFC proposed by Jenkins. There has been a greater need for communicatively competent pronunciation than ever as Japanese have come in contact with people all over the world. In other words, inteligible pronunciation is the goal for non-native English learners as this type of pronunciation allows for successful communication.

Many Japanese English teachers have ambivalent feelings about this tendency, including them, as there was a dichotomy between the student’s personal aims and aspirations in learning English pronunciation and the intelligible pronunciation suggested by the LFC. Some students might aim to achieve the best pronunciation they possibly can, and others want English to communicate at a basic level. Hiroshi belonged to the former type. He aimed to achieve native-like English pronunciation. There are multiple levels for L2 learners’ mastery of a pronunciation target; two levels are salient: (a) native-like articulation and (b) an intelligible product permissible from the perspective of EIL. Teachers of English should note the learners’ level when determining goals and selecting materials. Hiroshi wished to acquire native-like pronunciation and preferred challenging materials; at the same time, his English was sufficiently intelligible and he could communicate in English with no apparent difficulty from the EIL perspective. Thus, there was a consistent tension between his ambition and his pronunciation.

One such tension lay in the practice of Hiroshi’s clear, sharp articulation of /si/, which was the most difficult part of the lessons for him. He substituted it for Japanese SA-row /ɕi/, which was permissible from the EIL perspective. We wondered if he had to make an effort to produce the sound at the native-level given that Jenkins (1998) has maintained that English is not “taught mainly for communication with its native speakers...or the target of pronunciation teaching as a native-like accent” (p. 119). Moreover, according to Suenobu (2010), who noted that Japanese speak English with sufficient intelligibility, 79% of the message understood by people in United States. Therefore, to be able to speak like a native speaker should not be prioritized in the teaching of English pronunciation. That said, learners can benefit from practicing the pronunciation of /s/ by producing a strong airstream from the abdomen. Hiroshi acquired the word-ending /s/ included in the consonant cluster, /ts/ as sheets or gets, which he had failed to produce in the pre-session diagnosis, so even though /si/ can be substituted or approximated by Japanese /ɕi/, learning the phonemes that

54

constitute consonant clusters is necessary for L2 learners of English. Teachers should adjust their objectives, materials, or and timing when teaching them and ensure that the target is appropriate for the learners’ proficiency levels and communicative needs.

Japanese English teachers have not paid attention to L1 phonemes for fear of L1 interference; however, this study has shown that improving a learner’s awareness of L1 phonemes can limit L1 interference and help the learner acquire new sounds. Nonnative-English-speaking teachers might not provide accurate pronunciation models in the same manner as native-English teachers; however, NNS teachers can take advantage of their knowledge of the phonemes in their L1 and pronounce them accurately and appropriately. NNS teachers should use this knowledge when teaching pronunciation. References Avery, P., & Ehrlich, S. (1992). Teaching American English pronunciation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Edwards, H. (1997). Applied phonetics. The sounds of American English. San Diego, CA: Singular. Jenkins, J. (1998). Which pronunciation norms and models for English as an International Language? ELT

Journal, 52(2), 119-126. Jenkins, J. (2001). The phonology of English as an international language: New models, new norms, new goals.



Nation, I. S. P., & Newton, J. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking. New York, NY: Routledge. Shimo, E. (2002). Learning listening comprehension skills in English: The analysis of Japanese learners’

beliefs and its implications. The Language Teacher, 23(10), 29-35. Retrieved from http://jalt-publications.org/archive/proceedings/2002/029.pdf

Shizuka, T. (2009). Zettai hatsuon ryoku (trans. Absolute pronunciation ability). Tokyo: Japan Times. Suenobu, M. (2010). Nihon Eigo ha Sekaide Tshujiru (trans. Japanese English is acceptable all over the

world). Tokyo: Heibonsha. Tsujimura, N. (1997). An introduction to Japanese linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell. The University of Iowa Research Foundation. (2005). Phonetics diagram: Retrieved, August 8, 2013, from the

phonetics website of the University of Iowa Web site: http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/phonetics/

55

Focused Instruction in /ɪ/ and /æ/ and Its By-Products

Harumi Suga Wong (1985) described pronunciation teaching today as “a luxury” (p. 225). She stated that explicit instruction is rarely a part of foreign-language programs, even though neglecting pronunciation can have serious consequences for L2 learners. However, native-like pronunciation seems to be a luxury for most L2 learners of English. Derwing (2003) found that an overwhelming majority of Canadian adult L2 learners considered speaking with native-like pronunciation to be a desirable goal, though Derwing and Munro (2005) admitted that a very small number of highly motivated adult learners with special aptitude can achieve native-like speech patterns (p. 384). They also stated that learners who began learning the foreign language after early childhood and who achieved this goal are exceedingly rare. Ioup (2008) acknowledged the importance of very early onset for native-like pronunciation. She also pointed out that one of the most important individual variables in adult L2 learners is the aptitude for oral mimicry. What then should late adult L2 learners without special aptitude do to improve their pronunciation? What is an achievable goal?

Wong (1985) proposed that the major aspects of the spoken language system are stress, rhythm, and intonation. However, Jenkins (2001) argued that it is unrealistic to expect learners to relinquish L1 transfer to the extent encouraged by most pronunciation manuals and teachers. She proposed a set of detailed core features for segmentals and suprasegmentals based on her own interlanguage talk data, which she labeled the Lingua Franca Core. In view of teachability and learnability, she proposed that the full range of suprasegmentals is necessary only when learners interact primarily with native speakers of English, and when the learners wish to sound like a native speaker for personal or professional reasons.

The goal for the participant falls between the ideas proposed by Jenkins (2001) and Wong (1985). The participant is a highly motivated late adult learner of English who is aware that she has pronunciation problems. In order to give her a sense of achievement in a limited six-week time frame, the two vowels most frequently mispronounced in the initial diagnostic test, /ɪ/ and /æ/, were chosen. The research question was: Will seven one-hour-long sessions produce noticeable progress in the pronunciation of /ɪ/ and /æ/? Methodology Participant The participant, Yuri Furuta (a pseudonym), is 19 years old, and her native language is Japanese. She is a first-year student at a national university in eastern Japan. She has been studying English for over six years and has achieved intermediate English proficiency. Her TOEIC score was 490 eleven and a half months ago when she entered the university. She is a hardworking and highly motivated student who is willing to work hard to improve her pronunciation. Yuri has studied English pronunciation at junior high school and high school. She has never gone abroad and has not received pronunciation instruction outside of her secondary school classes. This project is her first opportunity to receive one-to-one formal pronunciation training.

Yuri’s professional goal is to become a teacher of Japanese and to acquire a museum curator’s license. Though she has a dream of going to France or China, she will not have many occasions to communicate in English if she becomes a Japanese teacher. Therefore, she does not need native-like pronunciation, though improving her English pronunciation might provide her with more job opportunities. Instrumentation The diagnostic passage excerpted from Celce-Murcia, Brinton, and Goodwin (1996) was handed to the participant and she read the passage as the initial diagnostic test. Her reading was recorded and transcribed. In order to measure Yuri’s progress, she was given the same diagnostic passage as the first activity in the last session.

The participant’s performance during the instructional sessions was recorded, and she also engaged in 15-minute free conversations in each session. I did not correct Yuri’s pronunciation during free conversation in order to observe the degree of improvement in extemporaneous speech.

56

Needs Analysis Yuri had a typical Japanese accent in the initial diagnostic assessment. Almost all English vowels she pronounced fell into the five Japanese vowels. She substituted /ɪ/ for /i/, /æ/ for /a/, /ʊ/ for /ɯ/, and /ɝ:/ for /a:/. /ɪ/ and /æ/ were the two most frequently mispronounced vowels in the initial diagnostic assessment; thus, they became the focus of this project. Explanation and practice were given only incidentally when communication was hindered by the mispronunciation of other vowels, consonants, and suprasegmentals. Procedures Individual recording sessions were held in a quiet vacant classroom where Yuri had taken classes in Integrated English I three times a week. The recordings were made using a Sanyo model ICR-B68 digital voice recorder with the attached microphone. The recording mode was set in High Quality Mode. The voice recorder was placed on the desk nearly 35 cm. from Yuri. I sat beside her at the next desk. An Overview of the Sessions Table 1 shows the meeting schedule and activities conducted in this study. Forty-five-minute instructional sessions were followed by a 15-minute free conversation in each session. In the Session 2, two sets of minimal pair pronunciation exercises with /ɪ/ and /i/, and /æ/ and /ʌ/ were completed. The differences of the two phonemes in each pair were explained. A vowel chart and the position of vowels inside the mouth (Avery & Ehrlich, 1992, p. 33) were also shown. Yuri repeated words after me; I corrected her when she mispronounced a word. I provided demonstrations and had Yuri practice /æ/ and /ʌ/ with a mirror.

Rising intonation practice from Prator and Robinett (1985, pp. 59, 63, and 64) was given in the second session. Two sets of Listen and Repeat exercises were done for both /ɪ/ and /æ/ in the Sessions 3 and 6. Five phrases were given for each phoneme in each session. Yuri repeated phrases after me, and I corrected her mispronunciations. Two sets of listening exercises were conducted in Sessions 4 and 5. A short anecdote about Lincoln (Celce-Murcia, Brinton, & Goodwin, 1996, p. 229) was used for Session 4, and jokes (Wong, 1987, pp. 71-72) were read in Session 5. Each time she was given a handout (see Appendices A and B) and she if there were unfamiliar words to her. She was encouraged to ask questions. Then she was told to circle words containing the target phoneme /ɪ/ or /æ/, while I read the passage. After finishing reading, the answers were checked. Finally, the participant practiced reading the passage after me.

Contextualized exercises were done with two excerpts of transcription from free conversation between the participant and me in Sessions 4 and 5, and anecdotes were given in Session 6. When anecdotes were handed to the participant, she was encouraged to ask about unfamiliar words in the handouts. Then I read one phrase, and the participant read the next phrase. We took turns to perform a round robin. In the first round, I checked for mispronounced words, but no corrections were made. After one anecdote was finished, I told the mispronounced parts and had the participant practice correct pronunciations. The second round was started from the participant, and she read different phrases from the first round.

The handouts excerpted from free conversation were given to the participant. They were created like regular dialogues between two people with a slight grammatical modification of the original transcription. No phonetic alphabet was written on the handouts. After checking unfamiliar words, I read the lines of the interviewer, and the participant read the lines of Yuri. When I perceived a mispronounced word, the participant was stopped and practiced the target pronunciation.

57

Table 1. Activities and Purposes of the Seven Sessions Session Activity Purpose

1 • Five-minute diagnostic test (Prator & Robinett, 1985) • 15-minute free conversation

• Assess the learner’s weaknesses

2 • 45-minute practice session; Minimal pair exercise 1, /i/ vs. /ɪ/ (Prator & Robinett, 1985, pp. 129-131); Rising intonation practice (Prator & Robinett, 1985, pp. 59, 63, & 64) • 15-minute free conversation

• Reassess the learner’s weaknesses and reconfirm the initial assessment. • Aid recognition and reproduction of /ɪ/ vs. /i/ and rising intonation

3 • 45-minute practice session; Minimal pair exercise 2, /ʌ/ vs. /æ/ (Prator & Robinett, 1985, pp. 130-131, 142); Listen and repeat exercise 1, /ɪ/ & /æ/ • 15-minute free conversation

• Aid recognition and reproduction of /æ/ vs. /ʌ/ • Aid recognition and reproduction of /ɪ/

4 • 45-minute practice session; Listening exercise 1 (Celce-Murcia et al., 1996, p. 229); Reading exercise • 15-minute free conversation

• Aid recognition of /ɪ/ and /æ/ in a context • Aid reproduction of /ɪ/ and /æ/

5 • 45-minute practice session; Listening exercise 2 (Wong, 1987, pp. 71-72); Reading exercise • 15-minute free conversation

• Aid recognition of /ɪ/ and /æ/ in a context • Aid reproduction of /ɪ/ and /æ/

6 • 45-minute practice session; Listen and repeat exercise 2, /ɪ/ & /æ/. Reading exercise (Wong, 1987, p. 73) • 15-minute free conversation

• Aid recognition and reproduction of /ɪ/ • Aid reproduction of /ɪ/ and /æ/ in contexts

7 10-minute diagnostic test (Prator & Robinett, 1985) • 15-minute free conversation

• Determine the learners’ progress

Results and Discussion Progress Producing /ɪ / During the treatment period of five weeks, the participant made noticeable progress in pronouncing /ɪ/. Correct production of /ɪ/ remarkably rose from 3.0% to 75.8%. There was also substantial progress with regards to the correct pronunciation of /ɪ/ during free conversation over the course of seven sessions. The learner began with an accuracy of 7.1%, and then dramatically climbed up to 66.7% in Session 3. The accuracy slightly decreased in Session 4 and Session 5, but it rose again in Session 6, and dropped again in Session 7. Although Session 7 sees a decrease in accuracy, it should be noted that 29.6% in Session 7 is still higher than 7.1% in Session 1.

The participant was still on the way of development at the end of this project, but she made a remarkable progress in the production of /ɪ/. At the start of this study, she did not have a habit of producing /ɪ/ as a separate phoneme from /i/ consciously. Nevertheless, she achieved 75.8% of correct production of /ɪ/ in the final diagnostic reading and performed 29.6% of correct production in the most difficult activity of free conversation of all conducted during the sessions. Progress Producing /æ/ The participant made a slight progress in pronouncing /æ/. The participant started with the accuracy of 12.5% in the initial diagnostic, and moderately raised it to 37.5% in the final diagnostic, which was not as high as

58

75.8% of the accuracy in /ɪ/. The productions of a correct /æ/ in free conversation did not show a stable rise between Session 1 and Session 7. Except for Session 2, the number of the correct production was extremely small, that is, zero or one. Therefore, the percentages themselves depend on the number of obligatory occasions in sessions. The highest percentage was 25.0% in Session 4 in free conversation but she ended with 3.7% in Session 7, though she was serious in training and her developmental pronunciation increased. Figure 6 shows the accuracy of /æ/ stayed low in free conversation in all sessions as compared with /ɪ/.

With regard to /æ/, seven one-hour sessions did not produce noticeable progress. The participant produced only a slight progress in the pronunciation of /æ/. She started from 12.5% in the initial diagnostic and moderately improved her performance up to 37.5% in the final diagnostic. The Correlation of Production and Listening Discrimination The participant experienced great difficulty in producing a correct /æ/, but was the difficulty in production correlated with her difficulty in listening discrimination? The answer was no. This was the first by-product of this study. The results of listening exercises are shown in Table 2. The percentage of the correct perception of /æ/ in listening exercises was 82.4%. It is higher than that of the correct perception of /ɪ/, which was 66.7%. Table 2. The Results of Listening Exercises

/ɪ/ /æ/

Obligatory occasion

Correct (%) Obligatory occasion

Correct (%)

Total 30 66.7 17 82.4

The participant achieved much better results for the accurate production of /ɪ/ at 75.8% than that of /æ/ at 37.5%. The listening discrimination results were the opposite: The participant attained better results for /æ/ than for /ɪ/.

Just like the participant in this study, learners can sometimes discriminate a certain phoneme, even when they cannot pronounce it correctly. Tarone (1987) cited an interesting term describing this kind of phenomenon: Joseph Conrad Phenomenon (p. 80). This term was created by Scovel (1969) in honor of the famous British writer who achieved unquestioned native-like fluency in the syntax of English but he retained a Polish accent all his life. Learners whose performance in pronunciation is not as good as their grammar, listening discrimination, or their ability to read can be called Joseph Conrads. Teachers should not underestimate the listening discrimination of learners, because their pronunciation can underperform their grammar, listening discrimination, or their ability to read. The Relationship Between Correct Production of /æ/ and Environments The participant struggled with /æ/. The results show that the accuracy of the production of /æ/ was clearly influenced by its phonological environment. This was the second by-product of this research. In Session 3, the participant confessed that /æ/ preceded by a single consonant was not very difficult, but that /æ/ following a consonant cluster including /r/ or /l/ was difficult. The results supported her self-observation that /æ/ was more difficult after a consonant cluster than a word initial or after a single consonant. The words the participant could not repeat accurately in her first trials in Listen & Repeat Exercise 1 and 2 were classical, France, grand, grandmother, landlord, piano, tragedy, and travel. She was able to correctly repeat ask, asked, campus, character, man, and thank. Table 3 shows that the participant could not pronounce /æ/ accurately in her first trials in the environment after consonant clusters at all. On the other hand, she could articulate /æ/ with much higher accuracy in the environments of the word initial and after a single consonant. The percentage of correct production in the latter environments was 75.0%. It is clear that /æ/ was more difficult after a consonant cluster than as a word initial or after a consonant, although the number of obligatory occasions was not large. Recognizing what environment is difficult or easy for a learner helps teachers to help learners who do not have great aptitude for mimicry. However, no clear tendency was found in the results of production of /ɪ/ by the same participant.

59

Table 3. The Relationship Between the Correct Production of /æ/ and Environments in Listen Repeat Exercises

/æ/ Obligatory occasion Correct (%)

After a consonant cluster 6 0.0 Word initial or after a single consonant 8 75.0

The Difficulty Ratings of Activities Considering that the participant performed better in exercises than in free conversation, the third by-product was the difficulty ratings of activities. The correct production of /ɪ/ in free conversation, the reading exercise in Session 5, and the minimal pair exercise showed the following order of difficulty: free conversation > the contextualized exercise > the minimal pair exercise. The highest percentage of the correct production of /ɪ/ in free conversation occurred in Session 3. However, 66.7% in free conversation in Session 3 was still lower than 73.7% in the reading exercise in Session 5. The reading exercise is a contextualized exercise, so any percentage in free conversation was lower than that in the contextualized exercise in Session 5. The minimal pair exercise in Session 2 showed a higher percentage than the reading exercise, that is, 87.0%. The numbers of obligatory occasions in the reading exercise and the minimal pair exercise were not as large as that of free conversation, but it is clear that the easiest activity for the participant was the minimal pair exercise, that the most difficult activity was free conversation, and that the reading exercise which is a kind of contextualized exercise was in the middle. The results of the correct production of /æ/ were not examined to assess the difficulty ratings of activities, because the range of the percentages of /æ/ was narrow.

This order of difficulty is consistent with Johanson (1973), Dickerson and Dickerson (1997), and Major (1987). Citing Johanson (1973), Tarone (1987) stated that sentence repetition tasks elicit better performance than spontaneous speech. Dickerson and Dickerson (1977) indicated that free speaking is the most difficult activity while word list reading is the easiest, and that dialogue reading lies between the two styles in her experiment on the use of /r/ by Japanese subjects. Major (1987) compared isolated words with free speech. If teachers are aware of this order, it might be helpful in planning a series of pronunciation training, or in modifying their plans after they have started the training. If contextualized exercises are observed to be too difficult for learners, teachers can replace them with isolated word repetition. If learners have aptitude for mimicry, teachers can increase the proportion of free conversation. Table 5. Production of /ɪ/ in Free Conversation, a Reading Exercise, and the Minimal Pair Exercise

/ɪ/ Free conversation in Session 3

Reading exercise in Session 5

Minimal pair exercise

Obligatory occasions 56 19 23 Productions correct /ɪ/ 18 14 20 Total % 66.7 73.7 87.0

This study was limited in scope: The size of speech samples obtained by only one participant was not

large enough and no statistical processing was conducted. However, it produced three by-products mentioned above as well as the answers to the research question. Suggestions for Further Research It would be of interest to explore the effects of emotional state on the production of specific sounds. When the participant was excitingly speaking about her visit to the famous amusement park in free conversation, the accuracy rate dropped. The delayed posttest added to this research design would clarify the lasting effects of seven sessions of instruction.

In four obligatory occasions in free conversation, the participant successfully pronounced /æ/ after a consonant cluster, which was the more difficult vowel for her in the most difficult environment. All four accurate productions were given as repetitions of the utterances of the interviewer, or in the context where the

60

previous utterances of the interviewer contained the same words as she pronounced. The following dialogue is an excerpt of free conversation in Session 2 including “practice.”

Interviewer: Speaking about practice, you’ve got to practice the mandolin, because you belong to the Mandolin Club. How often do you practice the mandolin? Yuri: I usually, I, I want to practice mandolin every day, but now it’s a test, I have a test, so I can’t play the mandolin.

While no explicit instruction was given, the participant successfully echoed the difficult vowel /æ/. This phenomenon provides evidence for the Frequency Hypothesis supported by N. Ellis (2002). It would also be interesting to select two phonemes that are difficult for a participant and treat one of them as a control sound. Explicit instruction on a treatment phoneme is given, while no explicit instruction is provided on the control phoneme. Conclusion Based on the initial diagnostic, the research question of this study was posed: Will seven one-hour-long sessions produce noticeable progress in the pronunciation of /ɪ/ and /æ/ within a Japanese learner of English? As far as /ɪ/ is concerned, seven one-hour sessions can produce noticeable progress in pronouncing /ɪ/ and slight progress in pronouncing /æ/. This study produced three by-products. First, learners might be able to discriminate a certain phoneme, even when they cannot pronounce it correctly. Next, the accuracy of the production of /æ/ can be affected by its phonological environment: /æ/ after a consonant cluster might be more difficult to pronounce for some learners than as the word initial or after a single consonant. The last by-product is that there might be the difficulty ranking of activities: Free conversation might be more difficult than a contextualized exercise, and a contextualized exercise might be more difficult than a minimal pair exercise. These findings can benefit teachers in planning and giving a series of pronunciation training. References Avery, P., & Ehrlich, S. (1992). Teaching American English pronunciation (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford

University Press. Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton. D. M., & Goodwin, J. M. (1996). The sound system and listening. Teaching

pronunciation: A reference for teachers of English to speakers of other languages (pp. 222-246). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Derwing, T. M. (2003). What do ESL students say about their accents? Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 547-566.

Derwing, T., & Munro, M. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: A research-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 379-397.

Dickerson, L., & Dickerson, W. (1977). Interlanguage phonology: Current research and future directions. In S. P. Corder, & E. Roulet (Eds.), The notions of simplification, interlanguages and pidgins (pp. 18-19). Genève, Switzerland: Université, Faculté des Lettres.

Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2), 143-188.

Ioup, G. (2008). Exploring the role of age in the acquisition of a second language phonology. In J. H. Edwards, & M. A. Zampini (Eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition (pp. 41-62). Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.

Jenkins, J. (2001). Pedagogic priorities 1: Identifying the phonological core. The phonology of English as an international language (pp. 123-163). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Johanson, F. A. (1973). Immigrant Swedish phonology: A study in multiple contact analysis. Lund, Sweden: CWK Gleerup.

Major, R. (1987). A model for interlanguage phonology. In G. Ioup & S. H. Weinberger (Eds.), Interlanguage phonology (pp. 101-123). New York, NY: Newbury House.

Prator, C. H. Jr., & Robinett B. W. (1985). Manual of American English pronunciation (4th ed.). Tokyo, Japan: CBS Publishing Japan.

61

Scovel, T. (1969). Foreign accents, language acquisition, and cerebral dominance, Language Learning 19(3-4), 245-253.

Tarone, E. (1987). The phonology of interlanguage. In G. Ioup & S. H. Weinberger (Eds.), Interlanguage phonology (pp. 70-85). New York, NY: Newbury House.

Wong, R. (1985). Does pronunciation teaching have a place in the communicative classroom? In J. Morley (Ed.), Current perspectives on pronunciation: Practices anchored in theory (pp. 226-236). Washington, DC: TESOL.

Wong, R. (1987). Intonation. Teaching pronunciation: Focus on English rhythm and intonation (pp. 55-77). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

62

Part II

63

All You Need is Shadowing: A Quasi-Experimental Pronunciation Study

Vivian Lee In second language classrooms, and especially EFL classrooms, explicit pronunciation instruction is often ignored or given little attention. Pronunciation practice can be an excellent cooperative aspect of language instruction if done correctly, as it boosts the learner's motivation and confidence in their production abilities. Shadowing can be an excellent method of practicing the segmental and suprasegmental aspects of pronunciation, as it engages the student in active participation of realistic discourse in real time. This realistic discourse can include written stories, recorded conversation, media excerpts, or even music lyrics. Because the student is more likely to retain newly learned material if the information is engaging and entertaining, it is in the instructor’s best interest to choose something appropriate for the students and their pronunciation needs. For this project, popular music lyrics were chosen for a shadowing experiment. The lyrics were chosen to be both entertaining and educational, with the learner's ability level in mind. The choice of materials was positively received by the participants, which led to significant improvements to key pronunciation points demonstrated and maintained throughout the study. The participants also demonstrated an improved interest in their personal pronunciation abilities outside of this study, as a result of the work they had completed during the experimental stages. Literature Review When teaching explicit pronunciation to Japanese learners of English, the instructor has many aspects to consider. All Japanese learners have pronunciation-related challenges when acquiring English, due to the distinct differences between the two languages. The phonological systems of Japanese and English are distinctively different. On the segmental level, the Japanese language uses mostly open syllable types with very few consonant clusters. This is considerably different from the English system, which uses both open and closed consonant clusters. Avery and Ehrlich (1992) stated “when learning English, Japanese learners frequently experience difficulty in pronouncing closed syllables” (p. 54). The vowel system in the Japanese language follows a very consistent pattern and only has five distinct vowels. English has significantly more vowels, and follows a much more complex vowel system. English consonants are also an issue for Japanese learners, since many of them do not exist in the Japanese language. Kenworthy (1987) marked specific vowels and consonants as high priority problems for Japanese learners. Noteworthy high priority consonants are /l/, /r/, /f/, /v/, /θ/, /ð/. As noted by Avery and Ehrlich, Japanese also does not have a distinction between tense and lax vowels, making it challenging for learners to distinguish between sounds such as /iy/ and /ɪ/. Research suggests instructors address these challenges by utilizing explicit pronunciation practice using minimal pairs which highlight the positional variations between two consonants or vowels, such as /l/ and /r/.

With respect to suprasegmental pronunciation, Japanese learners have difficulty with English stress patterns, pitch, and rhythm. According to Avery and Ehrlich (1992), Japanese is a syllable-timed language, and completely lacks the reduced vowel /əә/, or shwa. Japanese is also a pitch accent language, in which “the primary indicator of accent is pitch” (p. 137). Further research supports this claim, indicating that because learners tend to transfer pronunciation patterns from their first to second languages, this can create a significant amount of rhythmic errors, resulting in unintelligibility or confusion of meaning (Pennington & Richards, 1986). Suprasegmental pronunciation is now considered in congruence with segmental pronunciation instruction. Aspects of stress and intonation are now given a greater importance in teaching, as it further encourages accurate production of second language speech. The inclusion of a multilevel approach to pronunciation teaching reflects a learner’s developmental sequence, which often does not follow a uniform acquisition structure. Pennington and Richards suggested that learners “lower level motor skills may develop at a different rate from their higher level corresponding mental representations” (p. 218), indicating the need for a multilevel instructional approach.

Shadowing has been used as an effective technique for formal and form-focused pronunciation listening and speaking practice in Japanese classrooms. It is beneficial because it allows the learner to actively listen to native-like pronunciation, while simultaneously allowing for form-focused production. According to

64

Tamai (1997), shadowing is defined as an “active and highly cognitive activity in which learners track speech they hear and vocalize it as clearly as possible while simultaneously listening” (as cited in Hamada, 2014, p. 3). Hamada (2014) has continued to support shadowing as an activity that strengthens the phonological coding system in the working memory of a language learner. This system reinforces the learners’ speech perception and allows the learner to automatize their production of language, which frees up more space in working memory and short-term storage. Research in phonological memory has suggested that shadowing enhances listening comprehension skills, reproduction speed, and pronunciation-related difficulties (Hamada, 2014). When using shadowing in the Japanese classroom, further research has shown that shadowing is best paired with written text, familiar vocabulary, and repeated exposure to the same material (Kuramoto, Shiki, Nishida, & Ito, 2007; Shiki, Mori, Kadota, & Yoshida, 2010). Shiki et al. (2010) further suggests that shadowing is best paired with other activities using similar materials in order to increase the rate of reproduction.

Hamada identified two kinds of shadowing instruction: top-down processing based and bottom-up processing based. These processes are based on the cognitive processes of listening comprehension, as suggested by Richards and Schmidt (2010). Richards and Schmidt introduced the concept of top-down processing as a level of processing where the process originates in the learner’s memory. In top-down processing, the learner is already familiar with the grammatical and semantic content of the listening material and so does not need to dedicate processing power to deciphering these linguistic codes. Bottom-up processing does not have this background knowledge, and the learners tend to focus more on the phonemic items that they are hearing for the first time. In bottom-up processing, shadowing would be considered a phonology-based rehearsal task, since the material is completely unfamiliar (Kadota, 2012). During top-down shadowing, the task is knowledge-based, because the learners have already studied the vocabulary and grammar of the material. Kadota provided a distinction between top-down and bottom-up processing, but also suggest that the two processes are not mutually exclusive. There is typically an overlap of the two processes in the classroom, and it is the instructor’s responsibility to control for form and content understanding challenges.

In order to ensure the best results from participants in an experiment, the learners’ anxiety levels should be reduced as much as possible. The more familiar the learners are with the shadowing materials, the lower the anxiety levels are likely to be. Hamada (2011b) recommended using a familiar target passage when completing a shadowing procedure, as it lowers the psychological strain of production while also reducing anxiety. Using music lyrics fulfills the requirements of having familiar materials, which have simplistic vocabulary and highly repetitive linguistic patterns. Lyrics are also an excellent resource for reduced stress practice and other suprasegmental markers (Miyake, 2011). An incidental factor that all the research available supporting the use of music and music lyrics in shadowing exercises does not mention is the remarkable nature of music. Phrases which have been put to music are much easier to remember, and are more likely to remain in the learner's phonological memory (Miyake, 2014). As stated above, shadowing allows the learner to reduce stress on the working memory while producing language, and the repetitive nature of music acts in a similar manner. It can therefore be suggested that using shadowing and music lyrics together would further reduce the anxiety of learning and encourage a higher rate of acquisition. Methodology Participants All learners that participated in this study were from the same school program during the same academic year. The program that they were chosen from was an immersion EFL full-time based in Tokyo, Japan. All participants were told explicitly what would be expected of them, and volunteered their time outside of regular class without scholastic benefits other than the potential for improvement in their pronunciation abilities. Seven students (three male and four female students) volunteered their time and participated in all trials. The participants varied in age (20-45), and all tested between 500 and 750 on the standardized TOEIC test a few weeks beforehand. The names used during the study were pseudonyms chosen by the participants beforehand, as to protect the identities and privacy of the volunteers.

65

Instrumentation The lyrics to the Beatles song All you need is love were printed and distributed to each participant. The students were recorded individually reading the lyrics aloud as a pretest, to determine their base level pronunciation abilities and to check for which pronunciation markers I would isolate and correct. The markers were then highlighted by the students on their own copies of the lyrics to explicitly isolate them during practice. The participants then received three trials of shadowing sessions with the instructor, and one trial of shadowing with the actual recording of the music, through one-week intervals for four weeks. The students were then informally questioned about their perceived change in their understanding of pronunciation, and the helpfulness of this experiment on their overall language education. Procedures Each participant received a copy of the lyrics to the Beatles song All you need is love and read into a microphone. The participants were each asked after the base reading if they did not understand any vocabulary in the lyrics. The participants stated that they knew every vocabulary item. The recordings were analyzed for common pronunciation errors. The most common errors included the segmentals /l/, /θ/, /v/, the suprasegmental linking of love-is (/lavɪz/), is-love (/ɪzlav/), the substitution of /əә/ for reduced vowels in can (/kəәn/), and that (/ðəәt/). During the Trial 1, the participants were asked to highlight the /l/, /v/, and /θ/ points in the words love and nothing, respectively. As a group, the students shadowed the instructor during the reading of the lyrics without music, at a reduced speed. During the reading, the instructor exaggerated the segmental markers for the participants. The reading was repeated twice. Two days after Trial 1, a second recording was taken from each participant individually. The progress between the base recording and the second recording was documented. The following week, the students were asked to highlight the space between the words love-is and is-love. As a group, the students shadowed the instructor during Trial 2, this time with the segmental markers /l/, /v/, /θ/, as well as the suprasegmental linking markers love-is (/lavɪz/), is-love (/ɪzlav/). The instructor exaggerated all markers with added conducting motions, and the reading was repeated twice. Two days after Trial 2, a third recording was taken from each participant individually. One week later, the participants were asked to cross out the a in can to create /kəәn/, and a in that to create /ðəәt/. A third trial was conducted, with the instructor exaggerating the segmental and suprasegmental markers, while using conducting motions to further draw attention to the target pronunciation. Two days after Trial 3, a final recording of each participant was taken individually, and the results were recorded for analysis. One week later, the final shadowing trial was conducted with the participants, this time with actual music at normal speed. The shadowing was conducted twice. The students were then asked individually how the trials had helped, and if they had found the information useful. Analysis Pretest results indicated that the all participants required explicit instruction on the segmental and suprasegmental levels. The recordings showed that six out of seven students were pronouncing /l/ as a lateral flap, and /v/ as /b/, creating the word rub. The word love occurs 36 times in the song, and so it gave the participants numerous opportunities for repetitive practice. The overwhelming majority of participants mispronounced love 100% of the time during the base test. This pronunciation marker demonstrated the most noticeable change over time, with the average number of correct markers moving from 4 on the pretest, to 22 at Trial 1, 30 at Trial 2, and reaching 100% accuracy at Trial 3.

All participants improved their pronunciation of love significantly over the three trials, but as seen in Table 1, some participants, acquired the new markers quickly, which others did not. This variance can be explained by the participant’s background with the language and their personal interest in improvement. Due to Milky’s background in music and her interest in learning to sing English songs, she had a higher interest in the pronunciation experiment and demonstrated consistently higher results than the other participants.

66

Table 1. Participant Performance on the Pronunciation of love Participant Pretest Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Ashley 0 50 100 100 Sammy 0 27 72 100 Milky 77 100 100 100 Mary 0 80 100 100 Jack 0 72 83 100 Neal 0 55 97 100 Zack 0 38 28 100 Note. All statistics are percentages.

After the first shadowing exercise, the seven participants were recorded individually and the number of correct pronunciation markers were documented. For the recording after Trial 1, only the segmental markers love and nothing were counted, out of 36 and 7, respectively. The nothing marker improved from a mean of 2.1 on the pretest, to 4.2 on Trial 1, to 5. 1 on Trial 2, and 6.4 on Trial 3. Thus, the mean scores increased consistently throughout the experiment, but not all participants were able to maintain the improvement. There was a considerable variation in the rate of improvement among participants, as seen in Table 2. Table 2. Participant Performance on the Pronunciation of nothing Participant Pretest Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Ashley 0 28 85 100 Sammy 0 0 28 71 Milky 42 100 100 85 Mary 71 100 100 100 Jack 100 100 100 100 Neal 0 71 100 100 Zack 0 28 0 85 Note. All statistics are percentages.

Several of the participants (Milky, Mary, Jack, and Neal) were able to successfully produce the nothing marker for the majority of the experiment, and had no difficulty with the /θ/ or /ð/ phonemes. Two participants (Sammy and Zack) demonstrated significantly more difficulty with these markers, and could not maintain the results, despite a clearly conscious effort to improve.

After the second shadowing exercise, the segmental markers love and nothing, and the suprasegmental linking markers is-love/love-is were recorded during individual readings. After the third shadowing exercise, the use of the reduced vowel marker was also documented, along with the other segmental and suprasegmental markers from the first two shadowing exercises. An analysis of the pronunciation markers used correctly was conducted to determine improvement. Compared to the results demonstrated by the love and nothing markers, the linking marker was considerably more difficult to produce for all participants. No participants were able to produce linking markers on the pretest; only Neal was able to produce the appropriate pronunciation by Trial 3. Data for this marker were not collected during the Trial 1 because it was not introduced to the participants until the second shadowing exercise. Linking and sentence-level pronunciation abilities require considerably more skill than that of single word-unit pronunciation, and this is reflected in the results of Trials 2 and 3. Table 3. Participant Performance on the Linking Marker Participant Pretest Trial 2 Trial 3 Ashley 0 50 63 Sammy 0 0 25 Milky 0 88 81 Mary 0 63 75 Jack 0 25 75 Neal 0 75 100 Zack 0 38 44 Note. All statistics are percentages.

67

Results and Discussion The pretest demonstrated a significant need for improvement in several specific pronunciation markers. There was a priority placed on the segmental markers /l/, /v/, and /θ/, to be learned first, since these were the most commonly made mistakes and ones that could most interfere with intelligibility. With the exception of Milky, all participants scored 0 out of 36 on the love marker, which meant that they were unable to produce a clear /l/ or /v/ phoneme at the beginning of the experiment. Some students were able to produce the /θ/ in nothing some of the time, but not with any consistency. Instead, the /θ/ was replaced by the phoneme /s/, indicating a lack of understanding in the positional variations between /s/ and /θ/. No participants produced the suprasegmental markers for linking or reduced vowels during the pre-test recordings. The lack of linking was distinguished by the pronunciation of is as /iyz/, with equal stress on the words love and is. In addition, there was no indication of an understanding of reduced vowels. The word can should have sounded like /kəәn/, with a schwa replacing the open /a/. Instead of /kəәn/ the participants all used /kyan/, and gave equal stress to all words in the sentence. This pronunciation mistake was also repeated with that, which should have also received a reduced vowel schwa to produce /ðəәt/. Instead of /ðəәt/, all participants used /ðyat/ or /zat/, and maintained equal stress weight to all words in the sentence. The combination of these pronunciation errors produced a reading that sounded robotic and lacked the appropriate emotional content.

In order to ensure that the pronunciation markers /l/, /v/, and /θ/, received the most attention, they were highlighted during all three shadowing exercises explicitly. The students were encouraged to over-exaggerate these sounds during the readings, and received the maximum amount of attention. Due to this explicit attention, these markers improved significantly and the corrections were maintained almost consistently throughout the trial readings. During the second shadowing session the linking markers were highlighted. The linking markers were not introduced until the second shadowing exercise, with little success. Several participants still struggled to produce the linking vowel, despite an explicit understanding of what was being observed. Out of seven participants, three were able to produce the linking marker more than 50% of the time. There was a notable difficulty with is love more than love is. This challenge could be explained by the combination of two pronunciation markers at both the segmental and suprasegmental level. The participants were more concerned with accurately producing the /l/ and /v/ sounds than the linking of the two words. Due to the positional variation changes required to produce those sounds, it is possible that is love requires a larger positional change than love is. Despite this possibility, the results were inconsistent, and the participants were not aware of the mistakes they were making.

During the final shadowing exercise, the participants were asked to mark the reduced vowels on their lyric sheets and practiced the suprasegmental markers using conducting motions. The participants had the least amount of success with these markers, with five out of seven failing to make the required changes. The two participants who successfully produced the schwa had the fastest recording times, and were the most comfortable with the material. It should be noted that these two students were also fans of the song and had memorized the lyrics during the month in which the trials were held. The lack of success with vowel reduction could also be due to the presentation of the material. Vowel reduction was introduced only during the third shadowing exercise, and was integrated with the other two segmental and suprasegmental markers. It is possible that the participants were unable to focus on such a complicated pronunciation point in congruence with /l/, /v/, /θ/, and linking sounds.

In order to improve these results, several changes can be made to the trials. First, the participants can be given the pronunciation markers independently instead of sequentially layering them. This change would require more time for acquiring each marker, either using more shadowing during the exercises or longer intervals between the events. Second, the reduced vowel markers can be given more explicit instruction, and the participants can be offered multiple shadowing opportunities that focus on this point. Both potential changes require more shadowing opportunities and more time dedicated by the participants to the experiment.

To determine if these changes have a lasting effect, it would be ideal to administer a delayed posttest several weeks after the final shadowing exercise. A fourth shadowing trial was conducted with recorded music, but the results were difficult to record due to the size of the group. The participants were also uncomfortable singing individually into a recording device, and so these results were undocumented. After the fourth shadowing with music, the participants were interviewed informally as a group to collect their

68

feedback on the experience. All participants agreed that they had noticed a significant change in their pronunciation of /l/, /v/, and /θ/ especially, and several participants stated that they had experienced positive transfer of these improvements to other aspects of their language study. The participants also mentioned that the reduced vowels were the most difficult to produce, and one participant even mentioned that she was unable to hear the difference a reduced vowel made to sentence intonation. Despite these challenges, the experience was generally well received, and the participants expressed a willingness to repeat a similar experiment in the future. Conclusion The use of multiple levels of pronunciation markers produced a mixed success. The segmental pronunciation markers demonstrated significant improvements, yet the suprasegmental markers were not as effective. Despite the combination of these results, the participants did express a positive take-away from the experience, as well as a notable improvement in other aspects of their language learning. For future research, a longer experimental time frame would be beneficial. Also, a comparison group would improve the validity of the data, since it would provide a base comparison. Despite the mixed results of this project, the outcome was still enjoyable for the participants, and educational for everyone involved. References Avery, P., & Ehrlich, S. (1992). Teaching American English pronunciation (6th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford

University Press. Hamada, Y. (2011b). A study on a learner-friendly shadowing procedure. Journal of the Japan Association

for Developmental Education, 6(1), 71-78. Hamada, Y. (2014). The effectiveness of pre- and post-shadowing in improving listening comprehension

skills. The Language Teacher 38(1), 3-10. Kadota, S. (2012). Science of shadowing, oral reading, and English acquisition. Tokyo: Cosmopier. Kenworthy, J. (1987). Teaching English pronunciation. New York, NY: Longman. Kuramoto, A., Shiki, O., Nishida, H., & Ito, H. (2007). Seeking for effective instructions for reading: The

impact of shadowing, text-presented shadowing, and reading-aloud tasks. LET Kansai Chapter Collected Papers, 11, 13-28.

Miyake, S. B. (2011). Pronunciation and music. Sophia University Publications, 24. Retrieved from http://www.jrc.sophia.ac.jp/kiyou/ki24/miyake.pdf

Richards, J.C., Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (4th ed.). London: Pearson Education.

Pennington, M. C., & Richards, J. C. (1986). Pronunciation revised. TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 207-225. Shiki, O., Mori, Y., Kadota, S., & Yoshida, S. (2010). Exploring differences between shadowing and

repeating practices: An analysis of reproduction rate and types of reproduced words. Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan, 21, 81-90.

Tamai, K. (1997). The effectiveness of shadowing and its position in the listening process. Current English Studies, 36, 105-116.

69

The Effect of Text Readability on the Acquisition of Connected Speech

Christopher Nicklin In this paper I investigate the effect of text readability on the acquisition of English as a foreign language (EFL) connected speech. Reading aloud was the main technique used to encourage acquisition on a short course of three lessons. Three Japanese participants with similar, upper-intermediate English language abilities were selected. The participants were faced with the task of reading passages from two respected American writers: F. Scott Fitzgerald, who was lauded for his sophisticated prose; and Ernest Hemingway, who was equally praised for his simplistic writing style. The two writers were selected for their contrasting writing styles. Based upon the research of Britton, Westbrook, and Holdredge (1978), I hypothesize that the acquisition of connected speech might be more successful with the reading of the more eloquent, and therefore more difficult to read, writings of Fitzgerald. Literature Review Connected speech is a widely researched element of English pronunciation. It is also known as “colloquial speech, casual speech, fast speech, informal speech, reduced speech, reduced forms, relaxed speech, sandhi variation and probably many other names” (Brown, 2012). There is a wealth of material available proclaiming the benefits of connected speech for students of English pronunciation. In an analysis of connected speech modification in the English of Japanese English as a second language (ESL) learners, it was observed that one of the main differences between the pronunciation of an Intermediate proficiency group (IP) and a high proficiency group (HP) was the tendency of the IP group to preserve word boundaries, as opposed to the HP group who used more connected speech (Anderson-Hseih, Riney, & Koehler, 1994, p. 31).

Celce-Murcia, Brinton, Goodwin, and Griner (2010) highlighted four areas in which connected speech occurs frequently in English and which should be focused on when teaching connected speech: (a) Consonant-to-vowel linking; (b) Vowel-to-vowel linking; (c) Consonant assimilation; and (d) Palatalization (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010, p. 175). A student exhibiting a strong understanding of these key areas will use English more fluently as in a conversation, as oppose to an artificial, slow, word by word variety (Dauer & Browne, 1992, p. 1). Brown (2012) takes care to emphasize that connected speech is not a lazy or over colloquial speaking style and promoted its use should as a friendly, natural, sympathetic and personal method of pronunciation (Brown, 2012, p. xii).

One method of giving students the opportunity to practice connected is through the use of Reading aloud. Until relatively recently, reading aloud was not considered to be a worthy practise with respect to pronunciation instruction. The negative reputation it procured was due to “inappropriate use” and the fact that it was not seen to be genuinely personally communicative (Gibson, 2008). Gibson wrote of reading aloud’s “virtual rejection” and cited Eskey and Grabe’s (1988) claims that reading aloud can have a negative effect on the chunking of meaningful units, and Celce-Murcia et al.’s (2010) assertion that reading aloud is ineffective because of the controlled and unnatural texts that are used which do not assist pronunciation in spontaneous speech.

Although Gibson (2008) went on to discuss how reading aloud can compromise comprehension of a text, she also proclaims that there should be a reappraisal of the role of reading aloud in language learning as a whole. She is positive about its ability to improve pronunciation by aiding students to acquire prosodic features of English such as stress, pitch and intonation. She stated that longer stretches of texts offer students the opportunity to become aware of the prosodic features which occur in spontaneous speech and allow their practise, which eventually leading to a natural-sounding manner. Franklin, Mooneyham, Baird, and Schooler (2014) suggested similar benefits for reading aloud in a paper which proved that although reading aloud is more likely to promote mind-wandering and hinder comprehension when compared to silent reading, the use of reading aloud creates a situation for students where it might be possible to practise elements of prosody while remaining oblivious to the actual contents of the text being read (p. 205).

Welsch (2006) emphasised the use of texts that are comfortably within the reader’s range and suggests a 5-10% of unknown vocabulary as a maximum. This suggestion is similar to Nation’s (2007) five or

70

preferably one or two unknown words per 100 (p. 2). The amount of potentially unknown, low-frequency words in a text has an effect on its readability rating. Readability is an interaction that occurs between a given text and the reader’s prose-processing capabilities, rather than an actual property of a text, but traditionally it has been measured as a simple element of a text which is objective and easy to determine, but also quite superficial (Miller & Kintsch, 1980, p. 335). An example of this is word frequency or sentence length. Traditional readability scales include the Miller-Coleman Readability Scale (MCRS), the Flesch Reading Ease Scale and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level.

Text readability has also been shown to affect how much cognitive capacity is taken up while it is being read. Britton et al. (1978) presumed that the more difficult a passage was, the more cognitive capacity would be required to read it. The results of their experiment were counterintuitive. They discovered that difficult passages seemed to use less cognitive capacity. The amount of cognitive capacity being used was calculated using the secondary task method, also known as the dual-task paradigm (Hahn, 2004). This involved participants reading texts of various difficulties as the primary task. Occasionally another, secondary signal occurs, which in the case of the experiment was a click. The reaction time of the reader to the click was timed. The more cognitive capacity that was being used for the primary reading task, the less cognitive capacity was available for responding to the click (the secondary task), and the slower the reaction to the secondary signal became (Britton et al, 1978, p. 582).

This study investigated the effect of text readability on the acquisition of connected speech features in the pronunciation of Japanese EFL students. Connected speech features were taught, practised, recorded, and calculated using the sophisticated writing style of F. Scott Fitzgerald and the simpler writing style of Ernest Hemingway. The hypothesis of this investigation was that, based on the study of Britton et al. (1978), connected speech might be acquired more efficiently when practised on a text with a more difficult readability rating. Three research questions were investigated: 1. Can a short course using reading aloud as the main technique result in improvements in a student’s

connected speech? 2. Can greater accuracy in connected speech acquisition be achieved through the use of a text with a more

difficult readability rating than a text with an easier readability rating? 3. Can greater improvement in connected speech acquisition be achieved over a short period of time through

the use of a text with a more difficult readability rating than a text with an easier readability rating? Accuracy scores are calculated as a percentage of correct pronunciation instances for each element of connected speech taught. The investigation of this question is concerned with whether greater accuracy is achieved on a more readable or less readable text. Improvement is calculated as the difference between the scores for the pretest and posttest. Methods Participants There were three participants in this experiment. All three participants were female and Japanese, ages 27, 32 and 38 (M = 32.30 years). Student A studied English Linguistics at university, has spent four weeks in England, and uses English on a daily basis. Student B studied English until leaving junior high school, and lived in North America for one year. Student C studied English until leaving high school, has spent eight weeks in the United Kingdom, and has recently passed the EIKEN 2nd grade examination. Students B and C do not use English on a daily, but have opportunities to speak English throughout the week. All three participants have intermediate EFL proficiency and they have similar scores (range 37.50%-48.00%; M = 41.67%; see Table 1) when tested using the Use of English cloze test section of the Cambridge First Certificate in English (FCE) examination material as an assessment during this study (see Table 1). Table 1. Level Assessment Results (%)

Student Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 M A 42.00 33.00 75.00 48.00 48.00 B 33.00 42.00 50.00 25.00 37.50 C 50.00 8.00 75.00 25.00 39.50

71

Instruments F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby (1925) and Ernest Hemingway’s The Sun Also Rises (1926) were the two books selected for testing purposes. Hemingway wrote with a raw and powerful style (Donaldson, 1999, p. 70), while Fitzgerald was more lyrical and traditional (p. 182). Samples were chosen from the beginnings of chapters with a view to avoid dialogue, as specified by Derwing, Munro, and Carbonaro (2000). The experiment required one passage from each author to serve as a pretest and posttest reading. Three more passages from each author were required for use in three lessons, giving a total of eight passages. The guide for this experiment recommended passages of 100-300 words. Based on this information I decided that my passages should be as close to 150 words as possible. The opening passages from the first five chapters of each book were copied into Microsoft Word. Ten passages were chosen instead of eight to allow for any chapters that had a deviant effect on the overall average readability of the texts to be dropped. The passages were created by choosing the end of the sentence, which resulted in a passage length closest to 150 words from the start of the chapter (see Appendices A and B). As with the treatment of audio samples by Munro and Derwing (1999), it was not practical to edit the texts into segments of identical word length, because this would have provided samples with mid-sentence endings inappropriate for RA. The length of the ten passages ranged between 142-173 words (M = 156.70).

The ten passages were analysed using Microsoft Word to determine their readability using Flesch Reading Ease scores and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (see Tables 2 and 3). The analysis of the Fitzgerald chapters (see Table 2) showed that Chapter 5 had a significantly higher Flesch Reading Ease rating which affected the average score (Av.1) for all of the passages. Table 2. Readability Analysis of Fitzgerald Passages Chapter 1 2 3 4 5 Av.1a Av.2b Flesch Reading Ease 52.00 53.20 62.80 59.70 78.70 61.30 57.00 Flesch-Kincaid Grade 13.70 13.80 10.50 10.50 6.10 10.90 12.13

a Average rating, including Chapter 5, which was rated as being much easier. bRecalculated average rating without Chapter 5. Table 3. Readability Analysis of Hemingway Passages Chapter 1 2 3 4 5 M1a M2 b Flesch Reading Ease 68.10 74.70 79.70 83.40 75.60 76.30 78.30 Flesch-Kincaid Grade 8.10 7.30 6.50 6.50 5.90 6.90 6.50

a Average rating, including Chapter 1, which was rated as being much easier. bRecalculated average rating without Chapter 1.

Chapter 5 was dropped and the average was recalculated (Av.2). Similarly for the Hemmingway passages, Chapter 1 had a significantly lower Flesch Reading Ease score and a higher Flesch-Kincaid Grade rating, which meant that it was more difficult than the other chapters and affected their average scores (see Table 3). Chapter 1 was dropped and the averages were recalculated. The average Flesch Reading Ease score of the four Fitzgerald passages was calculated as being 21.3 points lower than the corresponding score for the Hemingway passages. The average Flesch-Kincaid Grade level of the Fitzgerald passages was calculated as being 5.6 grades higher than the corresponding level for the Hemingway passages. Both of these results showed the readability of the Fitzgerald passages to be more challenging than the Hemingway passages. To confirm the difference in sophistication between the two sets of passages, the vocabulary of the eight selected passages was also analysed using Cobb’s Web Vocabprofiler (http://www.lextutor.ca/vp/eng/) (see Tables 4 and 5). The initial analysis showed the vocabulary of the two sets of passages to be fairly evenly matched in terms of the composition of their vocabulary. The four Fitzgerald passages had an average of 80.18% for words from the K1 word family and the Hemingway passages had an average of 83.05%. Table 4. Lexical Composition of the Fitzgerald Passages Families Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 M K1 words % 88.20 73.13 77.40 81.99 80.18 K2 words % 3.11 11.88 7.34 4.97 6.82 AWL % 4.35 2.50 0.00 0.62 1.87 Off-list % 4.35 12.50 15.25 12.42 11.13

72

Table 5. Lexical Composition of the Hemmingway Passages with Non-English Vocabulary Excluded Families Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 M K1 words % 84.93 88.44 87.74 84.56 86.42 K2 words % 5.48 5.44 7.10 7.38 6.35 AWL % 2.05 0.00 0.00 1.34 0.85 Off-list % 7.53 6.12 5.16 6.71 6.38

Table 6. Incidents of Connected Speech in Pretest and Posttest Passages Connect Speech Type Fitzgerald 1 Hemingway 2 C-V Linking 40 36 V-V Linking 9 11 C assimilation 27 26 C stop + C (17) (18) Identical consonant (1) (5) Nasal assimilation (9) (3) Palatalization 1 0

The four Fitzgerald passages had an average of 11.13% for words that were off-list and the

Hemingway passages had an average of 9.98%. These results were slightly misleading. The off-word vocabulary from the Fitzgerald passages consisted of words such as aquaplane, cataracts, fruiterer, ravages toiled, and shears. The off-list vocabulary from the Hemingway passages consisted of foreign words such as brioche, boulevard, Sorbonne, and rue. The results were recalculated with the exclusion of the foreign words so that the results reflected the difference in level of the texts that had been illustrated by the Flesch score and the Flesch-Kincaid level.

As mentioned above, Celce-Murcia et al. suggested four areas which should be highlighted when teaching connected speech and provided four worksheets for use with students when teaching these areas (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010, pp. 176-179). All eight passages were analysed for incidents of these four areas (see Table 6). Fitzgerald Passage 1 and Hemingway Passage 2 were chosen to be pretest and posttest passages as they were chronologically the earliest passages that were chosen from the respective texts. Due to the fact that only three sessions of instruction were planned, and also that there was only one incident of palatalization across both of the test passages, the teaching of this area of connected speech was dropped for the experiment. Procedure Sessions were conducted once a week for five weeks. The one-week interval between lessons was strictly adhered to in accordance with the psycholinguistic research evidence suggesting that it takes around a week to integrate new phoneme sequences into the mental lexicon (Saito, 2013, p. 523). Although connected speech is not a phoneme sequence, it was assumed that rules governing such speech could take a similar time to be acquired. Each session was a private lesson situation with one teacher and one student present. Pretest and Posttest Fitzgerald Chapter 1 was presented to the participant to read silently followed by a discussion to clarify the meaning of unknown vocabulary. The participant was then recorded whilst reading the passage without any practice. The same procedure was repeated using Hemingway Passage 2. The pretest and posttest were identical in implementation, except for the administration of a post-project questionnaire when the final session was completed. Lessons One-hour sessions were arranged three times over a three-week period. Participants were given a different passage to read each week. Week 1 was Fitzgerald Chapter 2 and Hemingway Chapter 3, week 2 was Fitzgerald Chapter 3 and Hemingway Chapter 4, and week 4 was Fitzgerald Chapter 4 and Hemingway Chapter 5. The Fitzgerald passage was presented to the student to read silently before a discussion to clarify the meaning of both the text, and any unknown vocabulary. The student was recorded reading the passage without practicing. A connected speech treatment was administered using explicit instruction and student worksheets (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010, pp. 176-178). Session 1 covered C-V linking, Session 2 covered C-C

73

linking, and Session 3 covered V-V linking. The passage was then read by the teacher in accordance to the previewing strategy suggested by Welsch (2006). The student was encouraged to listen for instances of connected and to make note of them on their copy of the passage. The participant and the teacher then read through the passage together and highlighted instances of pre-taught connected speech patterns. The pronunciation of such instances was practiced. When the student was comfortable with the text, a second recording was made and the same procedure of silent preparation, discussion, initial recording, explicit instruction, previewing, practice and final recording was repeated with the Hemingway chapter. A post-session questionnaire was administered at the end of each session (see Appendix C) and a post-project questionnaire was administered after the posttest in the final session (see Appendix D). Results All of the recordings were analysed for incidents of connected speech and the results were recorded. For the pretest and posttest, all elements of connected speech that were taught were counted. For the first lesson, only incidents of C-V linking were counted, as this was the only element taught at this stage as according to the lesson plans provided by Celce-Murcia et al. (2010, pp. 176-178). Similarly, for the second lesson only C-V linking and consonant stop-consonant assimilation were counted.

The results of the pretest and the posttest for each passage were analysed (see Tables 7 and 8). It is clear to see that improvements were made in the majority of areas of connected speech taught for all of the participants. For the Fitzgerald passage, the participant’s average scores showed a 33.50% accuracy increase in C-V linking, a 33.53% accuracy increase in consonant stop to consonant (C stop-C) linking, and a 14.45% increase in V-V linking. Table 7. Results of Analysis for Connected Speech Accuracy in Pretest and Posttest Fitzgerald Readings

Pretest accuracy Posttest accuracy Student Score % Score % Improvement (%) Student A C-V linking 12/40 30.00 25/40 62.50 32.50 C stop-C 4/17 23.53 10/17 58.82 35.29 Ident. C-C 1/1 100.00 1/1 100.00 0.00 V-V 3/9 33.33 6/9 66.67 33.34 Student B C-V linking 4/40 10.00 8/40 45.00 35.00 C stop-C 4/17 23.53 10/17 58.82 35.29 Ident. C-C 1/1 100.00 1/1 100.00 0.00 V-V 2/9 22.22 4/9 44.44 22.22 Student C C-V linking 12/40 30.00 25/40 62.50 32.50 C stop-C 4/17 23.53 1/17 52.94 29.41 Ident. C-C 1/1 100.00 1/1 100.00 0.00 V-V 4/9 44.44 3/9 33.33 -11.11 Av. For all students C-V linking 9.3/40 23.25 22.7/40 56.75 33.50 C stop-C 4/17 23.53 9.7/17 57.06 33.53 Ident. C-C 1/1 100.00 1/1 100.00 0.00 V-V 3/9 33.33 4.3/9 47.78 d14.45

There was a 0.00% increase in identical consonant linking as all students achieved 100% accuracy

during both readings. For the Hemingway passage, the participants showed a 27.78% increase in C-V linking, a 23.89% increase in consonant stop to consonant (C stop-C) linking, and a 6.00% increase in identical consonant linking. There was a 0.00% increase in V-V linking.

When the results of each passage were compared it was observed that, on average, greater accuracy was achieved on the more difficult Fitzgerald passage than the Hemingway passage in all areas of connected speech that were taught (see Table 9). The only exception to this result was student C in C stop-C linking (Fitzgerald accuracy 52.94%; Hemingway accuracy 55.56%).

The posttest results were further analysed for improvement as a percentage value. This value was obtained by subtracting the pre-test accuracy percentage score from the posttest accuracy percentage score. On average, greater improvement was shown on the Fitzgerald passage for three of the four areas of

74

connected. speech: C-V linking, C stop-C linking, and V-V linking. Greater improvement was shown in the Hemingway passage for identical C-C linking. This element was produced with 100% accuracy on the pretest and posttest by all participants on the Fitzgerald passage, thus making improvement impossible. Table 8. Results of Analysis for Connected Speech Accuracy in Pretest and Posttest Hemingway Readings Pretest accuracy Posttest accuracy Student Score % Score % Improvement (%) Student A C-V linking 7/36 19.44 16/36 44.44 25.00 C stop-C 4/18 22.22 6/18 33.33 11.11 Ident. C-C 3/5 60.00 3/5 60.00 0.00 V-V 1/11 9.09 2/11 18.18 9.09 Student B C-V linking 2/36 5.56 9/36 25.00 19.44 C stop-C 1/18 5.56 6/18 33.33 27.77 Ident. C-C 4/5 80.00 5/5 100.00 20.00 V-V 1/11 9.09 1/11 9.09 0.00 Student C C-V linking 3/36 8.33 18/36 50.00 41.67 C stop-C 4/18 22.22 10/18 55.56 33.34 Ident. C-C 5/5 100.00 5/5 100.00 0.00 V-V 3/11 27.27 2/11 18.18 -9.09 Average C-V linking 4/36 11.11 14/36 38.89 27.78 C stop-C 3/18 16.67 7.3/18 40.56 23.89 Ident. C-C 4/5 80.00 4.3/5 86.00 6.00 V-V 1.7/11 15.45 1.7/11 15.45 0.00

On an individual basis, students A and B showed greater improvement when reading the Fitzgerald passage in all areas except identical C-C linking. As both students achieved 100% in both the pre-test and the posttest for the Fitzgerald passage, improvement was impossible. Student C was again the exception to the rule, showing greater improvement in three out four areas for the Hemingway passage: C-V linking, C stop-C linking, and V-V linking. Again, as 100% was achieved in both the pre-test and the posttest for the Fitzgerald passage, improvement was impossible. Table 9. Posttest Accuracy and Improvement for the Fitzgerald and Hemingway Passages Fitzgerald posttest Hemingway posttest

Student Accuracy Accuracy (%) Improvement

(%)

Accuracy Accuracy

(%) Improvement

(%) Student A C-V linking 25/40 62.50 32.50 16/36 44.44 25.00 C stop-C 10/17 58.82 35.29 6/18 33.33 11.11 Ident. C-C 1/1 100.00 0.00 3/5 60.00 0.00 V-V 6/9 66.67 33.34 2/11 18.18 9.09 Student B C-V linking 18/40 45.00 35.00 9/36 25.00 19.44 C stop-C 10/17 58.82 35.29 6/18 33.33 27.77 Ident. C-C 1/1 100.00 0.00 5/5 100.00 20.00 V-V 4/9 44.44 22.22 1/11 9.09 0.00 Student C C-V linking 25/40 62.50 32.50 18/36 50.00 41.67 C stop-C 9/17 52.94 29.41 10/18 55.56 33.34 Ident. C-C 1/1 100.00 0.00 5/5 100.00 0.00 V-V 3/9 33.33 -11.11 2/11 18.18 -9.09 Avearge C-V linking 22.7/40 56.75 33.50 14/36 38.89 27.78 C stop-C 9.7/17 57.06 33.53 7.3/18 40.56 23.89 Ident. C-C 1/1 100.00 0.00 4.3/5 86.00 6.00 V-V 4.3/9 47.78 14.45 1.7/11 15.45 0.00

75

Discussion For this investigation three research questions were posed: (a) Can a short course using reading aloud as the main practice method be used to improve a student’s connected speech?; (b) Can greater accuracy in connected speech acquisition be achieved through the use of a text with a more difficult readability rating than with a text of an easier readability rating?; and (c) Can greater improvement in connected speech acquisition be achieved over a short time through the use of a text with a more difficult readability rating than with a text of an easier readability rating?

In response to the first research question, the results showed that a short course using reading aloud as a main practice method can be used to improve a student’s connected speech. When reading the Fitzgerald passage, all participants improved their connected speech in all areas that were taught (see Table 9). Identical C-C linking should be considered exempt from these results. Improvement in this area was impossible because all students achieved 100% accuracy on the pretest. This implies that the participants had no problem with this area of connected speech before the investigation started. There was one exception to this trend: a decrease in V-V linking by student C. When reading the Hemingway passage, on average participants improved their connected speech in all areas that were taught, except for V-V linking. Table 10. Participants Posttest Opinions Regarding Connected Speech Production Element Student A Student B Student C Easiest to identify V-V C-V V-V Most difficult to identify C stop-C Ident. C-C C-V Easiest to pronounce C-V C-V V-V Most difficult to pronounce C stop-C V-V C-V

When this was analysed further, it was discovered that all students recorded low scores in this area on

the Hemingway passage. The highest score achieved was 27.27% by student C in the pre-test, which equated to three correct productions from a possible 11. The only case of regression in the Hemingway results was produced by the same student, caused by a drop to two correct productions from 11 in the posttest. Student A’s improvement was caused by an increase from one correct production in the pretest to two correct productions on the posttest. Student B achieved one correct production in both pretest and posttest. These results indicate that V-V linking was a difficult area of connected speech for all students. This could be because V-V linking involves the use of a /y/ or /w/ glide, which is not clearly visible. For example, /iy/ in be a sport. The V-V linking in Hemingway Chapter 2, which was used as the pretest and posttest, might have been particularly difficult. In the equivalent category for the Fitzgerald passage, scores of 6, 4 and 3 from 9 possible productions were recorded by students A, B and C, respectively. In contradiction to poor results illustrated for V-V linking, particularly on the Hemingway passage, in the post-experiment questionnaire Student C chose V-V linking as the easiest element to identify and pronounce, despite it being her weakest area statistically (see Table 10). The reasons for this are unclear. It is possible that Student C found V-V linking the easiest during the instruction exercises, presumed that they were the easiest when reading, and did not realise that she was mispronouncing them when reading aloud. If these results can be used to show that V-V linking was the most difficult to acquire of the four elements tested, the high scores shown in identical C-C linking show that element to be the easiest, with only one student, student A, not showing 100% accuracy on both passages in the posttest. As previously mentioned, this suggests that the students were aware of C-C linking and had no problems with it before the experiment started.

If we dismiss the V-V linking productions and all cases where improvement was impossible, the results clearly show that the participant’s connected speech was improved upon during the course of the experiment. These results agree with Gibson (2008), Franklin (2013) and Nation (2009) in showing that reading aloud can be a useful tool in the acquisition of pronunciation, in this case connected speech. This could be because reading aloud gives students the opportunity to focus on elements of connected without having to think about other processes of production which would usually take priority, for example grammar accuracy or correct vocabulary selection. It also gives students the chance to hear their own voices when reading a text rather than just reading to themselves without oral production. This could also help to make students recognise the various elements of connected and understand how they work.

76

In response to the second research question, greater accuracy was achieved through the use of the more difficult Fitzgerald passage. The only exceptions were instances of 100% accuracy for Identical C-C linking in both passages by students B and C, and the greater accuracy for C stop-C linking shown by student C on the Hemingway passage (see table 9). These results support the findings of Britton et al. (1978), who stated that if more cognitive capacity is used for a primary reading task, the less cognitive capacity is available for a secondary task. In the case of this experiment, the more difficult the passage, the less cognitive capacity was used for the primary task of reading. This made more cognitive capacity available for the secondary task, the production of pre-taught connected speech. Britton et al (1978) presented a cognitive interpretation of the dual-task paradigm that suggested that there are frequent breakdowns in comprehension processes when reading a difficult passage. These breakdowns can be seen to temporarily clear the short-term memory and other processor spaces, which in turn make cognitive capacity available for more focus on a secondary task. This is not the case for easier passages as the cognitive processors are full due to focus on comprehension, leaving significantly less space available for a secondary task. During this experiment, it seemed that when participants were more focused on the comprehension of the easier text, less cognitive capacity was available for connected speech. When participants were reading the more difficult passage, the breakdowns in comprehension allowed more focus on the connected speech items that they had learnt.

In response to the third research question, greater improvement in corrected speech accuracy levels was achieved using the more difficult Fitzgerald passage. On average, all areas except identical C-C linking showed greater improvement on the Fitzgerald passage (see Table 9). This area should be discounted because all participants achieved 100% in the pre-test for the Fitzgerald passage, making improvement impossible. These results also support the work of Britton et al (1978) as previously stated.

The performance of student C in regards to the third research question leads into the first limitation of this experiment. Although on average all areas of connected speech showed greater improvement on the more difficult Fitzgerald passage, when considered individually student C was an exception. Student C showed greater improvement on the Hemingway passage in C-V linking, C stop-C linking, and V-V linking. If this experiment had been performed with only student C, the results would not have correlated with the work of Britton et al. (1978). If this experiment had been performed with only students A and B, the results would have supported the work of Britton et al. (1978). Therefore, a major limitation of this experiment is the number of students. For the hypothesis that connected speech can be better acquired through reading aloud using a more difficult text than an easy text to be fully accepted, a larger sample of people needs to be experimented with. A sample pool of at least 24 participants in future studies should be tested. This was the number used in the original experiment of Britton et al. (1978).

The second limitation of this experiment was the length of time allowed for the experiment. All lessons took place over a five-week period. The results show no evidence that the connected speech acquired during this period would be successfully carried over into the future. Further research should test students connected speech at various times after the initial experiment has concluded. For example, one month later, six months later, and one year later. If the participants achieved similar levels of accuracy in connected speech at these time junctures after the initial experiment, it can be said that the use of reading aloud with a difficult text was successful in helping EFL students to acquire certain connected speech patterns.

The third limitation of this experiment was the differences between the two test passages in terms of the number of instances of each element of connected speech. For example, the Fitzgerald passage contained one instance of identical C-C linking compared to five instances on the Hemingway passage. This made the achievement of 100% accuracy easier for the Fitzgerald passage than the Hemingway passage, and also made improvement impossible if 100% was achieved in the pre-test. This affected the results as it created exceptions to trends that might not have been exceptions if even numbers of instances had been used for each passage. Further research should find a way of balancing the number of instances of each element between the two passages more successfully.

The pedagogical implications of this paper are not simple. On one hand, reading aloud proved popular with the participants of this study. All of the participants in this experiment selected the highest possible mark (Very useful) on a 6-point-Lickert scale when asked: (a) Do you think that reading aloud is useful for pronunciation practice?; and (b) Do you think that reading aloud is useful for studying English? (see Appendix D). On the same scale, the top mark was also selected by all participants for the question, Was the

77

model provided by the teacher useful for your production?, which supports the method of previewing advocated by Welsch (2006). By using the once maligned technique of reading aloud, all of the participants of this experiment have shown a greater awareness of connected speech. This awareness is one of the benefits of reading aloud that Gibson (2008) wrote about and could potentially lead to carry over outside of the classroom. This implies that reading aloud can be used as a successful tool for practicing and raising awareness about elements of connected speech.

On the other hand, although the results suggest that accurate acquisition of connected speech was achieved more readily with the more difficult to read passages of Fitzgerald, the results are somewhat deceiving. It would be disingenuous to suggest that presenting students with a passage that they find difficult is the best way to improve connected speech. There were several times during this experiment when students commented that they were having difficulties with the meaning of a sentence. From a pedagogical point of view this is not good. It goes against other research that suggests that the main focus on the learning should be on “understanding, and gaining knowledge or enjoyment or both” (Nation, 2007, p. 2). Although this paper has shown that accurate acquisition of elements of connected speech is possible with a difficult passage, it is unverified if this type of acquisition will be carried over into the future, or even outside of the classroom. Conclusion This paper has shown that EFL connected speech can be successfully acquired using the method of reading aloud. Even if the accuracy in connected speech displayed by the participants of this experiment is not carried over into the future, it has shown that reading aloud can be used to raise student’s awareness of the importance of connected speech.

It has also shown that EFL connected speech can potentially be acquired more accurately and successfully using a more difficult text than with an easier text. This second claim would be subject to further investigation as this current study was limited by several factors including sample size, lack of evidence regarding carry over, and inherent differences between the two test passages. References Anderson-Hsieh, J., Riney, T., & Koehler, K. (1994). Connected speech modifications in the English of

Japanese ESL learners. IDEAL, 7, 31-52. Britton, B. K., Westbrook, R. D., & Holdredge, T. S. (1978). Reading and cognitive capacity usage: Effects of

text difficulty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4(6), 582-591. Brown, J. D. (Ed.). (2012). New ways in teaching connected speech. Alexandria, VA: TESOL International

Association. Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., Goodwin, J. M., & Griner, B. (2010). Teaching pronunciation: A course

book and reference guide (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cobb, T. (n.d.) Web Vocabprofile English in the Complete Lexical Tutor. Retrieved January 29, 2014 from

http://www.lextutor.ca/vp/eng/ Dauer, R. M., & Browne, S. C. (1992). Teaching the pronunciation of connected speech Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.libproxy.temple.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED354777&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Carbonaro, M. (2000). Does popular speech recognition software work with ESL speech? TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 592-603.

Donaldson, S. (1999). Hemingway vs. Fitzgerald: The rise and fall of a literary friendship. New York, NY: The Overlook Press.

Eskey, D., & Grabe, W. (1988). Interactive models for second language reading. In P. Carrell (Ed.), Interactive approaches to second language reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fitzgerald, F. S. (1999). The Great Gatsby. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 221-233. Franklin, M., Mooneyham, B., Baird, B., & Schooler, J. (2014). Thinking one thing, saying another: The

behavioral correlates of mind-wandering while reading aloud. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(1), 205-210.

Gibson, S. (2008). Reading aloud: A useful learning tool? ELT Journal, 62(1), 29-36.

78

Hahn, L. D. (2004). Primary stress and intelligibility: Research to motivate the teaching of suprasegmentals. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 201-223.

Hemingway, E. (2003). The sun also aises. New York, NY: Scribner. Kaisse, E. M. (1985). Connected speech: The interaction of syntax and phonology. Orlando, FL: Academic

Press. Miller, J. R., & Kintsch, W. (1980). Readability and recall of short prose passages: A theoretical

analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6(4), 335-354. Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1999). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of

second language learners. Language Learning, 49, 285-310. Nation, I. S. P. (2007). The four strands. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching. 1(1), 1-12. Nation, I. S. P. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL reading and writing. New York, NY: Routledge. Saito, K. (2013). The acquisitional value of recasts in instructed second language speech learning: Teaching

the perception and production of English /ɹ/ to adult Japanese learners. Language Learning, 63(3), 499-529.

Welsch, R. G. (2006). Increase oral reading fluency. Intervention in School & Clinic, 41(3), 180-183. Appendix A: Fitzgerald Passages Chapter 1 In my younger and more vulnerable years my father gave me some advice that I’ve been turning over in my mind ever since. “Whenever you feel like criticizing any one,” he told me, “just remember that all the people in this world haven’t had the advantages that you’ve had.” He didn’t say any more, but we’ve always been unusually communicative in a reserved way, and I understood that he meant a great deal more than that. In consequence, I’m inclined to reserve all judgments, a habit that has opened up many curious natures to me and also made me the victim of not a few veteran bores. The abnormal mind is quick to detect and attach itself to this quality when it appears in a normal person, and so it came about that in college I was unjustly accused of being a politician, because I was privy to the secret griefs of wild, unknown men. Chapter 2 About half way between West Egg and New York the motor road hastily joins the railroad and runs beside it for a quarter of a mile, so as to shrink away from a certain desolate area of land. This is a valley of ashes—a fantastic farm where ashes grow like wheat into ridges and hills and grotesque gardens; where ashes take the forms of houses and chimneys and rising smoke and, finally, with a transcendent effort, of men who move dimly and already crumbling through the powdery air. Occasionally a line of gray cars crawls along an invisible track, gives out a ghastly creak, and comes to rest, and immediately the ash-gray men swarm up with leaden spades and stir up an impenetrable cloud, which screens their obscure operations from your sight. But above the gray land and the spasms of bleak dust which drift endlessly over it, you perceive, after a moment, the eyes of Doctor T. J. Eckleburg. Chapter 3 There was music from my neighbor’s house through the summer nights. In his blue gardens men and girls came and went like moths among the whisperings and the champagne and the stars. At high tide in the afternoon I watched his guests diving from the tower of his raft, or taking the sun on the hot sand of his beach while his two motor-boats slit the waters of the Sound, drawing aquaplanes over cataracts of foam. On week-ends his Rolls-Royce became an omnibus, bearing parties to and from the city between nine in the morning and long past midnight, while his station wagon scampered like a brisk yellow bug to meet all trains. And on Mondays eight servants, including an extra gardener, toiled all day with mops and scrubbing-brushes and hammers and garden shears, repairing the ravages of the night before. Every Friday five crates of oranges and lemons arrived from a fruiterer in New York—every Monday these same oranges and lemons left his back door in a pyramid of pulpless halves. Chapter 4 On Sunday morning while church bells rang in the villages alongshore, the world and its mistress returned to Gatsby’s house and twinkled hilariously on his lawn. “He’s a bootlegger,” said the young ladies, moving somewhere between his cocktails and his flowers. “One time he killed a man who had found out that he was nephew to Von Hindenburg and second cousin to the devil. Reach me a rose, honey, and pour me a last drop into that there crystal glass.” Once I wrote down on the empty spaces of a time-table the names of those who came to Gatsby’s house that summer. It is an old time-table now, disintegrating at its folds, and headed “This schedule in effect July 5th, 1922.” But I can still read the gray names, and they will give you a better impression than my generalities of those who accepted Gatsby’s hospitality and paid him the subtle tribute of knowing nothing whatever about him. Appendix B: Hemingway Passages Chapter 2 That winter Robert Cohn went over to America with his novel, and it was accepted by a fairly good publisher. His going made an awful row I heard, and I think that was where Frances lost him, because several women were nice to him in New York, and when he came back

79

he was quite changed. He was more enthusiastic about America than ever, and he was not so simple, and he was not so nice. The publishers had praised his novel pretty highly and it rather went to his head. Then several women had put themselves out to be nice to him, and his horizons had all shifted. For four years his horizon had been absolutely limited to his wife. For three years, or almost three years, he had never seen beyond Frances. I am sure he had never been in love in his life. Chapter 3 It was a warm spring night and I sat at a table on the terrace of the Napolitain after Robert had gone, watching it get dark and the electric signs come on, and the red and green stop-and-go traffic-signal, and the crowd going by, and the horse-cabs clippety-clopping along at the edge of the solid taxi traffic, and the _poules_ going by, singly and in pairs, looking for the evening meal. I watched a good-looking girl walk past the table and watched her go up the street and lost sight of her, and watched another, and then saw the first one coming back again. She went by once more and I caught her eye, and she came over and sat down at the table. The waiter came up. "Well, what will you drink?" I asked. "Pernod." "That's not good for little girls." Chapter 4 The taxi went up the hill, passed the lighted square, then on into the dark, still climbing, then levelled out onto a dark street behind St. Etienne du Mont, went smoothly down the asphalt, passed the trees and the standing bus at the Place de la Contrescarpe, then turned onto the cobbles of the Rue Mouffetard. There were lighted bars and late open shops on each side of the street. We were sitting apart and we jolted close together going down the old street. Brett's hat was off. Her head was back. I saw her face in the lights from the open shops, then it was dark, then I saw her face clearly as we came out on the Avenue des Gobelins. The street was torn up and men were working on the car-tracks by the light of acetylene flares. Brett's face was white and the long line of her neck showed in the bright light of the flares. Chapter 5 In the morning I walked down the Boulevard to the Rue Soufflot for coffee and brioche. It was a fine morning. The horse-chestnut trees in the Luxembourg gardens were in bloom. There was the pleasant early-morning feeling of a hot day. I read the papers with the coffee and then smoked a cigarette. The flower-women were coming up from the market and arranging their daily stock. Students went by going up to the law school, or down to the Sorbonne. The Boulevard was busy with trams and people going to work. I got on an S bus and rode down to the Madeleine, standing on the back platform. From the Madeleine I walked along the Boulevard des Capucines to the Opéra, and up to my office. I passed the man with the jumping frogs and the man with the boxer toys. I stepped aside to avoid walking into the thread with which his girl assistant manipulated the boxers. Appendix C: Post-Lesson Questionnaire Fitzgerald Passage#: ________________ Was the passage difficult or easy to read? Was the passage boring or interesting? Hemmingway Passage#: ________________ Was the passage difficult or easy to read? Was the passage boring or interesting? Difficult words [Fitzgerald]: Difficult words [Hemingway]: Notes: Appendix D: Post-Project Questionnaire 1. Do you think that Reading Aloud is useful for pronunciation practice? 2. Do you think that Reading Aloud is useful for studying English? 3. Is Reading Aloud enjoyable? 4. Is Reading Aloud enjoyable or embarrassing? 5. Was the model provided by the teacher useful for your understanding of connected speech? 6. Which element of connected speech was the easiest/most difficult to identify? 7. Which element of connected speech was the easiest/most difficult to pronounce? 8. Any further comments relating to the project?

80

Explicit Primary Stress Instruction and Reading Aloud to Improve Comprehensibility

Garrett S. DeOrio This study began with the realization that high-level undergraduate English learners observed in college classes over a period of three years frequently had a surprising weakness: Many students with excellent English conversational ability, high levels of fluency, easily intelligible pronunciation, and high levels of communicative competence in one-to-one or small group conversation were far less comprehensible when giving presentations or speeches, even though they had time to prepare that they did not have in conversational situations. Students who were confident and capable became difficult to understand, even when simply reading aloud. Through repeated observation, it became apparent that the biggest problem for many of these students was lapsing into a monotone or placing stress at the beginnings of sentences, then fading away, becoming quieter and more monotone toward the ends of sentences. As many of these students aspired to study abroad, participated in English speaking clubs, and were otherwise fairly regularly expected to speak publicly, the ability to deliver comprehensible presentations and speeches as well as to speak at length comprehensibly was important to their goals in EFL study.

Morley (1991) listed analyzing learners’ speech and focusing on the features that can bring about the biggest change in intelligibility as the first responsibility of a teacher-as-coach. With this responsibility in mind, I decided to provide explicit instruction in primary stress to the high-proficiency participants in this study. Literature Review A number of studies have demonstrated the importance of suprasegmental factors in fluency and comprehensibility (Derwing, Munro, & Wiebe, 1998; Derwing & Rossiter, 2003; Hahn, 2004; McNerney & Mendelsohn, 1992). However, few students receive extensive explicit instruction in pronunciation, much less take courses focused on pronunciation (Naiman, 1992), which means teachers are often forced to prioritize those elements that will bring about the biggest changes in the limited time available. McNerney and Mendelsohn (1992) stated that suprasegmentals had the most noticeable effect on learners’ comprehensibility and should, therefore, be the focus of a short-term pronunciation course. Derwing, Munro, and Wiebe (1998) suggested that explicit instruction in suprasegmentals, including primary stress, was more likely than segmental instruction to help learners achieve native-like spontaneous speech. Derwing and Rossiter (2003) found that learners instructed in suprasegmentals showed greater improvement in fluency and comprehensibility than learners instructed in segmentals. Most relevant to this study, Hahn (2004) showed that stressing new information and de-stressing old information in a standard given-new stress connection (GNSC) pattern made non-native speakers more comprehensible to native speakers, suggesting that instruction in primary stress might be helpful to non-native speakers. A focus on GNSC and primary stress would also be most likely to improve the comprehensibility of high-proficiency learners who already have a fairly high level of intelligibility in conversation.

As the importance of suprasegmentals has been demonstrated, other studies (Dalton & Seidlhofer, 1994) have shown that suprasegmental factors, including primary stress, can be taught, while still others have shown that explicit instruction can bring about improvements in fluency and comprehensibility. Pennington and Ellis (2000) found that learners receiving explicit instruction in suprasegmentals improved primary stress production, while Derwing et al. (1998) saw improved fluency and comprehensibility in learners who received 20 minutes of daily instruction in suprasegmentals. Dickerson (1987) observed that Chinese, Japanese, and Korean students who received explicit instruction hesitated slightly in initiating speech, but improved in fluency and accuracy when given time for a “covert rehearsal” before speaking (p. 134). In order to improve both fluency and comprehensibility in periods of spontaneous production as well as in presentations or speeches, learners need the new knowledge they acquire to become automatic (Pennington & Richards, 1986), so they can speak more clearly without hesitating while considering how to speak. Crawford (1987) demonstrated that explicitly taught rules could become automatic, which would allow learners to improve fluency and comprehensibility together, given time to practice.

81

Instruction in suprasegmentals is most effective when practice occurs in a meaningful context (Levis, 1999; Pennington & Richards, 1986). Reading aloud can be a useful way to provide that context and to increase both fluency and comprehensibility because it allows learners to focus on suprasegmental factors without the need to think of what to say or to remember a passage (Gibson, 2008). Reading aloud has received a number of criticisms and is still frequently avoided by many teachers of communicative courses (Gibson, 2008). However, repeated reading aloud activities have been shown to improve fluency and accuracy of word recognition in elementary school students, which is necessary to improving comprehension (Musti-Rao, Hawkins, & Barkley, 2009). Takeuchi, Ikeda, and Mizumoto (2012) found neither benefit nor harm in repeating reading aloud activities with adults, but provided physiological evidence for the benefits of level appropriate reading aloud activities in their study of cerebral activation in L2 reading aloud activities, when they found that greater cerebral activity resulted from reading aloud in L2 than reading aloud in L1 and that the difficulty of the material presented had a significant impact on the effects of reading aloud.

Reading aloud can also be part of a study regimen that improves L2 proficiency overall, including fluency and comprehensibility. Stevick (1989) interviewed seven learners who had achieved high levels of L2 proficiency and found that most of them used reading aloud to practice pronunciation and intonation as well as to learn new words.

One useful method of helping learners improve fluency in reading aloud is for an instructor or peer to preview readings for them by reading the passages involved aloud, allowing the learners a chance to hear the phrasing and context before they read aloud (Welsch, 2006). Previewing also gives learners a chance to focus on pronunciation before reading, as they can hear where stresses are placed, how unfamiliar words are pronounced, and the general patterns of intonation used by the reader. Finally, reading aloud can help learners assimilate the instruction they have received into their automatic skill set (Chun, 2002), which allows them to further improve both fluency and comprehensibility in spontaneous production as well as reading aloud activities.

With the above in consideration, this study was intended to answer the following questions: 1. Can explicit instruction in primary stress, combined with previewing, help high-proficiency English

learners produce more natural sentence stress patterns when reading aloud? 2. Are there differences in those learners’ accuracy in terms of primary stress and GNSC (Hahn, 2004) when

reading texts of different levels of difficulty? 3. Will improvements gained in reading aloud affect learners’ fluency and comprehensibility in spontaneous

production? Method Participants The participants in this study were two female students at a private university in Tokyo, who had recently completed their second year of undergraduate study. Both participants’ L1 was Japanese. During the seven-week period of this study, both participants were preparing, on their own, for an upcoming TOEFL sitting, but did not receive any outside EFL instruction.

The first participant, called MT for the purposes of this study, was 21 years old, majored in International Communication, began studying English at two years old, and attended an international primary and secondary school in Tokyo, where EFL instruction was a major component of the curriculum, some content courses were taught in English, and she had frequent opportunities to interact with native speakers of English. She also studied English in conversation classes outside of the international school. However, since graduating from high school, MT reported few opportunities to use English outside of her EFL classes at the university. At the time of this study, she was preparing to study at a university in the United Kingdom as part of a one-year exchange program. MT had recently received scores of 765 on TOEIC and 65 on TOEFL. MT spoke with a high degree of fluency and confidence and little noticeable accent.

The second participant, called AH for the purposes of this study, was 20 years old, began studying English at a conversation school at seven years old, and had elementary school English classes as part of the standard curriculum. Her major at university was English, which entailed multiple EFL classes every semester and included English as the medium of instruction for some non-EFL classes. AH had studied ESL and taken regular classes at a Canadian university for six months the previous year. She reported few opportunities to

82

use English outside of her university classes while in Japan. AH had received a score of 705 on TOEIC and passed Grade 2 on the EIKEN test, which is the Japanese Ministry of Education’s target standard for high school graduates. AH spoke with a clearly noticeable accent, but was highly comprehensible and fairly fluent.

In addition to the student volunteers, this study used four native English-speaking (NS) evaluators: one Australian, one Canadian, and two Americans, all of whom lived in Japan, spoke Japanese at a high conversational level or better, and heard English spoken by Japanese-speakers on a regular basis. None of the evaluators had EFL or ESL teaching experience or training in TESOL, phonology, or linguistics. Instrumentation Five readings from the BBC Learning English and Voice of America Special English (VOA) news websites were selected for Flesch Reading Ease Score ([FRES], Flesch, 1948) and Flesch-Kincaid (F-K) Grade Level (Kincaid, Fishburne, Rogers, & Chissom, 1975) and edited for length. (See Appendices A-E for the original passages.) The readings ranged from an FRES of 84.1 to 63.8 and F-K Grade Level 5.5 to 9.7 and from 177 to 248 running words. The findings of Takeuchi et al. (2012) suggested that reading aloud material that was level-appropriate and varied led to the greatest degree of cerebral stimulation, which can indicate that such material is most likely to lead to improvement in L2 proficiency. Therefore, the range of difficulty in the readings presented was intended to allow assessment of participants’ primary stress placement and comprehensibility as they read increasingly challenging texts. Readings from news sites were chosen because both participants had completed university EFL courses that involved reading newspaper articles in English, making them familiar with the style and format of short news articles. Each of the readings was on a different topic. Details of the word count, readability, and lexical breakdown of each reading can be seen in Table 1. Table 1. Lexical Breakdown of Readings Reading: A B C D E Word count 248.00 182.00 203.00 177.00 210.00 Difficulty 84.10 76.30 71.40 65.80 63.80 Grade level 5.50 6.50 7.80 9.50 9.70 K1 words 84.21% 74.03% 84.24% 77.4% 78.10% K2 words 4.86% 4.97% 4.43% 1.69% 9.52% AWL 0.40% 2.76% 4.43% 2.26% 1.90% Off-list words 10.53% 18.23% 6.90% 18.64% 10.48% Note. Difficulty = FRES, Grade level = Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, K1 words = 1–1,000 high-frequency words, K2 words = 1,001–2,000 high-frequency words, AWL = Academic Word List words. Reading ease and grade level measurements from https://readability-score.com and lexical measurements from http://www.lextutor.ca/vp/eng/ In addition to the readings, participants briefly described their activities in the preceding week at the beginning of each session and ended each session by summarizing what they had read. These periods of spontaneous production were used to assess changes in stress placement and comprehensibility that occurred as a result of the instruction the participants received or the reading aloud activities in which they engaged. All readings by the participants and instructor and all spontaneous productions were recorded as stereo mp3 audio files (320 kbps) on a high-quality portable digital recorder. The same device was used to play back the recordings for the evaluators. Procedure The participants met with the instructor conducting this study six times over a seven-week period. In Session 1, the participants silently read Passage A as a pre-test and were allowed to ask questions in order to confirm comprehension. Then each participant, in turn, read Passage A aloud. The instructor gave a brief explanation of primary stress and where it often falls in English phrases and sentences, reading two sentences from Passage A as he marked the primary stresses for the participants to see. Following this explanation, the participants were allowed to ask questions in order to confirm their understanding of the concept. The instructor then read the entire passage aloud and asked the participants to mark the stresses they heard as they listened. After the instructor read, each participant read the passage aloud once more. Finally, each participant briefly summarized her understanding of Passage A. (For a flowchart of the typical procedure, see Appendix F.) Derwing et al. (1998) found that 20 minutes of daily instruction in suprasegmentals, including primary

83

stress, helped improve comprehension and fluency; therefore, the participants were asked to practice reading aloud by reading Passage A or another brief text of their own choosing aloud at home a few times each day.

In Sessions 2-5, the participants began by briefly explaining, in a casual chat, what they had done during the preceding week. These explanations were recorded and used to establish the participants’ fluency and comprehensibility before reading aloud practice. Each participant, in turn, then read the new passage for that session, while the other participant was asked to listen for main ideas and was allowed to take notes as she listened. The order of reading was alternated, so that MT read first in Sessions 2 and 4, while AH read first in Sessions 3 and 5. The order of reading was alternated in order to give both participants equal opportunity over the course of the study to listen to the passages being read aloud before reading aloud themselves.

After both participants read aloud, the instructor read the same passage, asking the participants to mark the primary stresses they heard. Each participant then read the passage aloud once more. Finally, each participant was asked to summarize what she had read and heard and to explain the reactions she had to the content of the passage. This spontaneous production was used to assess changes in fluency or comprehensibility that occurred over the course of the session.

In the final session, each participant read each passage once, meaning each participant read each of the five passages aloud three times over the course of the study. Each participant was then asked to explain which passage she found most interesting and why. Finally, each participant was asked to explain her plans for the remainder of the vacation and the upcoming university semester. The recordings of the passages and spontaneous production from Session 6 were used to assess improvements in fluency and comprehensibility that occurred over the course of the study. Analysis The recordings of each of the passages as well as five spontaneous production recordings (from the beginning of sessions one and three and the ends of Session 2, 4, and 6) were rated by the NS evaluators. Each evaluator was given the same brief explanation of primary stress that the participants had received, then heard a recording of the instructor reading Passage D to use as the basis of comparison for the participants’ recordings. Each evaluator heard the participants’ recordings in a random order, so no evaluator knew the order in which the passages he heard were recorded. For each recording, the evaluators were asked to rate the participant’s fluency on a scale of one to six, with one being the least native-like and six being the most native-like, and to rate the participant’s comprehensibility on a scale of one to six, with one being incomprehensible and six being completely comprehensible. A scale of 1 to 6 was chosen to reduce the chances of a neutral response, there being no middle position. The NS evaluators did not meet to form a consensus on the exact meaning of each of the six points of the scale used, nor were the points defined for them. See Table 2 for the rating scale used. Table 2. Fluency and Comprehensibility Rating Scale

ßß Less fluent More fluent àà Halting, not at all

fluent 1 2 3 4 5 6 Native-like

ßß Less comprehensible More comprehensible àà Incomprehensible 1 2 3 4 5 6 Completely

comprehensible Results and Discussion Ratings The evaluators rated each recording in the same range. No rating was more than 1 point from the next rating (e.g., each recording that received a 5 from one evaluator received a 4 from another evaluator) and the total ratings for each recording fell within a 3-point spread (e.g., when 2 was the lowest rating, 4 was the highest), with a 2-point spread being most common and some recordings receiving the same rating from all four evaluators. All four evaluators rated MT slightly more highly than AH on all recordings as well. This shows that the NS evaluators generally agreed on the value of the points on the rating scale, even though they had not had an opportunity to form an explicit consensus on the matter.

84

Reading Aloud The first research question asked if previewing and explicit instruction in primary stress and GNSC could help high-level EFL learners improve fluency and comprehensibility in reading aloud. The fluency and comprehensibility in reading aloud of both participants improved over the course of the study. For each passage, the second reading was given equal or higher ratings for both fluency and comprehensibility than the first reading. In most cases, the third reading was rated more highly than the second. The ratings show a clear pattern of improvement in both fluency and comprehensibility for both participants, particularly between the first and second readings, which occurred within the same session. All of the third-time readings occurred in the last session and show smaller, but still consistent improvement. Comparison of the ratings for the earliest reading in the study (i.e., the first recording of Passage A) and the ratings for any of the third-time readings shows improvements of between 0.75 points and 1.75 points on the six point scale. No recording from the second through sixth sessions received a lower rating than the recordings from Session 1. For the average ratings given to each participant for each reading, see Tables 3 and 4. Table 3. Average Fluency Ratings for Reading Aloud Passages

MT Fluency AH Fluency A 1st time

B 1st time

C 1st time

D 1st time

E 1st time

A 1st time

B 1st time

C 1st time

D 1st time

E 1st time

3.50 3.75 3.75 4.00 3.75 2.75 3.00 3.00 3.50 3.50

A 2nd time

B 2nd time

C 2nd time

D 2nd time

E 2nd time

A 2nd time

B 2nd time

C 2nd time

D 2nd time

E 2nd time

4.25 4.50 4.25 4.25 4.75 3.50 3.75 3.75 4.00 4.25

A 3rd time

B 3rd time

C 3rd time

D 3rd time

E 3rd time

A 3rd time

B 3rd time

C 3rd time

D 3rd time

E 3rd time

4.50 4.75 4.75 4.50 4.75 4.25 4.50 4.00 4.25 4.50 Table 4. Average Comprehensibility Ratings for Reading Aloud Passages

MT Comprehensibility AH Comprehensibility A 1st time

B 1st time

C 1st time

D 1st time

E 1st time

A 1st time

B 1st time

C 1st time

D 1st time

E 1st time

4.50 4.50 5.00 4.75 5.00 4.00 4.25 4.00 4.75 4.75

A 2nd time

B 2nd time

C 2nd time

D 2nd time

E 2nd time

A 2nd time

B 2nd time

C 2nd time

D 2nd time

E 2nd time

5.25 5.00 5.50 5.50 5.25 4.50 4.75 4.75 5.00 5.00

A 3rd time

B 3rd time

C 3rd time

D 3rd time

E 3rd time

A 3rd time

B 3rd time

C 3rd time

D 3rd time

E 3rd time

5.50 5.50 5.75 5.25 5.25 5.25 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

Both participants showed a generally consistent pattern of improvement despite the increasing FRES difficulty and increasing F-K Grade Level of each successive passage, which suggests that the increases in the participants’ fluency and comprehensibility occurring in each session outweighed the increases in difficulty of the passages. It is possible that the participants’ comprehension of the texts improved at a faster rate than the difficulty of the texts increased. However, this explanation is unlikely as the participants asked roughly the same number and type of questions following each silent reading, viz. they asked about the pronunciation of proper nouns and the meaning of no more than two words per passage, most often none. Furthermore, an improvement in reading comprehension of roughly one Flesch-Kincaid grade level per week with no instruction outside of the reading aloud practice sessions conducted as a part of this study would be improbable, even for high-level learners. For these reasons, the results suggest that either the difficulty of the readings did not exceed the participants’ comprehension or that the ability of learners to read a text aloud fluently and comprehensibly might not be directly connected to the their ability to easily comprehend the text.

The structure of this study allowed for three possible explanations for the participants’ improvements in fluency and comprehensibility in reading aloud activities: (a) instruction in primary stress and the

85

application of the rules learned, (b) previewing, and (c) general improvement as a result of increased use of English during the period of the study. Explicit Instruction The explicit instruction element of the study occurred only in Session 1 and occurred in conjunction with previewing. The effects of the explicit instruction element could not be isolated from the effects of practice or the effects of the instructor’s modeling. Therefore, this study alone could not provide sufficient data to demonstrate the efficacy or inefficacy of explicit instruction per se as a method of improving fluency and comprehensibility in reading aloud. In retrospect, the failure to isolate explicit instruction from previewing and modeling was a design flaw in the study. Furthermore, this study did not produce sufficient data to confirm or challenge the findings of Derwing et al. (1998) that explicit instruction in suprasegmentals improved fluency and comprehension, or the findings of Pennington and Ellis (2000) that explicit instruction improved primary stress production. Likewise, this study was unable to support or challenge the recommendation of Hahn (2004) that NNS in situations requiring extensive speaking be given instruction in GNSC.

In a follow-up interview conducted nine weeks after the conclusion of the original study, both participants said they found the explanation of primary stress useful and that it had changed the way they thought about pronunciation. However, both participants also said that they rarely consciously considered pronunciation or intonation except when speaking publicly.

The fluency and the comprehensibility ratings for both participants improved between the first and second readings for every passage, usually by an increment larger than the improvements between the second and third readings, even though more time elapsed between the second and third readings. The second reading of each passage immediately followed the previewing of the passage by the instructor. This seems to indicate that previewing is the most likely cause of the improvements, thus offering support for the previewing strategy recommended by Welsch (2006). The participants might have been imitating the instructor’s reading or relying on short-term memory to produce more fluent comprehensible readings on the second attempt, which could indicate a lack of lasting improvement. However, the fluency ratings of the first reading for both participants increased or stayed the same in every session except one (MT, Session 5, Passage E–first time) and the comprehensibility ratings of the first reading for both participants increased or stayed the same in every session but two (MT, Session 4, Passage D–first time; AH, Session 3, Passage C–first time). This shows that the improvements in both fluency and comprehensibility carried over from each session to the next. Spontaneous Production The improvements in fluency and comprehensibility achieved by each participant in the reading aloud activities seemed to affect spontaneous production as well. The fluency and comprehensibility ratings for the spontaneous production recordings showed a clear pattern of overall improvement, with both participants receiving better ratings for fluency and comprehensibility in later sessions than earlier sessions and with both participants receiving their ratings of lowest fluency and lowest comprehensibility in the first recording at the beginning of Session 1, and their ratings of highest fluency and highest comprehensibility in the last recording at the end of the last session. Table 5 shows average fluency and comprehensibility ratings on the spontaneous production recordings. Table 5. Average Fluency and Comprehensibility Ratings for Spontaneous Production

Fluency 1st recording 2nd recording 3rd recording 4th recording 5th recording MT 4.75 4.75 5.00 5.25 5.25 AH 4.00 4.00 3.75 4.25 4.25

Comprehensibility 1st recording 2nd recording 3rd recording 4th recording 5th recording MT 5.25 5.25 5.50 5.25 5.50 AH 4.50 4.75 4.75 5.25 5.50

Neither participant reported speaking English with another person outside of the sessions with the

instructor during the period of this study, as the study occurred during a university vacation, although both listened to recordings of spoken English in the form of TOEFL preparation recordings and practice materials

86

on the BBC Learning English website. Both participants reported reading aloud at home for five to ten minutes, three or four times per week. This means that the improvements in productive skills came either as a result of reading aloud practice or of the listening practice the participants undertook on their own. As reading aloud was the only productive activity in which the participants engaged and the fluency and comprehensibility ratings for spontaneous production improved slightly, it seems reasonable to infer that this study supports the findings of Chun (2002), that reading aloud can help new prosodic patterns become established. The application of explicitly taught rules regarding primary stress, combined with reading aloud practice and instructor modeling, seemed to help lead to increased comprehensibility without sacrificing fluency, which might be seen as support for the findings of Crawford (1987) that explicitly taught rules can become automatic. The fact that the improvements seen in fluency and comprehensibility in spontaneous production follow a pattern similar to the improvements in reading aloud fluency and comprehensibility seem to lead to a qualified affirmative answer to the third research question, regarding improvements in reading aloud affecting improvements in spontaneous production.

Hahn (2004) found that differences in GNSC patterns had an effect on native speaker listeners’ perceptions of a speaker beyond intelligibility, with native speakers perceiving the speaker as rambling or less interesting when stress was not placed in the standard GNSC pattern in a lecture. This study also produced an interesting and unexpected result in that two of the four native speaker evaluators independently expressed surprise at the change in the recordings of AH, in particular. Both were surprised that they were hearing the same person. Both asked if they were not, in fact, hearing three different speakers. One repeatedly said, “This cannot be the same girl,” while listening to the last spontaneous production recording (despite not knowing it was the last recording). The reason for the difference in perception cannot be definitely discerned, but it was one of the few points on which any of the native speaker evaluators specifically commented. Conclusion Both participants showed consistent increases in fluency and comprehensibility throughout the study and both showed the most noticeable improvement following the previewing of each passage, suggesting that hearing a passage read can help high-level learners place primary stress in a more target-like pattern. Neither participant received lower ratings on a second or third reading, which shows that the gains achieved through previewing, explicit instruction, or both can be maintained for at least a few weeks.

The overall pattern of improvement in fluency and comprehensibility ratings in the reading aloud activities as well as in spontaneous production shows that previewing and explicit instruction in primary stress and GNSC combined with reading aloud can be useful in helping EFL learners improve overall comprehensibility in longer periods of oral production. However, further studies are necessary before more definite conclusion can be reached. In particular, the two methods of instruction–explicit instruction and previewing–should be isolated and studied separately, so that the cause of improvements in fluency or comprehensibility that occur can be more accurately discerned. Furthermore, improvements in primary stress and GNSC cannot be definitively said to be the cause of the improvements the native speaker evaluators heard. A study comparing the perception of primary stress between native speakers and non-native speakers and specifically measuring the production of primary stress by speakers would help determine the reasons that increases in fluency and comprehensibility followed explicit instruction in primary stress and reading aloud activities. A similar study to this one, utilizing a control group would help determine both the magnitude of the improvements made by the participants and also the reasons for those improvements.

In the end, although the reasons for the change cannot be definitively stated, this study showed that high-proficiency learners can achieve appreciable gains in fluency and comprehensibility in reading aloud and spontaneous production in a brief period of time, thus demonstrating the potential value of the focus on suprasegmental factors advocated by Derwing et al. (1998) and Derwing and Rossiter (2003). References Chun, D. (2002). Discourse intonation in L2: From theory to practice. Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins. Crawford, W.W. (1987). The pronunciation monitor: L2 acquisition considerations and pedagogical priorities. In J.

Morley (Ed.), Current perspectives on pronunciation (pp. 103-121). Washington, DC: TESOL. Dalton, C., & Seidlhofer, B. (1994). Pronunciation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

87

Derwing, T., Munro, M., & Wiebe, G. (1998). Evidence in factor of a broad framework for pronunciation instruction. Language Learning, 48(3), 393-410.

Derwing, T., & Rossiter, M. (2003). The effects of pronunciation instruction on the accuracy, fluency and complexity of L2 accented speech. Applied Language Learning, 13(1), 1-17.

Dickerson, W. B. (1987). Explicit rules and the developing interlanguage phonology. In A. James & J. Leather (Eds.), Sound patterns in second language acquisition (pp. 121-140). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris.

Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 221-233. doi: 10.1037/h0057532

Gibson, S. (2008). Reading aloud: A useful learning tool? ELT Journal, 62(1), 29-36. Hahn, L. (2004). Primary stress and intelligibility: Research to motivate the teaching of suprasegmentals. TESOL

Quarterly, 38(2), 201-223. Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975). Derivation of New Readability

Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel (No. RBR-8-75). Naval Technical Training Command Millington TN Research Branch.

Levis, J. (1999). Intonation in theory and practice, revisited. TESOL Quarterly, 33(1), 37-63. McNerney, M., & Mendelsohn, D. (1992). Suprasegmentals in the pronunciation class: Setting priorities. In P.

Avery & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), Teaching American English pronunciation (pp. 185-196). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Morley, J. (1991). The pronunciation component in teaching English to speakers of other languages. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 481-520.

Musti-Rao, S., Hawkins, R., & Barkley, E. (2009). Effects of repeated readings on the oral reading fluency of urban fourth-grade students: Implications for practice. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 54(1), 12-23.

Naiman, N. (1992). A communicative approach to pronunciation teaching. In P. Avery & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), Teaching American English pronunciation (pp. 163-171). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pennington, M., & Ellis, N. (2000). Cantonese speakers’ memory for English sentences with prosodic cues. The Modern Language Journal, 84(3), 372-389.

Pennington, M., & Richards, J. (1986). Pronunciation revisited. TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 207-225. Stevick, E. (1989). Success with foreign languages: Seven who achieved it and what worked for them. Hemel

Hempstead: Prentice Hall International. Takeuchi, O., Ikeda, M., & Mizumoto, A. (2012). Reading aloud activity in L2 and cerebral activation. RELC

Journal, 43, 151-167. doi: 10.1177/0033688212450496 Welsch, R. (2006). Increase oral reading fluency. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(3), 180-183. Appendix A: Reading Passage A (Session 1/Pretest)

The Story of a Reporter and His 25-Year-Old Boots People who have to stand for a long time–like soldiers, police officers, and reporters– need strong footwear that also feels good.

Steve Herman has been traveling the world with the same pair of boots for almost 25 years. But he has worn them so much that they may now be unwearable. Here is Steve Herman to tell us the story of a man and his boots.

The story begins in Japan and moves to the city of Portland in the northwest American state of Oregon. The city is home to one of the last American shoe factories.

I bought the boots at a store in Tokyo. I think it was in 1991. The boots are leather and can be worn in the water. They keep your feet from getting wet. I have worn them for up to 36 hours and they still felt good. They are the best-fitting boots I have ever owned. I love my boots.

I have not been hurt in any of my dangerous reporting work while wearing my boots. So I consider them lucky. Recently, I had to decide if I should continue to wear my boots. I had them on my feet during the meltdown at Japan’s Fukushima

nuclear power center in March 2011. I was close to the center when the tsunami hit and damaged the factory. Then, I went to the center to report on the crisis. (From http://learningenglish.voanews.com/)

88

Appendix B: Reading Passage B (Session 2) Oldest Holocaust Survivor Dies

The woman thought to be the oldest survivor of the Nazi holocaust has died in London at the age of 110. Alice Herz-Sommer was born into a Jewish family in Prague and spent two years in the Nazi camp at Terezin, or Theresienstadt, located in what is now the Czech Republic.

Alice Herz-Sommer had to face some of the worst events of the 20th Century: her husband died in the Dachau concentration camp. But she remained an optimist with a faith in humankind.

Born in 1903, she knew the writer Franz Kafka as a family friend. Alice was taught piano: when she played, she said, she was with God. At Theresienstadt she was allowed to play still, which made her think the camp would not be so bad.

She was lucky to get out alive with her young son. Stephan, she said, had helped her survive. Alice Herz-Sommer: "Love! When you love somebody it's beautiful. People complain. Why complain?" Next week, a documentary about Alice Herz-Sommer's life is up for an Oscar.

(From http://www.bbclearningenglish.com/) Appendix C: Reading Passage C (Session 3)

Many big cities have one annual marathon race; London has two–one on dry land, the other on water. Actually, the Great River Race is not a marathon; it is too short and it is a boat race. Starting west of London, participants have to

row their boats 22 miles, as far as the London docks, in the East. The race is a new event. The first race took place in 1988. The idea was born in 1987, when members of a very old professional group rowed a copy of a 16th century royal barge from

Hampton Court to the Tower of London. In 1988, they challenged other traditional boats to a race. Boats that want to take part must all be of traditional design, with at least

four oars or paddles; also, each boat has to carry at least one passenger. Over the years, the race has become a very colorful event, with the participation of a wide variety of boats. While most are ordinary

rowing boats, there are also Viking longships and other unusual boats. In 1995, for instance, the race was won by a Chinese dragonboat, in a record time of two hours, six minutes and 31 seconds. (From http://www.bbclearningenglish.com/) Appendix D: Reading Passage D (Session 4)

In one of the first Bond novels, Ian Fleming tells us that James Bond - the classic Englishman - was the son of a Scottish father and an Oriental mother, but perhaps this was not really true.

The title of the 19th Bond film, The World is Not Enough, was based on the Latin motto of the Bond family, which is mentioned in one of the early novels. However, it now appears that the motto is not that of the Scottish Bonds, but that of a different Bond family, who came from the Southwest of England, so perhaps Bond really is English, not Scottish, after all. Who knows?

Bond went to school in England, anyway - to Eton College, the same school as his creator Ian Fleming. This is where Princes William and Harry were educated, and also many British Prime Ministers, including David Cameron. It is a school where young people learn how to move in high society, like Bond does so well.

After leaving school, Bond did not go to university - it wasn’t necessary in the 1950s. (From http://www.bbclearningenglish.com/) Appendix E: Reading Passage E (Session 5)

Drought and Snow: Extreme US Weather It has been a week of extreme weather in the United States. The East Coast was hit by a huge snowstorm which affected

one-hundred million Americans in more than twenty states. Meanwhile, on the West Coast, California continues to experience its worst drought in living memory.

After burying the American East Coast in snow all the way from Georgia up to Maine, the storm has moved north to Canada. It has left an icy trail of destruction in its wake; hundreds of thousands of homes are still without power, mostly in southern states like the Carolinas, which are used to milder winter weather.

The extreme conditions are being blamed for at least twenty-five deaths, mostly in traffic accidents on roads that are slick with ice. Thirty people were injured in a multi-car pileup in Pennsylvania and more than 14,000 flights have been cancelled this week so far.

89

President Obama has left the snow in Washington for the West Coast, where he has been talking about a very different type of extreme weather; California is in the midst of its worst drought in a hundred years. He promised federal money to help deal with what he called a "very challenging situation". (From http://www.bbclearningenglish.com/) Appendix F: Procedure of Sessions 2-5

The order of RA was reversed in every other lesson, so that the first participant read first in Sessions 2 and 4 and second in Sessions 3 and 5.

Participants briefly explain their reactions to the content of the passage.

2nd participant reads passage aloud again.

1st participant reads passage aloud again.

Instructor previews passage. Participants mark perceived primary stresses as they listen.

2nd participant reads passage aloud.

1st participant reads passage aloud.

Participants silently read passage for comprehension and ask questions about content.

Participants briefly explain their activities during the preceding week.

90

A Case Study: Can Raising Awareness of Suprasegmentals Improve Listening Comprehension?

Mayumi Abe

Being an instructor for Japanese adult learners of English, I often hear the complaint from my students that they cannot understand a text in listening while they can easily understand the same text by reading. Many of them claimed that they could not catch the sounds of the words such as prepositions and pronouns (i.e., unstressed function words), while some said that longer sentences were difficult to follow and could not comprehend the meaning. In spite that there are a number of differences between the pronunciations of Japanese and English, it is not so common that English sound system is explicitly taught in English classes at Japanese regular schools, probably because of the limited amount of time (Avery & Ehrlich, 1992). As the result, the learners tend to comprehend the English sounds through the Japanese sound framework, as pointed out that L1 transfer is prevalent in the acquisition of L2 pronunciation (Ellis, 2008; Leather, 1999).

In this paper, I conducted an experiment in which a participant, a Japanese high school student, was taught suprasegmentals of English pronunciations based on the hypothesis that he could improve his listening comprehension by being aware of those features because they were thought to be major causes for the complaints stated above. The participant was taught them explicitly, and worked on shadowing practice being conscious of them. In the following sections, first, I review existing literatures to explain why this experiment is relevant and significant, and then, describe the details of the experiment and discuss the results, which proved the effectiveness of the instruction and validated the hypothesis to some extent. Literature Review In this section, the following issues are discussed drawing on existing studies: segmental vs. suprasegmentals, English suprasegmentals for Japanese learners of English, and instruction of suprasegmentals. I begin with the discussion on segmentals vs. suprasegmentals. Segmentals vs. Suprasegmentals Pronunciation of a language has two aspects, segmentals and suprasegmentals, and traditionally, the instruction of pronunciation mainly focused on segmental features such as individual vowels and consonants (Celce-Murcia, Brinton, Goodwin, & Griner, 2010; Wong, 1987). However, the focus of the pedagogy has been transferred to more suprasegmental-centered rather than segmentals-focused recently (Celce-Murcia et al.; McNerney & Mendelsohn, 1992; Naiman, 1992).

This trend is based on a number of empirical studies that showed suprasegmentals such as word stress, sentence stress, and intonation have more impact on intelligibility in English pronunciation. For example, Munro and Derwing (1999) investigated the influence of foreign accents on intelligibility, and found that it was not the accents but prosodic errors that caused the loss of intelligibility. Hahn (2004) examined the relations between primary stress (i.e., sentence stress) and intelligibility and suggested that correctly placed primary stress plays a significant role in listeners’ comprehensibility.

There are also studies that suggested suprasegmentals can influence receptive listening comprehension as well as productive intelligibility. For instance, Major, Fitzmaurice, Bunta, and Balasubramanian (2002) compared the degree of comprehension of accented speech among nonnative speakers of English with different L1s, and inferred that the rhythm of their L1s, especially stress-timed or syllable-timed, was one of the factors that determined the degree of their comprehension irrespective of the speech accents. Although we see mixed results in empirical researches on the correlations between suprasegmental instruction and listening comprehension ability (e.g., Azami, 2006; Romanini, 2008; Sawaengmongkon, 2013), it is probably widely accepted that recognition of sounds can contribute to listening comprehension, and suprasegmentals has a great impact on both productive and receptive skills (Avery, Ehrlich, & Jull, 1992; Celce-Murcia et al., 2010).

In this way, the focus of pronunciation pedagogy has transferred from segmentals to suprasegmentals with the purpose of improving intelligibility, and probably listening comprehension as well, so it would be worthy to discuss what suprasegmental features should be focused and how they can be taught.

91

English Suprasegmentals for Japanese Learners of English To find out what suprasegmental features should be focused in instruction, it would be helpful to know what features are more problematic for the learners. When adult learners learn a second language, L1 transfer frequently occurs especially in phonological acquisition (Avery & Ehrlich, 1992; Ellis, 2008; Leather, 1999), and it is not so surprising that Japanese learners of English apply Japanese suprasegmental features to English speech in spite of the far distance between English and Japanese suprasegmentals. According to Wong (1987), there are five key elements in English suprasegmentals: stress (i.e., word stress), accent (i.e., sentence stress), vowel type (i.e., full and reduced vowels), syllable structure (i.e., closed and open syllables), and pauses that clarify phrasal boundaries (pp. 23-24). The typical problems for Japanese learners are discussed below focusing on these five factors.

First, the difference between stressed and unstressed syllables/words is difficult to recognize for Japanese learners (Avery & Ehrlich, 1992). English is a stress-timed language while Japanese syllable-timed so that Japanese learners of English tend to pronounce each syllable, both stressed and unstressed, with equal weight not only when they speak Japanese but also when speaking English. The gap between stress and unstressed can take place within words (i.e., word stress) and sentences (i.e., sentence stress). Within a word, a gap is made by the factors such as word stress, reduced vowels, and open/closed syllables, and in sentences, a gap is made by the factors such as linking and pauses. Most of these factors do not exist in Japanese sound system so that they are difficult for Japanese learners of English to acquire. For example, reduced vowels can be difficult for Japanese learners to notice because they do not exist in Japanese language. Closed syllables also can be problematic for Japanese speakers. English pronunciation consists of both open and closed syllables while Japanese sound system has only open syllables but not closed ones except one sound /n/ so that Japanese native speakers often insert a vowel after every consonant (e.g., [sutoriyto] for street). It is also known that closed syllables are marked compared to open syllables (Ellis, 2008; Leather, 1999) so that closed syllables cannot be learnt easily. There is also a possibility that Japanese speakers do not notice the importance of pauses in English pronunciation. In English speech, linking and pauses create chunks and thought groups, which make it easier for both speakers and listeners to follow the meaning of the utterance (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010; Wong, 1987). As mentioned in the introduction, many Japanese learners of English complain that they cannot comprehend the meaning in long sentences. This might be caused by a lack of recognition of the role of pauses as well as the existence of linking in English pronunciation, both of which create meaningful chunks in English sentences.

As the result of these differences, the utterances of English produced by Japanese speakers are prone to be syllable-timed without reduced vowels, closed syllables, linking, and appropriate pauses, which is similar to the sound system of Japanese language but far from the rhythm of English pronunciation. This can be considered as a crucial factor that impairs the intelligibility of English production by Japanese speakers and also, for them, listening comprehension in English. Instruction of Suprasegmentals As discussed above, there are many differences between suprasegmentals of English and Japanese, and without explicit instruction, it is plausible that learners can never notice the differences (Avery & Ehrlich, 1992). Explicit teaching/learning can raise awareness of linguistic features and enhance learning efficiently in L2 acquisition of adult learners (e.g., the Noticing Hypothesis; Schmidt, 1990). It can also enhance self-monitoring, which prevents carry-over and maintain the effects of the instruction (Firth, 1992). Here I discuss how suprasegmentals can be acquired effectively with instruction.

As Wong (1987) stated, systematic instruction is necessary to improve pronunciation. Firth (1992) presented four steps to develop the strategies of self-monitoring of pronunciation: motivation, explanation, practice, and feedback. Additionally, Morley (1991) suggested three modes of the practice step: imitative speaking practice, rehearsed speaking practice, and extemporaneous speech practice. Although the ultimate goal of learning pronunciation is to promote communicative implicit proficiency, explicit explanation and controlled practice such as imitation seems to be effective at the first phase of pronunciation instruction (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010; Naiman, 1992). Shadowing is one of the effective ways of controlled practice (Avery & Ehrlich, 1992). Tamai (1997) investigated the effect of shadowing to help develop phonological perceptions, and the result showed it contributed to the improvement of listening comprehension because it

92

can reduce the cognitive load in working memory and accelerate the process of other aspects such as meaning. He also noted that it could be effective even with limited amount of time on teaching and practice, which is a crucial issue for classroom teaching.

What should be taught is another important point. While Wong (1987) presented five key elements of suprasegmentals as mentioned above, Celce-Murcia et al. (2010) suggested that the following skills are particularly important to improve listening comprehension: discerning thought groups, recognizing stressed elements, interpreting unstressed elements, and determining the full forms underlying reduced speech (p. 370). Besides, Derwing, Thomson, Foote, and Munro (2012) suggested that some suprasegmental features such as word stress cannot be acquired naturally without instruction. Considering the influence of the learners’ L1 (i.e., Japanese), the distinction between stressed and unstressed elements and the recognition of pauses, which make phrasal boundaries and thought groups, are probably the most important features that should be taught to Japanese learners of English through instruction. In addition, reduced vowels, consonant-vowel linking, and consonant deletion should be included because they are also the elements that create phonological chunks in English speech (Avery, Ehrlich, & Jull, 1992).

In short, Japanese learners of English should learn stressed and unstressed elements, reduced vowels, consonant-vowel linking, consonant deletion, and pauses in order to acquire English rhythm, and those features can be taught through explicit explanation and controlled practice such as shadowing at least as a first step. Drawing on these hypotheses, this case study was conducted to investigate the following research questions: 1. To what extent, can a short-term explicit instruction on suprasegmentals raise awareness of English

suprasegmentals of a Japanese learner of English? 2. To what extent, can it improve listening comprehension of English? The details of the case study are

described in the next section. Methods Participant The participant was a second year student of a Japanese high school. He was born and grew up in Japan, and his first language is Japanese. Although he has traveled abroad several times, the total number of the days was no more than 35 and his experience of using English for communication was limited. He passed the pre-2nd grade of STEP Eiken, Test in Practical English Proficiency, two years ago, which is thought to be an upper-intermediate or lower-advanced level among Japanese high school students, considering from the data that only one fourth of third year Japanese high school students could reach that level (Benesse Education Research and Development Institute, 2007). His current purpose of learning English is to prepare for entrance examinations of Japanese universities. Instrumentation The materials were selected aiming to suit the participant’s motivation and goal, that is, to prepare for university entrance examinations as mentioned above. They were taken from a workbook of mock tests for the National Center University Entrance Examinations (Zenkoku Nyushi-Moshi Center, 2013), which consist of multiple-choice questions testing listening comprehension of spoken passages.

In the pretest and the posttest, I used two different mock tests for listening comprehension test because there was a possibility that the participant remembered the answers of the pretest at the time of the posttest, but chose one same conversation passage from the listening pretest for shadowing and oral reading tests at both the pretest and posttest aiming to make it easier to compare the initial and final results (for shadowing and oral reading tests, see Appendix A). In the three practice sessions, I used three different conversation passages for shadowing practice, which were also picked out from the same type of mock tests (see Appendices B, C, & D).

Although the mock tests as well as the National Center Exams consist of the passages of conversations and monologues, only the conversation parts were used in this study for the following three reasons. First, the vocabulary used in the monologues seemed difficult considering the participant’s ability at that time. Second, questions on conversational passages occupied a larger part of the listening test (19 among 25 questions) so that focusing on them first was thought to motivate the participant more. Third, the time of the instruction was too limited to cover both types of passages.

93

According to the data shown on the workbook, the average scores of the listening comprehension tests by the past test-takers were 21.2 in the one chosen for the pretest and 22.7 in the one for the posttest, which were considered at the similar level of difficulty. The conversation passages used for shadowing and oral reading in this study consist of 150.7 words on average ranging from 134 to 178 words, and the levels ranged from 52 to 55 by Flesch reading ease (http://www.standards-schmandards.com/exhibits/rix/index.php), which proved that all the passages were at the similar length and level, and appropriate to be used for this present case study.

In short, two listening comprehension tests, each of which consists of 19 multiple-choice questions on conversational passages, were prepared for listening comprehension tests at the pretest and posttest, one conversational passage in the listening pretest was used for the shadowing and oral reading tests at the pretest and posttest, and three different conversational passages picked out from other mock tests were practiced in the three practice sessions. Procedures The pretest, the three practice sessions, and the posttest were conducted as follows. In the pretest, the participant took a listening comprehension test first, a shadowing test next, and then an oral reading test. In the listening comprehension test, he listened to conversational passages on the CD attached to the workbook and answered multiple-choice listening comprehension questions printed on the workbook. In the shadowing test, he shadowed the passage following the model articulation on the CD, and in the oral reading test, he read aloud the script of the passage by himself without model. Both the shadowing and oral reading by the participant were recorded.

In the first practice session (Session 1), he was taught about English suprasegmentals (rhythm, stressed/unstressed words, and pause). The differences of the features between English and Japanese were explicitly explained, followed by examples. The participant then conducted shadowing practice with the CD several times (for the text, see Appendix B), being told to be conscious about those features. In Session 2, he was taught consonant-vowel linking and consonant deletion to keep the rhythm, and conducted shadowing practice several times (see Appendix C). In Session 3, he was given a short review of the suprasegmentals he learned in the prior sessions, and conducted shadowing practice several times (see Appendix D).

In the posttest, he had a listening comprehension test, a shadowing test, and an oral reading test in the same procedure as in the pretest in order to see the improvement from the pretest.

The pretest and the posttest took about one hour each while the other three sessions were for about 30 minutes respectively. Although the interval from the pretest to Session 1 was for 17 days according to the participant’s schedule, three practice sessions and posttest were given with two to five day intervals so that the entire process took 26 days in total. Brief interviews to the participant were given after the pretest and the posttest. Analyses The results of the listening comprehension tests, the shadowing tests, and the oral reading tests in the pretest and posttest were analyzed. In the results of the listening tests, I counted the numbers of the incorrect answers of the multiple-choice questions in total as well as the numbers of the incorrect answers that the participant was able to answer correctly by reading the scripts later, in order to extract only the answers that he made mistakes in because of pronunciation problems by eliminating the possibility of the other reasons such as vocabulary, grammar, and discourse (Elson, 1992). For the shadowing and oral reading tests, I counted the numbers of the suprasegmental features that were instructed in the sessions (i.e., consonant-vowel linkings, consonant deletions, unstressed words, and pauses) in both the recorded participant’s articulation and the model reading of the CD. Results The results of the listening comprehension tests and shadowing and oral reading in the pretest and posttest are shown in Table 1 and 2. In the pretest, the percentage of the correct answers in the listening comprehension test was 68.42%, and the incorrect answers that the participant made mistakes in the listening test but was able to answer correctly with the script later (i.e., the incorrect answers that were probably due to pronunciation problems) accounted for 26.32%. In the interview after the pretest, the participant confessed

94

that he was not sure whether he had really understood the passages even for which he made correct answers. In the shadowing test, he scored 75.00% to 100.00% in each suprasegmental feature, although he stated in the interview that he just followed the sounds of the model without thinking of the meaning. In contrast to the relatively high score in the shadowing test, his oral reading was far from the articulation of the model particularly because of making no consonant-vowel linking (0.00% compared to the model) and putting a stress on most of the words (17.50% unstressed words compared to the number of the unstressed words in the model). The number of pauses was uncountable because he pronounced each word separately and put a pause after almost every word at the same length. In the interview after the pretest, he explained that he had no idea about the rhythm of English pronunciation in the oral reading.

In the posttest, the percentage of the correct answers in the listening comprehension test was 63.16%, which was lower than the pretest by 5.26%. However, the incorrect answers that the participant was able to answer correctly with the script later accounted for 15.79%, which was lower than in the pretest by 10.53%. This means that the number of incorrect answers caused by pronunciation problems decreased. Besides, the participant said that he was confident in his answers to the questions for the passage that was the same type as the ones used in the practice sessions. In the shadowing test, although the percentages slightly increased in consonant deletions and unstressed words, overall results were not significantly different. It was probably because the pretest performance was close to the model’s, so there was little room for improvement. In contrast, the results in the oral reading showed great improvement. For example, the rate of consonant-vowel linking increased from 0.00% to 57.14%, and unstressed words from 17.50% to 92.50%. Pauses were also put at appropriate places, although there were a few that were overused, which was why the percentage became 112.50%. Table 1. Results of Listening Comprehension Tests (Pretest and Posttest) Pretest Posttest Correct answers 13 (68.42%) 12 (63.16%) Incorrect answers with script 1 (5.26%) 4 (21.05%) Correct answers with script 5 (26.32%) 3 (15.79%) Total number of answers 19 (100.00%) 19 (100.00%) Table 2. Pretest and Posttest Results of Shadowing and Oral Reading

Model on CD

Pretest Posttest Shadowing Oral Reading Shadowing Oral Reading

Linking 14 12 (85.71%) 0 (0.00%) 12 (85.71%) 8 (57.14%) Deletion 10 8 (80.00%) 5 (50.00%) 9 (90.00%) 7 (70.00%) Unstressed words 40 30 (75.00%) 7 (17.50%) 39 (97.50%) 37 (92.50%) Pause 24 24 (100.00%) uncountable 24 (100.00%) 27 (112.50%) Discussion The answer to the first research question, to what extent a short-term explicit instruction on suprasegmentals can raise awareness of English suprasegmentals of a Japanese learner of English, is that even a short-term instruction can help raise awareness of those phonological features to some extent. This can be interpreted mainly from the results of oral reading. In the pretest, the oral reading was heavily influenced by the sound characteristics of Japanese on that it involved far less number of linkings and deletions, and much smaller gaps between stressed and unstressed words compared to the model reading. It also included numerous vague pauses, which were probably caused because the participant was not aware of the importance of grouping words with pauses in English pronunciation. The interview after the pretest also backed this clearly as he did not recognize how the rhythm of English sound is created. In the shadowing test, he was mostly able to imitate the sounds he heard. However, it does not necessarily mean that he understood the systematic patterns of English prosody as well as the meaning of the contents. As Tamai (1997) pointed out, shadowing can be done just phonetically without semantic comprehension. The participant could produce model-like pronunciation in the shadowing because he recognized individual sounds in the model reading but not the significance of the suprasegmental elements that lead to semantic comprehensibility. This can also be explained from the comments in the interview after the pretest that he just followed the sounds without

95

thinking the meaning. In other words, at the phase of the pretest, the participant discerned segmentals, but was not conscious of suprasegmentals and did not notice their significant role in English pronunciation.

In response to the second research question, to what extent raising awareness of suprasegmentals can improve listening comprehension of English, it can be said that the participant improved his ability to understand the English sounds somewhat better because the number of incorrect answers in the listening comprehension tests due to pronunciation problems (i.e., correct answers with the script) decreased from the pretest to the posttest. However, the difference was very small, only the difference of 2 answers from 5 in the pretest to 3 in the posttest, and the posttest to measure the outcomes of the instruction was conducted only once. Therefore, what we can say at the moment is that listening comprehension was improved slightly by raising awareness of suprasegmentals at least in this case study.

A reason that oral reading was improved much while listening comprehension was only a little after the short-term instruction can be explained as follows. In oral reading, the participant could read the passage at the pace he was comfortable with so that he was able to take time to process his explicit knowledge about the suprasegmentals he had just learnt in the sessions. Contrary to the oral reading, however, the listening required him to follow the speed at which the passages were read, which might not have allowed him to take time enough to process the sound and meaning. It is not that the speed of his oral reading was so slow compared to the speed of the model reading. However, it is still possible that only a slight difference of the speed and the length of the pauses for instance affected the processing speed in working-memory and made the difference in the outcomes of the oral reading and listening. The time for the instruction was quite limited, 90 minutes in total (30 minutes x 3 sessions), which might not have been enough for him to transfer the declarative knowledge of suprasegmentals to procedural skill to process them at high speed (cf. skill-acquisition theory, DeKeyser, 2007). It is apparent that he noticed the suprasegmental features and their significance through the sessions as seen in the improvement in oral reading, and some more time and practice could have speeded up cognitive processing in listening as well. To support the credibility of the present study, longitudinal and/or larger-scaled studies are needed. Conclusion This case study was designed and conducted to respond to the complaints about listening comprehension in English from many Japanese learners of English. Their common claims were about incomprehension of unstressed words and long sentences, and the main cause for those problems was hypothesized as lack of knowledge about English rhythm and suprasegmentals due to the distance between the sound systems of English and Japanese. The present study, therefore, focused on the instruction of the suprasegmentals of English, which make the rhythm of the language. It was also narrowed down to raising awareness of the features in a short period of instruction, considering the general contexts of English class in Japan. As the result, the study showed that it was possible to have the learner notice the suprasegmentals even with such a short-term instruction. Besides, he was successfully able to produce many of the features in oral reading after the instruction. In listening test, however, there was only a slight improvement but not significant difference. One of the possible reasons for the gap in the results between the oral reading and listening comprehension might be the amount of practice. It might have been enough for the participant to process the new knowledge in oral reading, in which he was able to control the speed, but not enough to process them at the speed of the listening material. Since the present case study is too small-scaled to show a clear evidence for the relevance of the instruction, more studies are desperately needed because the claims on listening comprehension from the Japanese learners of English that were mentioned above are really serious and urgent in this rapidly globalizing world. References Avery, P., & Ehrlich, S. (1992). Teaching American English pronunciation (6th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford

University Press. Avery, P., Ehrlich, S., & Jull, D. (1992). Connected speech. In P. Avery & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), Teaching

American English pronunciation (6th ed.) (pp. 73-90). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Azami, M. (2006). Teaching suprasegmental features of pronunciation as a component of listening

comprehension instruction: An empirical study on the improvement of listening comprehension ability of high school students. Ochanomizu University Kenkyu Kiyo, 52, 3-25.

96

Benesse Education Research and Development Institute. (2007). Chosa data clip! Kodomo to kyouiku [Research data clip! Children and education]. Retrieved from http://berd.benesse.jp/berd/data/dataclip/clip0014/

Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., Goodwin, J. M., & Griner, B. (2010). Teaching pronunciation: A course book and reference guide (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

DeKeyser, R. M. (Ed.). (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Derwing, T. M., Thomson, R. I., Foote, J. A., & Munro, M. J. (2012). A longitudinal study of listening perception in adult learners of English: Implications for teachers. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 68(3), 247-266.

Elson, (1992). Unintelligibility and the ESL learner. In P. Avery & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), Teaching American English pronunciation (6th ed.) (pp. 229-236). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Firth, S. (1992). Developing self-correcting and self-monitoring strategies. In P. Avery & S. Ehrlich (Eds.),

Teaching American English pronunciation (6th ed.) (pp. 215-219). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hahn, L. D. (2004). Primary stress and intelligibility: Research to motivate the teaching of suprasegmentals. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 201-223.

Leather, J. (1999). Second-language speech research: An introduction. Language Learning (Supplement 1), 49, 1-56.

Major, R. C., Fitzmaurice, S. F., Bunta, F., & Balasubramanian, C. (2002). The effects of nonnative accents on listening comprehension: Implications for ESL assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 592-603.

McNerney, M., & Mendelsohn, D. (1992). Suprasegmentals in the pronunciation class: Setting priorities. In P. Avery & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), Teaching American English pronunciation (6th ed.) (pp. 185-196). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.


Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1999). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning (Supplement 1), 49, 285-310.

Naiman, N. (1992). A communicative approach to pronunciation teaching. In P. Avery & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), Teaching American English pronunciation (6th ed.) (p. 163-171). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Romanini, A. C. (2008). The influence of production accuracy on suprasegmental listening comprehension (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from Electronic theses and dissertations, BYU Harold B. Lee library digital collections.

Sawaengmongkon, C. (2013). Teaching suprasegmental features of spoken English through films to develop listening achievement of learners. FLLT Conference Proceedings by LITU, 2(1), 570-577.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 2, 129-158. Tamai, K. (1997). Shadowing no koka to chokai process ni okeru ichizuke [The effectiveness of shadowing

and its position in the listening process]. Current English Studies, 36, 105-116. Wong, R. (1987). Teaching pronunciation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Zenkoku Nyushi-Moshi Center. (2013). 2014 Daigaku nyushi center siken jissen mondaishu English

(listening) [Workbook for English listening on the National Center University Entrance Examinations]. Tokyo: Sundai Bunko.

Appendix A: Shadowing and Oral Reading Text at Pretest and Posttest M: How was the seminar this afternoon? W: It was really very interesting. We continued our discussion of volunteering in America, this time focusing on the age of volunteers.

Here, look at this table. M: Oh, this is very surprising. People in these two age groups seem to be the most likely to volunteer. W: The 35-to-44-year-olds and 45-to-54-year-olds, right? M: Yes. W: A slightly higher percentage in the former group volunteer than in the latter, though. M: I have to say I’m also surprised to see that the numbers go down as people get older.

97

W: Well... But 28.1% of people aged 55 to 64 volunteer, and 24% of people over 65. Those are fairly large percentages. M: So let’s see... who are the least likely to volunteer? W: People in the youngest group. M: That's too bad. I think they should volunteer more. Appendix B: Session 1 Shadowing Text M: Students at each school have unique interests. W: Yes, all three schools are really different. M: I’m surprised art isn’t more popular at Horizons since it started as an art school. More people study film and computer science.

Maybe that's because there are jobs for artists in those fields. W: Film and computer science didn’t even make the top five at the other two schools. M: I expected Alta to be career-focused with a lot of students majoring in business, health sciences, law, and engineering. But I was

surprised to see English ranked the same as at Horizons. W: Several famous writers teach at Alta. M: Oh, that explains it. Many Trident students enjoy psychology for similar reasons. But the school's best known for health sciences. W: It has a growing reputation for engineering, too. M: Yes, that major’s ranked just below psychology. W: Ten years ago, it was less popular than communications. M: No one studies that at Trident. Appendix C: Session 2 Shadowing Text W: It looks like Elementary Chinese is in the greatest demand. M: Wow, almost 200 students! W: I hear this is a common trend at most universities. Probably because of the increasing importance of China in the world economy. M: No doubt. And Microeconomics is very popular, too. It’s just behind Chinese. W: Oh, no. It looks like we might have a problem. M: What’s that? W: In principle, one class should have at most 50 students. Look at the number enrolled in Computer Science... It’ll be difficult to decide

whether there should be two or three classes. M: Why is that a problem? We can just divide them into three classes. Then each class will have 34 students. W: Right. I see the least popular classes haven't changed from last year. M: Yeah, Bookkeeping and Advanced Oral English. W: But, last year, Bookkeeping was the less popular of the two. Appendix D: Session 3 Shadowing Text M: Pam, this chart shows how well fifteen-year-olds performed in science, reading and mathematics. W: Hmm, what does it say? M: Well, one point three percent of students did well in science only, while two point three percent excelled in reading only. The

percentage of students who only did well in mathematics was more than five percent, the highest of the three. W: What about students who performed well in more than one area? M: About four percent of fifteen-year-old students were top performers in all of the three subject areas. W: What else? M: Well, top performers in both science and mathematics, but not in reading took up about three percent, and the percentage of top

performers in both science and reading, but not in mathematics was just under one percent. W: Is there a connection between reading and math? M: Just over one percent of students were top performers in both reading and mathematics, but not in science. W: And the percentage of top performers in both science and mathematics was greater than that of top performers in science and reading

or in reading and mathematics.

98

Teaching Pronunciation to an Adult Japanese L2 Learner Majoring in Nutrition

Safumi Kamiyama In order to address the rapid advances of globalization, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT, 2011) stated five proposals and specific measures for developing proficiency in English or Lingua Franca for international communication. English classes must be shifted from lecture-style class toward student-centered class by emphasizing the educational form of speeches. This movement began to surge into the English courses at the nutrition college I work for. Accordingly, English reading classes I teach must be switched from grammar-translation method to developing communicative competence by emphasizing pronunciation along with reading skills. Thus, my goal in teaching pronunciation is establishing intelligibility and comprehensibility in order for students to go beyond the threshold level required in Communicative Language Teaching (Celce-Murcia, Brinton, Goodwin, & Griner, 2012, p. 9).

Recently I have faced challenges in class, where adult students have more difficulties producing unfamiliar sounds than young students. In fact, there might be physiological constraints of the brain lateralization (Lenneberg, 1967). However, many researchers open a window for adults learning L2 pronunciation. Avery and Ehrlich (2012) pointed out that the reason adult learners have problems producing new sounds is that they have never exercised their mouth in the particular way required to pronounce certain English sounds. Additionally, the idea of brain atrophying is erroneous because the brain has flexibility or plasticity throughout its life (Diamond, 1988). Moreover, drawing on Inhelder and Piaget’s (1958) theory of cognitive development, which maintains that after puberty individuals have the ability to consciously construct abstract theories, Krashen (1975) offered a pedagogical implication in which teaching a rule with feedback is beneficial for adults (p. 220). On the other hand, Schumann (1975) and others emphasized the importance of non-linguistic factors such as psychological and sociocultural factors. Thus, if the teacher incorporates into courses the activities that can build more confidence and has the adults examine individualized goal, we could hope it could counteract the disadvantage of adult learners (Celce-Murcia et al., 2012, p. 18). For example, an imitation technique, such as shadowing, can build students’ confidence in producing new sounds (Davis & Rinvolucri, 1990). All this suggests that teachers can do much to improve adult learners’ English proficiency.

This is a case study in which I taught a Japanese adult student pronunciation focusing on (a) grammatical endings of past forms of verbs /t/, /d/, and /əәd/ and (b) a flap [ɾ], and (c) on a suprasegmental aspect, rhythm. The comprehensive purpose of this study is to help a participant read aloud intelligibly with smooth rhythm, enhance her motivation, and develop self-regulation through shadowing. Literature Review In this section, shadowing, segmentals vs. supurasegmentals, segmentals concerning grammatical ending of regular past tense and flapping, and supurasegmentals concerning rhythm are discussed from the viewpoint of teaching Japanese adult learners, drawing on the recent research and literature on these areas. Shadowing Lambert (1992) defined shadowing as “a paced, auditory tracking task involving immediate vocalization of auditorily presented stimuli, i.e. word for word repetition in the same language, parrot-style, of a message presented through headphones” (p. 266). Originally, this technique was an interpreting exercise. Today, in Japan, shadowing is viewed as an effective activity to be incorporated into the English language program. Recent studies show that shadowing is not considered as a simple repetition of an utterance by a listener.

According to Tamai (1997), shadowing is as a highly cognitive activity in which learners track the heard speech and vocalize it as clearly as possible while simultaneously listening. As Hamada (2014) discussed, input by shadowing is often depicted as being connected to the working memory model proposed by Baddeley (2007). Through phonological coding, learners can form the native-like phonological representation in their phonological loop. Shadowing reinforces learners’ phonological coding and their phonological perception, particularly by training the phonological loop, which is a part of the working

99

memory. Learning starts from controlled processing, where the phonological loop processes and stores incoming linguistic information, which is remembered only for a few seconds in phonological STM, but can be retained as working memory through subvocal rehearsal. Through repeated practice, controlled practice becomes automatic (Kadota, 2007). This further processing has been described as a stage of intake (Gass, 1988; VanPatten, 1994). Intake enables learners to encode linguistic information into long-term memory (Doughty & Williams, 1998). Thus, shadowing requires learners to increase their attentional allocations (Torikai, 2003) and enables them to process more input than they could through just listening, because they hear twice: hearing the initial utterance and their own production (Murphey, 2001, p. 146).

From the viewpoint of cognitive factor written above, shadowing can facilitate learners’ subsequent language development. Many researchers have pointed out that shadowing improved learner’s listening skills (Hamada, 2014; Kadota, 2007; Tamai, 2002). Meanwhile, there is an on-going research on the strategies of shadowing and its effect on speaking skills. Someya (1998) claimed that shadowing improved the sense of prosody: rhythm, intonation, and accent of speech. Murphey (2001) stated that shadowing helped learners to speak fluently and produce private speech (p. 143). Laboratory-training paradigm such as High Variability Phonetic Training (HVPT) demonstrated that perception abilities can be transferred to production levels (Saito, 2013); however, considering the increasing requirement for teaching pronunciation, more research on shadowing in usual learning situations should be conducted. Thus, this case study investigates the effect of shadowing activities on the pronunciation of an adult English learner.

From the viewpoint of sociocultural factors, according to Murphey (2001), there are several concepts from Vygotsky’s (1934) sociocultural theory that are relevant to shadowing: (a) the social or interactive nature of language acquisition and concept formation; (b) the idea of regulation as the learner passes from other-regulation to self-regulation; and (c) the zone of proximal development (ZPD), which refers to the distance between what a learner can do with help and without help, and scaffolding (p. 147). This theory also applies to adults learning L2. In this way, shadowing involves more factors than a simple repetition of an utterance so that shadowing can be an intellectual imitation (Gredler, 2012). Keeping ZPD in mind, the teacher should provide appropriate utterances which learners can be differently attuned to at different level of development (Murphy, 2001).

To perform shadowing effectively, the teacher should consider the following three points. The most important point is to consider the level of difficulty when selecting materials. Kadota and Tamai (2005) pointed out that, for shadowing, the less challenging materials at i - 1or i - 2 level are preferable. Recently, Hamada (2012) examined 59 university students and concluded that using materials of a combination of two levels of difficulty improved learners’ listening comprehension skills more than using of similar difficulty levels. Drawing on Krashen’s (1985) second language acquisition (SLA) theory, he found that the more challenging materials used were at i + 1 level while the less challenging ones were at i - 1 level. This choice matches the concepts of ZPD because the teacher can be aware of the learner’s level of development while stretching the learner’s limits. The second point the teacher should consider is to set objectives that can provide learners with scaffolding. The third point is that the teacher should give ample feedback and encouragement to develop self-regulated learning (Jonsson, 2012). Segmentals vs. Suprasegmentals The traditional domain of teaching pronunciation of L2 has been concerned with the segmental and suprasegmental features of the spoken language. Integrating both into the teaching situation remains current issues (Burgess & Spencer, 2000). Particularly for Japanese, learning segmentals is an essential prerequisite for acquiring supurasegmentals.

As Avery and Ehrlich (2012) pointed out, the sound system of Japanese and English differs remarkably in both segmentals and supurasegmentals. For example, Japanese has a five-vowel system, while English has a continual variation of vocal chords for vowel. Japanese is a syllable-timed language, while English has a stress-timed rhythm. Japanese has open syllable types, while English has closed syllable types. In addition, English has a wide configuration of consonant clusters. As a result, English consonant clustering often presents a challenge for Japanese whose language has a strict CV pattern with no consonant clustering (Celce-Murcia et al., 2012). Considering these differences, here, I discuss grammatical endings of regular past tense and flap [ɾ] as a feature of segmentals, and then, discuss rhythm as a feature of supurasegmentals.

100

Segmentals: Acquisition of Grammatical Endings of Regular Past Tense and Flap [ɾ] First, grammatical endings, suffixes adding grammatical information such as regular past tense or number to nouns or verbs, have predictable rules. For example, Avery and Ehrlich (2012) listed the rules of the regular past tense as follows: (a) If a verb ends with /t/ or /d/, the past tense is pronounced /əәd/, such as wanted or handed, (b) If a verb ends with a voiced sound, the past tense is pronounced /d/, such as bagged, and (c) If a verb ends with a voiceless sound, the past tense is pronounced /t/, such as backed (pp. 47-48). By examining the phonetic characteristics of sounds surrounding the past tense endings, learners can make the choice of /əәd /, /d/, or /t/.

However, the fact that Japanese does not have phonemes such as /t/ and /d/ causes Japanese learners to drop them frequently. Moreover, Japanese predominantly has open syllables, which causes learners to encounter difficulty pronouncing word-final consonants, including grammatical endings (e.g., kissed). If they can perceive the difference between [khɪst○] and epenthesis, [kisuto], they can produce [khɪst○] correctly. The inability to produce these sounds is often interpreted as a grammatical problem, but that is not always the case; thus, teachers should integrate the sound system with grammar in order for each learner to internalize grammatical endings.

Celce-Murcia et al. (2012) provide strategies for teaching these grammatical endings. Teachers should explain the rules governing the grammatical endings. Learners should recognize the distinct /d/, /t/, and /əәd/ sounds through orthography rather than phonetically, and then, they should perform consciousness-raising activities, such as predicting pronunciation activities (p. 413). As Saito (2013) pointed out, it is beneficial for adult learners to learn through explicit instruction.

Second, flap [ɾ] is an allophone of /t/ and /d/ that occurs in words such as data, pudding, and started. The sound of [ɾ] is an apico-alveolar tap, which is articulated at the tooth ridge like a /d/, but it is much shorter than a /d/. The tongue touches the alveolar ridge and is quickly pulled back. As Avery and Ehrlich (2012) pointed out, the occurrence of the sound of [ɾ] is one of the major differences between North American and British English. It is a type of assimilation, which occurs between stressed vowel and vowel. In a rapid or informal speech, the italicized t’s of the following sentences are usually pronounced as flaps. I got a charge out of that (Celce-Murcia et al., 2012). In addition, [ɾ] is pronounced as the lateral flap when it occurs between stressed vowel and syllabic [ḷ], such as little [lɪɾḷ] and bottle [baɾḷ] (Nemoto, 2014). The tongue quickly brushes against the alveolar ridge, and air passes through the mouth over the sides of the tongue. Flaps are frequent in the spoken language and, as Avery and Ehrlich (2012) stated, the ability to recognize words that contain flaps has a great effect on improving students’ comprehension of natural speech. Thus, it is claimed in many books for pronunciation practice published in Japan that mastering this sound is one of the most important clues to improve pronunciation.

Celce-Murcia et al. (2012) made several suggestions for teaching [ɾ]. The teacher should explain the pronunciation of [ɾ] explicitly and demonstrate it exaggeratingly, using such pairs of words as putting vs. pudding, latter vs. ladder, and bitter vs. bidder. The teacher can have intermediate learners perform an analysis activity in which they repeat the heard speech while paying attention to flaps (p. 90). Supurasegmentals: The Acquisition of English Rhythm As Avery and Ehrlich (2012) pointed out, Japanese have difficulty producing English rhythm. Japanese is a syllable-timed language, where rhythm is dependent upon the number of syllables (CV), while English is a stress-timed language, where a rhythm is dependent upon the number of stresses (Celce-Murcia et al., 2012). For example, in English, the phrase BILL WORKS HARD and the phrase BILL’s been WORKing HARD take roughly the same amount of time to say.

As Avery and Ehrlich (2012) explained that stress-timed language is strongly related to vowel reduction process. Schwa (/əә/) is the most common reduced vowel in English. Japanese L2 learners often fail to produce proper rhythm because they miss the sound system of the vowel reduction necessary for English rhythm. If they can identify the difference between [khəәnsɪſɚ] and [konsidaa], they can produce [khəәnsɪſɚ] properly. In addition, Japanese indicates the stressed syllable in pitch, while English indicates that in three variables: length, pitch, and loudness. Japanese can also have difficulties in acquiring the acoustic properties of the English stress system. Teachers should emphasize the length and loudness aspects of English stress.

101

When learners do not produce utterances with the appropriate rhythm, the results can cause incomprehension or annoyance on the part of the listeners (Avery & Ehrlich, 2012, p. 189).

Avery and Ehrlich (2012) suggested that when teaching rhythm, teachers should explicitly explain how vowels are reduced, or unstressed, in words such as chocolate, every, and history, and demonstrate the /əә/ sound in an exaggerated way. In teaching rhythm, as Kadota (2007) pointed out, teachers should prepare texts where the stressed syllables are highlighted. In order to ensure that learners have perceived the characteristic rhythm of English, “the teacher has them tap out the stressed syllable at regular intervals” (Avery & Ehrlich, 2012, p. 189).

I have discussed several important issues concerning the English sound system relevant to the learning context for Japanese adult learners. Next I describe this case study, whose aim is to pursue the following questions: 1. Will shadowing activities with Focus-on-Forms improve the participants’ speech production in terms of

grammatical endings, flapping, and smooth rhythm? 2. Will shadowing lead the participant to improve reading aloud intelligibly with smooth rhythm, enhance

motivation, and develop self-regulation? Methods The Participant The participant, Sayuri, was a 51 year-old Japanese woman. Now, she is a student majoring in nutrition and attends an English reading class. She graduated from university with a bachelor degree in English literature 30 years ago. She had formal English education for 10 years, which included basic knowledge of the English sound system. After graduation, she became a homemaker. She lived in London for two years because of her husband’s business; however, she seldom had opportunities to interact with native English speakers during that time. Since returning to Japan, she has not had any chances to use English. Her listening and speaking proficiency is low-intermediate; she is able to understand information from sentence-length speech and handle a limited number of uncomplicated communication tasks (ACTFL, 2012). Her motivation to learn about food in English is high. Instrumentation In this case study, five texts were selected as the reading materials. The contents of the five texts were all related to her major, nutrition. Moreover, two texts were chosen from a children’s book, Little House in the Big Woods (Wilder, 1971) because Sayuri watched the series of Little House in the Big Woods on TV as a child. These materials were related to her intrinsic interest, so they were potentially motivating to her. In respect to the level of difficulty, which is crucial for successful shadowing, drawing on the findings of Hamada (2012) and the concept of Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory (1934), I chose materials at a combination of two levels of difficulty. Three of the more challenging texts were from a course text book, A Taste of English: Food and Fiction (Fiona, Taguchi, & Motoyama, 2013). The other less challenging texts were from Little House in the Big Woods (Wilder, 1971). In Session 1, I made sure that if the material I selected was at an appropriate level. The more challenging texts were used for Sessions 3 and 5, and the less challenging ones for Sessions 2 and 4. I employed the readability index calculator program to get a Flesch-Kincaid readability grade and used Tom Cobb’s vocabulary profiler to check the vocabulary composition of the texts. The results are shown in Table 1. Table 1. Readability and Vocabulary Composition of the Text Session 1 Session 2 Session 3 Session 4 Session 5 Number of words 259 240 232 262 257 Flesch-Kincaid Grade level 9 7 9 8 9 Flesch-Kincaid Readability 55 74 53 71 59 K1 words (1-1,000) 78.85% 74.27% 72.34% 76.06% 74.90% K2 words (1,001-2,000) 7.69% 12.86% 6.81% 7.22% 6.08% Academic words 1.15% 0.00% 1.70% 1.89% 2.66% Off list words 12.31% 12.86% 19.15% 16.73% 16.35%

102

Procedures Instruction took place over five 60-minute sessions. Each session was held once a week between February 10 and March 10. In Session 1, I explained shadowing and the goal of the activity: The participant will be able to read aloud intelligibly with smooth rhythm and good pronunciation. The purpose of Session 1 was to administer the pretest. A relaxation exercise, listen and imitate, was conducted as a warm-up. Next, Sayuri listened to the passage twice while shadowing in a low voice. She then took comprehension test. After practicing shadowing several times, her speech was recorded as a pretest and transcribed after the class. Based on the pretest results, the objectives of the study and the texts for the following sessions were selected.

From Session 2 to Session 5, the same procedures were applied. The five-step procedure recommended by Kadota (2007) was used as a reference (see Table 2). In Step 1, the participant listened to the passage twice while mumbling. Then, in step 2, vocabulary learning activities and comprehension check (see the Appendix) were practiced before shadowing. According to Hamada’s (2014) findings, these activities significantly improved learners’ listening comprehension skills. In addition, being familiar with the target passage could ease her anxiety, which consequently lowers the psychological burden of shadowing. In Step 3, first, I explained the sound system of grammatical endings, flap [ɾ], and English rhythm explicitly. Next, Sayuri performed consciousness-raising activities. She repeated after me on each pause (chunk) several times until she felt confident. If she made an error, I provided a recast and offered encouragement to support her (Firth, 2012). Next, she practiced prosody parallel reading, where she shadowed while paying attention to the three target points. In Step 4, she practiced content parallel reading, where she shadowed the passage focusing on its contents. In this step, she read the passage and put some feeling into it. In Step 5, the Sayuri’s speech was recorded for analyses; she also evaluated herself by listening to the recording.

Table 2. Shadowing Procedure Used in The Study

Step Instructions 1 Listen to the passage twice while shadowing in a low voice 2 Vocabulary learning activities and comprehension check

3 Phonological check (Consciousness-raising: grammatical ending, flap, and rhythm) Prosody parallel reading three times (shadow while reading the text)

4 Contents parallel reading twice (shadow while reading the text) 5 Record and self-evaluation

Analyses Sayuri self-evaluated herself in each session using an evaluation sheet that included a 5-point Likert scale concerning intelligibility on the following four points: the grammatical endings, flap [ɾ], rhythm, and reading aloud smoothly. After listening to the recording, she rated the four points by circling a number: 1 = Extremely bad, 2 = Bad, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Extremely good.

I also rated Sayuri’s speech. I am Japanese, and my native language is Japanese. I majored in nutrition and English drama, and had taught English at the nutrition college for 13 years.

The participant’s speech was transcribed using IPA phonetic symbols, focusing on three points: grammatical endings, flap [ɾ], and stressed syllables. I calculated the percentage of correct reproduction of these three points. The degree of smoothness in the reading aloud performances was evaluated using the following 5-point Likert scale: 1 = Incomprehensible, 2 = Difficult to comprehend, 3 = Comprehensible, 4 = Fairy easy to comprehend, 5 = Easy to comprehend. Results The pretest indicated several problems with Sayuri’s pronunciation. I negotiated the two aspects of the sound system I would work on her, and set three objectives. The first concerned getting Sayuri to articulate the grammatical endings precisely. On the whole, her pronunciation was good, and she paid attention to the distinction between /l/ and /r/. However, she did not open and move her mouth enough. Thus, as might be expected of Japanese learners, she had slight difficulties in pronouncing vowels and consonants, which were not a part of the sound inventory of Japanese. Above all, she often dropped grammatical endings of regular

103

past tense of verbs. Her inability to produce the sound /t/, /d/, and /əәd/ can be interpreted as a grammatical problem in spite of her overall good grammatical competence.

The second objective was to get Sayuri to articulate the flap [ɾ] smoothly. In Step 1 of the shadowing procedure, she did not have much trouble keeping up with the speech; however, she stammered a few times. I noticed that she attempted to notice linking and flaps in the speech. She made an effort to produce native-like speech, and was strongly interested in pronouncing flap [ɾ]. She made a choice to practice flap [ɾ] of her own accord.

The third objective was to help Sayuri develop more natural English rhythm in her speech. She was good at linking, such as in the phrases in America and in addition; however, her intonation was flat, and her rhythm was monotonous, as many Japanese L2 learners who often fail to produce appropriate English rhythm. She had difficulty perceiving and producing the vowel reductions necessary for proper English rhythm. Moreover, she articulated the stressed syllables just by indicating them using pitch, ignoring length and loudness. Thus, I determined to focus on rhythm and its relationship with linking.

Next, I examined if the text was appropriate for Sayuri. I found that she was able to comprehend the text and explain grammar points without difficulty after comprehending the meanings of a few unknown words. She was interested in the content of the text. Moreover, the speed of the CD was slightly slow at 135 words per minute so that she was able to follow the CD. I decided to select the other four texts, based on the level of the text used in Session 1.

The results of Sayuri’s self-evaluations throughout the sessions ranged from 2 to 5, with a mean of 4.0 (see Figure 1). As shown in the Figure, Sayuri perceived herself to make considerable progress from Session 1 to Session 5.

Figure 1. Participant’s self-evaluation for her own speech.

My ratings of her speech throughout the sessions are shown in Table 3. Table 3. Evaluation of the Participant’s Performance Session 1 Session 2 Session 3 Session 4 Session 5 Grammatical endings (%) 70 80 84 90 D Flap [ɾ] (%) 75 95 100 95 100 Rhythm (%) 75 88 85 92 95 Smooth reading aloud 4 4 3 4 5

In Session 2, the text selected was included in Little House in the Big Woods, which contains many of

natural North American sounds, such as flap [ɾ] and linking. The Flesh-Kincaid grade level of this text was slightly lower than that in Session 1. As a result, the pronunciation of flap [ɾ] improved; the text contained more than 15 flaps, so it she could practice producing the flap quite a few times. The pronunciation of grammatical endings also improved; however, judging from the result of self-evaluation, she was not satisfied with her production. She monitored her speech several times, and asked me to give more recasts. As for

0

1

2

3

4

5

Session 1 Session 2 Session 3 Session 4 Session 5

Grammatical endings

Flap [ɾ]

Rhythm

Smooth reading aloud

104

rhythm, she paused in the proper places and read stressed syllables slightly louder and longer than the unstressed syllables.

In Session 3 her pronunciation of the flap and grammatical endings improved. After Session 2, she practiced moving her mouth smoothly. However, her rhythm was not as good as that in Session 2. The text was more challenging than that of the previous session, and the rate of three-syllable words was higher by 6.5 %. She stammered when producing words such as camomile, exhaustion, and antioxidant.

In Session 4, I selected an easier text than that used in Session 3. Flap [ɾ], such as in attic, cut off, and out in, was pronounced well. In addition, grammatical endings, such as in chopped, seasoned, and molded, were articulated distinctly. She moved and opened her mouth briskly, and she tried to imitate the sounds precisely and was able to repeat using almost the same rhythm as that on the CD. When she made errors, I recast the incorrect sounds with a questioning tone. As her self-evaluation indicated, she gained greater self-efficacy in her speech.

In Session 5, Sayuri took the posttest. Her performance was almost perfect. She only made a few errors by dropping pronouncing /t/ as in helped. She was satisfied with her speech. Thus, through shadowing, Sayuri was able to pronounce grammatical endings of past forms and a flap [ɾ], and read aloud with good speed and smooth rhythm with stressed syllables louder and longer. Moreover, this case study helped to enhance her motivation and develop self-regulation. Discussion In this section, I discuss how shadowing promoted an adult learner’s development of L2 speech production. First, the participant came to pay attention to segmental factors. Training to promote the sounds through shadowing activities raised her awareness of the difference between her utterance and the heard speech and made progress in producing the target sounds. Remarkably, it seemed easier for her to improve flap [ɾ] than grammatical endings. The sound [ɾ] was originally a familiar sound for Japanese. According to Price (1981) and Vance (1987), the Japanese /r/ is phonetically more similar to flap [ɾ] in American English than it is to either [l] or [ɹ]. In addition, practicing this sound was her choice. Thus, acquiring flap [ɾ] triggered her intrinsic motivation to practice segmental sounds. In addition, repeating shadowing several times in a session must have increased the capacity of phonological memory. According to the findings of O’Brien, Segalowitz, Freed, and Collentine (2007), it helps to develop accurate speech production. Moreover, as Sato’s (2013) findings showed, form-focused instruction of grammatical endings along with flap [ɾ] with recast seems to have accelerated her perceptual and productive acquisition of these segmental sounds.

Second, shadowing also helped to develop her suprasegmental factor, rhythm. In Session 1, Sayuri read aloud in a flat monotone. In Session 2, I chose easier text and, she performed shadowing activities by using a handout with stressed words in red and bold face. In listening while speaking in a low voice, she paid attention to stressed syllable, on her own adding large circle on it, and clapped with the beat from stressed element to stressed element. As stress placement in English is a rule-governed aspect (Celce-Murcia, et al., 2012, p. 199), once she comprehended it, she was able to improve her rhythm with practice. As Hamada (2012) pointed out, this successful experience with a less challenging text could help learners gain self-efficacy, which is a strong influential factor on motivation. In addition, although she eagerly concentrated on shadowing, she did not show fatigue; on the contrary, she enjoyed it.

Third, as I mentioned above, I had developed shadowing activities for an adult learner drawing on Vygotsky’s (1934) sociocultural theory. I carefully chose the material appropriate to the participant’s level. I negotiated with her and set the three objectives with scaffolding in mind. I was able to build a rapport with her by providing recasts and encouragement, which worked to reduce her language anxiety (Dörnyei, 2011). By self-evaluating, she developed the ability to self-monitor, which involved listening critically and, in speaking, anticipating problem areas and confirming whether her production had been accurate (Firth, 2012).She gradually achieved self-efficacy and self-responsibility. This case study started with other-regulation, but ended with self-regulation. Conclusion In the rapid advances of globalization, a nutrition college I work for has changed their English education policies. I must incorporate teaching pronunciation into reading classes to develop communicative

105

competence; however, adult students have more difficulty producing English sounds than younger students. This case study was designed to help an adult Japanese L2 learner to improve her ability to produce English sounds and rhythm through shadowing. Throughout five sessions of shadowing activities, the participant made great efforts and showed progress. I found out that using shadowing activities with form-focused instruction developed the participant’s speech production in grammatical endings of regular past tense, flapping, and rhythm. It also led her to improve reading aloud intelligibly with smooth rhythm, enhanced her motivation, and developed self-regulated learning.

I would like to point out several issues that future researchers should examine. First, for obtaining a more detailed description of the relationship between shadowing and production, we need studies with more participants at various stages in their L2 development and more sessions. Second, to examine acquisition, we need measures based on spontaneous speech tasks rather than controlled tasks. Third, to obtain more practical findings, we need to explore if shadowing can be incorporated into classroom activities as well as into private sessions.

To conclude, teaching pronunciation is an urgent necessity in my teaching situation. I did not have enough knowledge about the sound system nor about teaching it. Through implementing this case study, I gained valuable knowledge about teaching pronunciation and also recognized what the most important attitude toward students was when teaching it. References American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language. (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Retrieved

from http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/foles/pdfs/public/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012-FINAL.pdf

Avery, P., & Ehrlich, S. (2012). Teaching American English pronunciation (6th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Baddeley, A. (2007). Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burgess, J., & Spencer, S. (2000). Phonology and pronunciation in integrated language teaching and teacher

education. System, 28(2), 191-215. Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., Goodwin, J. M., & Griner, Barry (1996). Teaching pronunciation: A

reference for teachers of English to speakers of other language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D.M., & Goodwin, J. M. (2012). Teaching pronunciation: A course book and reference guide (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Davis, P., & Rinvolucri, M. (1990). The confidence book: Building trust in the language classroom. Essex, England: Longman.

Diamond, M. C. (1988). Enriching heredity: The impact of the environment on the anatomy of the brain. New York, NY: Free Press.

Dörnyei, Z. (2011). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fiona, A. M., Taguchi, S., & Motoyama, F. (2013). A taste of English: food and fiction. Tokyo: Asahi Press. Firth, S. (2012). Developing self-correcting and self-monitoring strategies. In P. Avery & S. Ehrlich (Eds.),

Teaching American English pronunciation (6th ed.) (pp. 215-219). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Gass, S. (1988). Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics 9(2), 198-217.

Gredler, M. E. (2012). Understanding Vygotsky for the classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 113-131.

Hamada. Y. (2012). An effective way to improve listening skills through shadowing. The Language Teacher, 36(1), 3-10.

106

Hamada, Y. (2014). The effectiveness of pre- and post-shadowing in improving listening comprehension skills. The Language Teacher, 38(1), 3-10.

Inhelder, B. & J. Piaget. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Jonsson, A. (2012). Facilitating productive use of feedback in higher education. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(1), 63-76.

Kadota, S. (2007). Shadouingu to ondoku [Parallel reading & shadowing & oral reading]. Tokyo: Cosmopier.

Kadota, S., & Tamai, K. (2005). Ketteiban shadouingu [The definitive book for English shadowing]. Tokyo: Cosmopier.

Krashen, S. (1975). The critical period for language acquisition and its possible bases. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 263, 211-224.

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman. Lambert, S. (1992). Shadowing. Méta, 37(2), 263-273. Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundation of language. New York, NY: Wiley. MEXT. (2011). Five proposals and specific measures for developing proficiency in English for international

communication. Commission on the Development of Foreign Language Proficiency. Retrieved from http://mext.go.jp/english/elsec/1319701.htm

Murphey, T. (2001). Exploring conversational shadowing. Language Teaching Research, 5(2), 128-155. Nemoto, Tomoko, TESOL Applied Language Study I, February 17, 2014 O’Brien, I., Segalowitz, N., Freed, B., & Collentine, J. (2007). Phonological memory predicts second

language oral fluency gains in adults. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(4), 557-582. Price, P. (1981). A cross-linguistic study of flaps in Japanese and in American English. Doctorial

Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. Saito, K. (2013). The acquisition value of recasts in instructed second language speech learning: Teaching the

perception and production of English /ɹ/ to adult Japanese learners. Language Learning, 63(3), 499-529.

Shumann, J. H. (1975). Affective factors and the problem of age in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 25(2), 209-235.

Someya, Y. (1998). Purosodi sensu kyokakunren no kouka nikansuru akushon risachi. [Action research on prosody training consisting of shadowing, prosody reading, and dictation exercises]. Tsuyaku Rironkenkyu, 7(2) 3-21.

Tamai, K. (1997). Shadouingu no koka to chokai purosesu niokeru ichizuke. [The effectiveness of shadowing and listening process]. Current English Studies, 36, 102-116.

Tamai, K. (2002). Risuninguryoku koujou niokeru shadouingu no kouka nituite. [On the effect of shadowing on listening comprehension]. Interpretation Studies, 2, 178-192.

Torikai, K. (2003). Hajimete no shadouingu. [The first time of shadowing]. Gakken. Vance, T. (1987). An introduction to Japanese phonology. New York, NY: State University of New York

Press. VanPatten, B. (1994). Cognitive aspects of input processing in second language acquisition. In P.

Hashemipour, R. Maldonado, & M. van Naerssen (Eds.), Festschrift in honor of Tracy D. Terrell. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 170-83.

Vygotsky, L. (1934). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Wilder, L. I. (1971). Little house in the big woods. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

107

Appendix: Reading Texts and Tasks Session 1 (Pretest) Reading Laura and Cheese Making on the Prairie. In A Taste of English: Food and Fiction (p. 44) In the frontier days in America, people had to make and grow everything they needed for their daily life. Laura's family in Little House on the Prairie even built their own log house. In addition, they produced all of their own food, such as bread, butter, bacon and so on. Laura and her sister Mary helped their parents with the work from an early age. Of course, Laura and Mary helped Ma with cheese-making. Cheese making always took place in summer when the cows were producing the most milk, and this season gave Laura a lot of anxiety. She was afraid that Pa must kill one of the sweet little calves that she always helped Ma to feed, because they needed rennet, which is the lining of a young calf's stomach.

Cheese is very nutritious, containing high quality protein, fat, minerals, carotene and calcium. It lacks only in vitamin C and dietary fiber. It is estimated that cheese was made as early as 4000 B.C. It was eaten in Ancient Egypt and Ancient Rome, too. People have made various kinds of cheese ever since. In Japan, from the 8th to the 10th century there was a kind of dairy product called so, which was given as an offering and as medicine. Naturally, only a handful of upper-class people savored it. Today we are fortunate to be able to make some kinds of cheese without having to kill young calves. Laura might have found it more enjoyable to help Ma with cheese-making if a substitute for rennet had been available! Vocabulary Check 1. log house 1. 丸太小屋、 2. anxiety 2. 不安 3. stomach 3. 胃 4. nutritious 4. 栄養価が高い 5. dairy 5. 乳の 6. offering 6. 供え物 7. savor 7. いただく 8. fortunate 8. 幸運である 9. substitute 9. 代用品 10. available 10. 入手可能 Comprehension Check (T/F)

1. ( ) Laura enjoyed helping Ma with cheese-making. 2. ( ) Rennet from a young calf’s stomach was necessary for Luara’s mother to make cheese. 3. ( ) Cheese contains many kinds of nutrition except for vitamin C and dietary fiber. 4. ( ) In the old days a kind of dairy product was common in Japan. 5. ( ) Cheese is thought to have been made for more than 6,000 years.

Session 2 Reading Summer. In Little House in the Big Woods (pp. 187-189) So Pa went again to Uncle Henry’s, and came back with a piece of the little calf’s stomach. It was like a piece of soft, grayish-white leather, all ridged and rough on one side. When the cows were milked at night, Ma set the milk away in pans. In the morning she skimmed off the cream to make into butter later. Then when the morning's milk had cooled, she mixed it with the skimmed milk and set it all on the stove to heat. A bit of the rennet, tied in a cloth, was soaking in warm water. When the milk was heated enough, Ma squeezed every drop of water from the rennet in the cloth, and then she poured the water into the milk. She stirred it well and left it in a warm place by the stove. In a little while it thickened into a smooth, quivery mass. With a long knife Ma cut this mass into little squares, and let it stand while the curd separated from the whey. Then she poured it all into a cloth and let the thin, yellowish whey drain out. When no more whey dripped from the cloth, Ma emptied the curd into a big pan and salted it, turning and mixing it well. Laura and Mary were always there, helping all they could. They loved to eat bits of the curd when Ma was salting it. It squeaked in their teeth. Vocabulary Check 1. grayish-white 1. 灰白色 2. ridged 2. 畝のある 3. rough 3. でこぼこの 4. pan 4. 鍋 5. skim off 5. ～をすくい取る 6. thicken 6. とろみがつく 7. quivery 7. ぷるんぷるん震える 8. separate 8. 分離する 9. yellowish 9. 黄色っぽい 10. squeak 10. 歯の間できしきし音をたてる Comprehension check (T/F) 1. ( ) The cows were milked at night and in the morning. 2. ( ) A bit of the rennet was soaking in cold water.

108

3. ( ) Ma added the water from the rennet into the milk. 4. ( ) The whey is thicker than the curd. 5. ( ) Laura and Mary loved to drink a cup of whey. Session 3 Reading Mrs. Rabbit and Herb Tea. In A Taste of English: Food and Fiction (p. 10) Ignoring his mother's orders, Peter sneaks into Mr. McGregor's garden and feasts on fresh vegetables. Looking for some parsley to aid the digestion, he is spotted by Mr. McGregor, who then chases him all over the garden. Peter has a narrow escape and arrives home in a state of exhaustion. He is scolded by his mother and sent to bed with a dose of camomile tea, though his well-behaved sisters enjoy bread, milk and blackberries for supper. It seems that Potter had an extensive knowledge of herbs, as they often appear in her stories.

Camomile is one of the oldest herbs in Europe. It is said that camomile was used as folk medicine in Babylonia more than 4,000 years ago. Camomile comes from a Greek word meaning "earth apple". That is because its flower has a flavour similar to that of an apple. Camomile helps us to relax and sleep well. Planted beside cabbages and onions, it also repels harmful insects. Herbs, which have high antioxidant properties and can strengthen the immune system, have been used for medicinal purposes and as seasonings for centuries all over the world, especially in Britain. Of course, we have many herbs in Japan. Wasabi, mitsuba and udo are herbs native to Japan. Shiso, sansho, chrysanthemum and mugwort are also regarded as herbs. By the way, if you were feeling tired, what kind of tea would you drink? Vocabulary Check 1. order 1. 命令 2. feast 2. たらふく食べる 3. digestion 3. 消化 4. chase 4. 追いかける 5. narrow 5. かろうじての 6. state 6. 状態 7. dose 7. 少量 8. antioxidant 8. 抗酸化性 9. property 9. 特性 10. immune system 10. 免疫システム Comprehension Check (T/F)

1. ( ) Peter knows that parsley helps food to digest easily. 2. ( ) Peter goes to bed with a dose of camomile tea after supper. 3. ( ) Potter must have known a lot about herbs. 4. ( ) People have made use of herbs for cooking since ancient times. 5. ( ) The British are not familiar with herbs.

Session 4 Reading Little House in the Big Woods. In Little House in the Big Woods. (pp. 18-19) The little pieces of meat, lean and fat, that had been cut off the large pieces, Ma chopped and chopped until it was all chopped fine. She seasoned it with salt and pepper and with dried sage leaves from the garden. Then with her hands she tossed and turned it until it was well mixed, and she molded it into balls. She put the balls in a pan out in the shed, where they would freeze and be good to eat all winter. That was the sausage. When Butchering Time was over, there were the sausages and the headcheese, the big jars of lard and the keg of white salt-pork out in the shed, and in the attic hung the smoked hams and shoulders. The little house was fairly bursting with good food stored away for the long winter. The pantry and the shed and the cellar were full, and so was the attic. Laura and Mary must play in the house now, for it was cold outdoors and the brown leaves were all falling from the trees. The fire in the cook stove never went out. At night Pa banked it with ashes to keep the coals alive till morning. The attic was a lovely place to play. The large, round, colored pumpkins made beautiful chairs and tables. The red peppers and the onions dangled overhead. The hams and the venison hung in their paper wrappings, and all bunches of dried herbs, the spicy herbs for cooking and the bitter herbs for medicine, gave the place a dusty-spicy smell. Vocabulary Check 1. season 1. 味をつける 2. toss 2. 叩く 3. shed 3. 物置 4. butchering 4. 豚の始末の 5. headcheese 5. かしら肉のにこごり 6. keg 6. 樽 7. bank 7. 囲う 8. dangle 8. 束ねる 9. venison 9. 鹿肉 10. pantry 10. 食料部屋

109

Comprehension Check (T/F) (1) ( ) Ma made sausage from the little pieces of meat, lean and fat. (2) ( ) Ma seasoned the sausage with salt and pepper and flesh sage leaves from the garden. (3) ( ) Before butchering time, there were sausages and the headcheese in the shed. (4) ( ) Ham and shoulders were smoked, and then hung in the attic. (5) ( ) The pantry, the shed, the cellar, an attic were full with good foods. Session 5 (Posttest) Reading Peter Rabbit and Pie. In A taste of English: Food and Fiction (p. 6) Children's books often contain a moral, and the stories of Beatrix Potter are no exception. Potter is the well-known author of books such as The Tale of Peter Rabbit and her stories are full of wit and humor, sometimes black humor, which is typical of British stories. Her first published story was created from illustrated letters that she had sent to children, particularly to the sick child of her former governess. One morning Peter's mother, Mrs. Rabbit gives her children permission to go into the fields. She orders them not to go into Mr. McGregor's garden because their father was caught there and put in a pie by the farmer's wife. Mrs. Rabbit discloses this shocking accident to her children, but Peter doesn't pay attention to his mother.

By the way, some pies have queer names; not meat but dried fruits are put in mince meat pie, and Mississippi mud pie is a chocolate-based dessert pie usually served with ice cream. It is hardly surprising that the British love to eat steak and kidney pie when one considers how popular motsu-nabe, miso-nabe made with offal and vegetables, is in Japan. Perhaps you have seen some people enjoy pie-throwing on TV or in a movie. It might be exciting to watch, but it can't be pleasant to be the target of a pie thrower! Well, do you know why March 14th is known as "Pie Day"? Please remember the circular constant, that is π. The next chapter will tell you what happened when Peter disobeyed his mother's orders. Vocabulary Check 1. author 1. 著者 2. publish 2. 出版する 3. governess 3. （住み込みの）女性家庭教師 4. permission 4. 許可 5. disclose 5. 打ち明ける 6. queer 6. 奇妙な 7. hardly 7. ほとんど～ない 8. kidney 8. 腎臓 9. offal 9. 臓物 10. disobey 10. 従わない Comprehension Check (T/F)

1. ( ) The stories of Beatrix Potter are interesting because they contain no moral. 2. ( ) Beatrix Potter sent illustrated letters to a sick child. 3. ( ) Peter’s father caught a pie in the farmer’s garden. 4. ( ) Everyone enjoys becoming a target of a pie thrower. 5. ( ) Peter is not obedient to his mother.

110

Tips for Teaching Pronunciation to Japanese Learners of English

Mayumi Abe In this paper I present 10 tips for teaching pronunciation to Japanese learners of English. They are divided into three categories: general approaches, suprasegmentals, and segmentals. General Approaches Include Pronunciation Instruction in the Curriculum In many of the English classes in Japan, pronunciation attracts less attention than linguistic features such as vocabulary and grammar, probably because of a lack of time, knowledge, and/or experience of teachers about pronunciation instruction (Naiman, 1992). However, because there seem to be various phonological features that cannot be learnt without explicit instruction (e.g., Derwing, Thomson, Foote, & Munro, 2012), and also appropriate pronunciation enhances intelligibility of the learners’ utterance, pronunciation should be included in the curriculum of L2 instruction. Providing a separate class for pronunciation would be beneficial because there are concerns that pronunciation cannot be taught systematically, or it will not be taught at all, and students might not realize the importance of pronunciation without such opportunities (Naiman, 1992; Wong, 1987). Another way of including pronunciation in the curriculum is to integrate pronunciation into the instruction of other linguistic features such as listening and speaking. Set a Goal at “Intelligibility” for Adult Learners There are many factors that impede the acquisition of L2 pronunciation such as age, transfer, markedness, identity, personality, aptitude, and sociocultural context (Avery & Ehrlich, 1992; Celce-Murcia, Brinton, Goodwin, & Griner, 2010; Hansen, 2004; Leather, 1999). Considering these various constraints, it is not realistic to set a goal to acquire native-like pronunciation in adult L2 learning (Avery & Ehrlich, 1992; Leather, 1999; Morley, 1991). As Avery and Ehrlich stated (p. xvi), the most important objective in teaching pronunciation is to enhance the intelligibility of the learners’ utterances. Because it has been shown that prosodic features, such as intonation, stress, and rhythm, influence intelligibility greatly regardless of speakers’ accent (Hahn, 2004; Munro & Derwing, 1999), an effective approach is to begin with teaching suprasegmentals (McNerney & Mendelsohn, 1992). Teach Pronunciation in Communicative Contexts Levis (1999) showed how the use of intonation of a sentence changes depending on the context and the speaker’s intentions, and suggested that intonation be taught in communicative contexts. In classroom, activities such as dialogues, role-plays, and games in which learners practice particular phonological features repeatedly can create communicative contexts for pronunciation practice (Naiman, 1992). Tasks such as information-gap activities and matching exercises also encourage students to engage in interaction with other learners using the focused phonological features multiple times. It is also possible to integrate pronunciation practice into tasks focused on other aspects of the language such as speaking and listening. Teach Self-Monitoring and Self-Correction Strategies Even if learners can acquire native-like pronunciation in the classroom, they might revert to their former habit of pronunciation outside classroom (Firth, 1992). To prevent such a problem, teachers should help learners develop self-correction and self-monitoring strategies. Using mnemonic peg (pp. 216, 218) is an effective way to show learners how to move their lips, tongue, and muscles to produce a certain sound. Recording their own speech is another useful way for learners to notice the gap between standard sounds and their articulation. As Morley (1991) suggested, self-involvement in learning process is beneficial for adult learners, and developing their appropriate awareness and attitudes is significant for successful L2 learning.

111

Suprasegmentals Teach Stress-Timed Rhythm While Japanese is a syllable-timed language, English has a stress-timed rhythm, and for the learners with a syllable-timed L1, English rhythm is difficult to acquire (Avery & Ehrlich, 1992). However, rhythm is an important factor for intelligible pronunciation, so it is crucial for Japanese learners of English to acquire English stress-timed rhythm. To raise awareness of the rhythm, it is helpful to show that all the following sentences are pronounced with the same number of stressed syllables: BIRDS EAT WORMS, The BIRDS EAT WORMS, The BIRDS EAT the WORMS, The BIRDS will EAT the WORMS, and The BIRDS will have EATen the WORMS. (Avery, Ehrlich, & Jull, 1992, p. 74; Celce-Murcia, et al., 2010). Tapping out a regular rhythm that coincides with the stressed syllables is an effective technique to show the rhythm of stressed-timed pronunciation clearly (Avery & Ehrlich, p. 74). Using nursery rhymes can also helpful (p. 107). Teach Reduced Vowels Reduced vowels are an important factor that creates stress-timed rhythm because they shorten the length of unstressed syllables and make it possible to differentiate stressed and unstressed syllables (Avery & Ehrlich, 1992). Because all vowels are pronounced with the same length of time in syllable-timed language such as Japanese, and English spelling does not show the existence of reduced vowels, native Japanese speakers might not recognize them. Therefore, explicit teaching of the reduced vowel, schwa, is beneficial for those learners. It is effective to start with two-syllable words, comparing the levels of stresses in respective syllables and then paying attention to the way the vowel in unstressed syllable is pronounced. Teach the Distinction Between Content and Function Words Distinguishing content words and function words is important in English pronunciation because the stressed syllables on content words create the stress-timed rhythm of English (Avery & Ehrlich, 1992). In other words, it is crucial for learners to know which words are stressed and which words are unstressed in a sentence to produce a sentence with appropriate rhythm. Japanese learners of English generally do not recognize the gap between the stressed words and unstressed words in English pronunciation because they do not have corresponding rules in their first language. Therefore, explicit instruction on the distinction is often needed. Because many Japanese learners know the names of parts of speech as the result of the grammar instruction at secondary school, it is not difficult to teach which parts of speech are content words or function words. Teach Connected Speech Connected speech is another unique feature of English pronunciation. There are a variety of rules for connected speech, such as linking consonants to vowels, deletion of consonants, assimilation, and palatalization. To teach these features, the following steps are recommended by Celce-Murcia, et al. (2010). First, illustrate the most common patterns using worksheets that include explanation, examples, and exercises. Second, have the learners listen for reduced speech features and then do focused reading aloud to notice the ways in which native speakers use the target features. Third, have the learners work on controlled practice at word level first and then at sentence level. Fourth, have the learners engage in communicative practice in pairs or groups. Providing a template of a dialogue with target sound features is one effective way, and setting a context in which the target feature can be practiced meaningfully is another way of teaching. Segmentals Focus on Problematic Sounds When time is limited for teaching pronunciation, it is efficient to focus on problematic sounds for the learners. For Japanese learners of English, it is difficult to distinguish some vowels in English because the Japanese language has far fewer vowels than English does. For example, native Japanese speakers tend to pronouns /ӕ/, /ʌ/, and /a/ in a similar manner. In consonants, the distinction between the sounds such as /r/and /l/, /b/ and /v/, and /s/ and /ʃ/ are especially difficult for Japanese because they do not have similar contrasts in their first language. To teach those problematic segmentals, the following teaching steps can be used. First, explain how to produce the sound explicitly, and pronounce the sound in an exaggerated way. Second, have the learners practice the sound with minimal pairs being conscious of the difference between the sounds of the two similar

112

words. Introducing information-gap activities using minimal pairs (Avery & Ehrlich, p. 165) and teaching the phonemic alphabet (Celce-Murcia, et al., 2010) are helpful as well. Have Learners Practice Consonant Clusters Because the Japanese language does not have closed syllables except /n/, consonant clusters are quite difficult for Japanese learners of English to produce, and they often insert a vowel after each consonant (e.g., [sutoriyto] for street). To teach consonant clusters, the ideas suggested by Celce-Murcia, et al. (2010) are effective. First, raise the learners’ awareness of consonant clusters by having them discriminate minimal pairs such as train and terrain, and sport and support. Second, have the learners focus on the initial /s/ in the words such as state and school, and consciously lengthen it before pronouncing the rest of the cluster such as /ssssteyt/ and /sssskuwl/. It is also effective to have the learners start from one consonant and then build up the cluster gradually (e.g., /rӕp/ → /trӕp/ → /strӕp/). Conclusion Although pronunciation is an important aspect in language acquisition, it is often slighted in second language education. I hope that the 10 tips suggested above help English teachers, especially those who teach Japanese learners of English, as they reflect the features of the Japanese language and many of the difficulties encountered by Japanese learners of English. References Avery, P., & Ehrlich, S. (1992). Teaching American English pronunciation (6th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford

University Press. Avery, P., Ehrlich, S., & Jull, D. (1992). Connected speech. In P. Avery, & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), Teaching

American English pronunciation (6th ed.) (pp. 73-90). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., Goodwin, J. M., & Griner, B. (2010). Teaching pronunciation: A course

book and reference guide (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Derwing, T.M., Thomson, R. I., Foote, J. A., & Munro, M. J. (2012). A longitudinal study of listening

perception in adult learners of English: Implications for teachers. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 68(3), 247-266.

Firth, S. (1992). Developing self-correcting and self-monitoring strategies. In P. Avery & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), Teaching American English pronunciation (6th ed.) (pp. 215-219). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hahn, L.D. (2004). Primary stress and intelligibility: Research to motivate the teaching of suprasegmentals. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 201-223.

Hansen, J. G. (2004). Developmental sequences in the acquisition of English L2 syllable codas. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 85-124.

Leather, J. (1999). Second-language speech research: An introduction. Language Learning 49 (Supplement 1), 1-56.

Levis, J. M., (1999). Intonation in theory and practice, revised. TESOL Quarterly, 33(1), 37-63. McNerney, M., & Mendelsohn, D. (1992). Suprasegmentals in the pronunciation class: Setting priorities. In P.

Avery & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), Teaching American English pronunciation (6th ed.) (pp. 185-196). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.


Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1999). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning 49 (Supplement 1), 285-310.

Naiman, N. (1992). A communicative approach to pronunciation teaching. In P. Avery & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), Teaching American English pronunciation (6th ed.) (pp. 163-171). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Wong, R. (1987). Teaching pronunciation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

113

Guidelines for Teaching Pronunciation

Christopher Nicklin Segmental and Suprasegmental Features Traditional pronunciation teaching focused on the correct production of segmental features using repetition drills. Following on from studies such as Pennington and Richards (1986) in the 1980’s, there was a shift towards the teaching of pronunciation at a suprasegmental level, focusing on prosodic features such as rhythm, stress, and intonation. The teaching of suprasegmental features, such as primary stress, has been proven to have a great effect on the comprehensibility and intelligibility of ESL students (Hahn, 2004). That is not to say that the teaching of English pronunciation should ignore the segmental level. Phonemic errors, such as the substitution of contrastive sounds, can have an effect on comprehensibility. However, modern pronunciation teaching should mainly focus on suprasegmental features, as errors of this kind seem to be a more important factor in the loss of intelligibility than phonemic errors (Munro & Derwing, 1999). Self-monitoring Self-monitoring is the process of analysing your own speech production for errors in segmental pronunciation, and un-natural prosodic features. Successful self-monitoring can lead to greater comprehensibility by allowing a student to identify problem areas. Firth (1992) stated that the earliest stages of a pronunciation course should involve the development of self-monitoring abilities. Such abilities can lead to student independence, and help reduce the problem of carry-over that has been described as a plague of pronunciation instructors (p. 219).

Modern technology has made the recording of production convenient through the development of smart phones and free PC software such as Audacity. Students should be encouraged to record their own speech production and play it back with the aim of identifying how it could be improved. After such analysis a further recording can be made for comparative purposes. Students can work in pairs and analyse each other’s speech; this task can lead to the identification of problem areas that students might not recognise on their own. Self-Correcting Self-correcting is the ability of students to recognise their own production errors, and then correct them. Self-correcting can lead to student independence (Firth, 1992) and also be used to improve comprehensibility by drawing a student’s attention to mistakes made through the substitution of contrastive sounds. For example, the substitution of /s/ for /ʃ/ by Japanese students in words such as sip and sea.

Firth (1992) listed three examples of techniques a teacher can use to encourage self-correction of pronunciation sound errors: (a) repetition of a sound error with a questioning intonation, (b) repetition of the sentence with the error replaced by the word what, and (c) repetition of the error with an exaggeration of the error to call the student’s attention to the mistake. Point (b) is similar to Saito’s description of a recast which, together with form-focused instruction (FFI), has been proven to facilitate the acquisition of problematic segmental features such as the acquisition of /ɹ/ by Japanese learners of English (Saito, 2013). Avery and Ehrlich (1992) suggested that if students monitor themselves and each other, a metalanguage develops which allows them to talk about and become aware of their own pronunciation. Sentence Stress The stress-timed nature of English can be problematic for speakers of syllable-timed languages, such as Japanese. Celce-Murcia, Brinton, Goodwin and Griner (2010) suggested that native speakers can fail to comprehend, or even become impatient, if the correct stress is not placed on key words. Basic rules of sentence stress, such as use of the unstressed form of function words, should be explained to students. Examples of such forms in various samples of speech can be played to students to emphasise that such behaviour is prominent in both casual and formal speech. Students can be encouraged to identify correct

114

production of sentence stress from pairs of sentences modelled by the teacher, one with correct stress and one without. Students should then be encouraged to produce sentences with correct sentence stress, monitor each other’s production, and offer correction if required. Connected Speech Connected speech is spoken language as a continuous sequence instead of blocks of isolated words and individual sounds. The acquisition of connected speech patterns is one of the main differences between intermediate and high proficiency ESL learners (Anderson-Hseih, Riney, & Koehler, 1994). Celce-Murcia et al. (2010) highlighted four areas in which connected speech occurs frequently in English and which should be focused on when teaching connected speech: (a) Consonant-to-vowel linking; (b) Vowel-to-vowel linking; (c) Consonant assimilation; and (d) Palatalization (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010, p. 175). These areas can be taught using FFI and worksheets such as those provided by Celce-Murcia et al. (2010, pp. 176-179). Short video clips involving natural conversation, recorded conversations, or songs can be played for students to identify pre-taught elements of connected. Celce-Murcia et al. (2010) recommend idioms and advertising slogans as sources of connected speech for controlled practice. Minimal Pairs Minimal pair exercises are a traditional way of illustrating and practicing potentially confusing segmental sounds. For example, the vowel sounds /iy/ and /I/ in pairs such as sheep and ship, sleep and slip, least and list. Celce-Murcia et al. (2010) suggested various ways a teacher can make use of such pairs. The teacher can read the pairs and ask the students if they are the same or different. The words can be grouped in lists according to /iy/ or /I/ sound on the board. Students should identify which sound they hear produced when each word is read by the teacher. The different words can be contrasted within a sentence with the production of syntagmic drills. For example, there’s a sheep on the ship. The different words can also be contrasted across two sentences with paradigmatic drills. For example, Don’t slip on the floor and Don’t sleep on the floor. Reading Aloud Reading aloud refers to the production of a pre-prepared text. Due to the non-communicative nature of reading aloud, the technique has suffered from a bad reputation in the past. However, the potential of reading aloud to provide awareness of prosodic features, and give opportunities to practise them, has lead to a reassessment of its use in the classroom (Gibson, 2008). When using reading aloud it is important to provide a suitable text. Nation (2007) recommends material which is familiar, interesting, and with five unknown words per hundred at most. Material containing dialogue and subjective material should also be avoided (Derwing, Munro, & Carbonaro, 2000). Selected passages should be modelled by the teacher to provide an example of natural stress patterns, rhythm, and intonation. If a task was focused on sentence stress, the students would then talk about what they observed about the sentence stress patterns of the teachers reading. The students should then be encouraged to read the passage in pairs, attempting to recreate the stress patterns illustrated by the teacher during the initial reading. This kind of exercise would promote improvements in comprehensibility and self-correcting strategies. Sammy Diagrams Sammy diagrams illustrate the inner workings of the human mouth and throat to show the exact position of the various articulators when producing a given sound. Sammy diagrams can be a useful tool to help students who have problems with certain segmental sounds. For example, many Japanese ESL learners have problems producing the retroflex /r/ sound. Explaining the shape the tongue should make to produce this sound might not be enough for a student to understand. A Sammy diagram clearly shows how the tongue should be articulated. Sammy diagrams can also be used to clearly explain the mechanical differences between contrasting sounds which can hinder comprehensibility, such as /s/ and /θ/. Avery and Ehrlich (1992) provide a comprehensive set of photocopiable Sammy diagrams that can be used for classroom teaching.

115

Motivation Firth (1992) suggested that the role of a pronunciation teacher involves motivating students to understand why accurate oral production is important. If students do not think pronunciation is important, they will not think it is worth the effort of practicing. The importance of pronunciation can be demonstrated by encouraging students to think about cases where they heard their own language being pronounced poorly, and to consider their own reactions to hearing such production. Allen and Waugh (1986) used this technique with francophone students whose own negative reactions lead to a realization of the importance of accurate English pronunciation. Integrated Teaching The teaching of pronunciation should be integrated into all aspects of language teaching and reinforced in all classes (Naiman, 1992, p. 164). When new vocabulary is introduced, correct primary stress of each word could be emphasised. When new grammar structures are introduced, correct sentence stress and intonation could be emphasised. When listening exercises are implemented, instances of connected speech and un-stressed pronunciation could be highlighted. This kind of integration keeps students’ attention on the various elements of pronunciation that are vital for comprehensibility. If these elements are regularly discussed, they become more prominent in the students’ minds, and this leads their production to become more instinctive. Automaticity is enhanced, and pronunciation is becomes an important, integral part of language learning. References Avery, P., & Ehrlich, S. (1992). Teaching American English pronunciation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Allen, W., & Waugh, S. (1986). Dealing with accuracy in communicative language teaching. TESL Canada

Journal, Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.libproxy. temple.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&d b=eric&AN=EJ349406&site=ehost-live&scop e= site.

Anderson-Hsieh, J., Riney, T., & Koehler, K. (1994). Connected speech modifications in the English of Japanese ESL learners. IDEAL, 7, 31-52.

Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., Goodwin, J. M., & Griner, B. (2010). Teaching pronunciation: A course book and reference guide (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Carbonaro, M. (2000). Does popular speech recognition software work with ESL speech? TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 592-603.

Firth, S. (1992). Developing self-correcting and self-monitoring strategies. In P. Avery & S. Ehrlich (Eds.). Teaching American English pronunciation (pp. 215-219). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gibson, S. (2008). Reading aloud: A useful learning tool? ELT Journal, 62(1), 29-36. Hahn, L. D. (2004). Primary stress and intelligibility: Research to motivate the teaching of

suprasegmentals. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 201-223. Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1999). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of

second language learners. Language Learning, 49, 285-310. Naiman, N. (1992). A communicative approach to pronunciation teaching. In P. Avery & S. Ehrlich (Eds.).

Teaching American English pronunciation (pp. 163-171). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nation, I. S. P. (2007). The four strands. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching. 1(1), 1-12. Pennington, M. C., & Richards, J. C. (1986) Pronunciation revisited. TESOL Quarterly 20(2), 207-225. Saito, K. (2013). The acquisitional value of recasts in instructed second language speech learning: Teaching

the perception and production of English /ɹ/ to adult Japanese learners. Language Learning, 63(3), 499-529.

116

Teaching English Pronunciation

Garrett S. DeOrio Pronunciation can present a variety of challenges to teachers, particularly when time for instruction is limited. The following is a brief list of priorities and considerations that can help make a pronunciation course productive in many circumstances. Analyze Learners’ Needs Any course is most effective when the instruction offered matches the needs of the students. Teachers must take learners’ backgrounds, age, experience, goals, and motivation into account when planning a course or lesson (Wong, 1987, as cited in Celce-Murcia, Brinton, Goodwin, & Griner 2010). Morley (1991) listed analyzing learners’ speech and prioritizing the aspects of pronunciation that will most help to improve intelligibility as the first responsibility of a teacher-as-coach. Conducting diagnostic tests or otherwise carefully assessing learners’ strengths and weaknesses in oral production early in a course helps a teacher decide what to teach and how to teach it and is essential to being able to help learners make the most of any pronunciation course. Many teachers begin courses without having a chance to meet or assess the students. In such a situation, the teacher must rely on experience or general knowledge of the type of students in a class in order to prepare lessons and activities likely to be useful to most students. For example, junior high school students beginning to study English need to start with the basics of English pronunciation and are likely to have different needs than businesspeople preparing to travel abroad for work, who are more likely to need to focus on the prosodic or pragmatic features of oral communication. Start Early There is a great deal of debate over the extent to which beginning L2 learning at a young age vs. an older age affects general L2 acquisition. However, research suggests that achieving native-like pronunciation might be impossible after puberty (Krashen, 1973; Saito & Brajot, 2013; Scovel, 1969). Therefore, beginning instruction in L2 pronunciation and oral communication in early childhood makes learners more likely to achieve a high level of intelligibility, even native-like pronunciation, than beginning in adolescence or adulthood. For this reason, it might be a good idea to include pronunciation instruction and extensive oral communication in curricula for elementary school students and younger children, as an early start to L2 study can help pronunciation more than other factors of L2 use, which might be acquired equally effectively by post-pubescent learners. However, many learners begin EFL or ESL study after puberty and the difficulty of achieving native-like pronunciation does not mean they cannot achieve highly comprehensible speech (Trofimovich & Isaacs, 2012). Even for these learners, beginning L2 study at the earliest age possible can be helpful, as longer periods of exposure to the L2 help improve pronunciation, among other L2 skills (Patkowski, 1980). Teach Pronunciation in Context Learners need to be able to practice pronunciation in situations that are likely to lead to increased intelligibility in oral communication. The segmental accuracy that is the most likely result of instruction focused on individual sounds is not the most important contributing factor to intelligibility (Pennington & Richards, 1986). Teaching the features of pronunciation in context allows learners to hear and practice sounds in a natural manner; practice segmental, suprasegmental, and voice setting features together, as they occur in natural communication; and to immediately apply rules learned to oral communication. In some instances, such as addressing a particular, repeated segmental error or introducing a new phoneme to a learner, decontextualized instruction can be helpful (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010), but the newly learned sounds would then be best stabilized by in-context practice.

117

Foster WTC Learners who communicate more in the L2 show more improvement in fluency, comprehensibility, and accent (Derwing & Munro, 2013). Whether in an EFL or ESL context, learners can only take advantage of opportunities to practice English if they are motivated and confident enough to be willing to talk to others in English. To help learners increase WTC, teachers should first create a comfortable and relaxing atmosphere in class, which helps students build confidence by taking chances in a safe, familiar situation, thus making the most of the opportunities they have to practice with other learners and the teacher. This, in turn, improves pronunciation, which can help further build confidence, which can then lead to increased willingness to communicate, leading to more practice and improved pronunciation in a virtuous circle. Teach Pronunciation Explicitly Explicitly teaching pronunciation, particularly to adults, can help learners improve pronunciation more quickly than teaching implicitly (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010). Explicit instruction has been shown to being about improvements in both segmental (Saito, 2013) and suprasegmental factors (Derwing, Munro, & Wiebe, 1998; Pennington & Ellis, 2000). Explicit instruction can draw learners’ attention to specific elements of the sound system that need attention, allow learners to practice new elements of pronunciation in a focused and meaningful way, and allow learners to receive focused, explicit feedback on the elements being taught. Furthermore, explicit instruction can ensure that elements of pronunciation that are difficult for learners to acquire are addressed, as pronunciation of some elements does not improve without instruction (Derwing, Thomson, Foote, & Munro, 2012). Provide and Allow for Feedback While some elements of a language can be learned in isolation or without interaction with other speakers, oral communication consists solely of such interactions. Therefore, learners need consistent feedback in order to improve. Pronunciation feedback can come in various forms, from the direct and explicit, such as recasts (Saito, 2013) to the broad and general, in the form of an interlocutor’s comprehension or lack of comprehension of a speaker’s utterances. In a classroom setting, students can receive feedback from other classmates as well as from the teacher, in both explicit and implicit ways. This feedback can help learners notice errors and focus on those that seem to cause the greatest difficulties in communication. Encourage Self-Monitoring and Self-Correction Self-awareness is essential to improvement in pronunciation, as deliberate learning can occur continuously, even when instruction is unavailable. Pronunciation improves with practice, therefore learners must take responsibility for their own learning become able to monitor their own speech (Morley, 1991). If learners address the errors they are able to perceive, they can improve at a faster rate than they could through classroom instruction alone. Just as adult learners can benefit from explicit instruction, their metalinguistic awareness allows them to apply rules they have learned to their own production and assess their own performance. This can occur during conversation and classroom activities or separately, in situations such as learners listening to recordings of themselves. Focus on Suprasegmentals Pronunciation receives little class time in comparison with other factors of L2 instruction (Naiman, 1992) and most teachers have limited time to teach pronunciation. Suprasementals play a vital role in comprehensibility at the word level, the sentence level, and beyond. At the word level, segmental errors cause misunderstanding mainly when they occur in stressed syllables, thus combined with a suprasegmental factor (Zielinski, 2008). Suprasegmentals such as primary stress have a significant impact on not only comprehensibility, but on how speakers are perceived (Hahn, 2004). Therefore, a focus on suprasegmentals can deliver the most noticeable improvement to pronunciation (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010; Derwing et al., 1998; McNerney & Mendelsohn, 1992), particularly if a limited time is available for pronunciation instruction.

118

Teach Spelling Oral and written communication are closely linked for many learners, particularly in EFL contexts, when new vocabulary and exposure to new grammatical structures occur primarily through reading. While seemingly inconsistent at first glance, English orthography has consistent lexical and phonological patterns that can be learned and practiced (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010). A greater understanding of English orthography helps learners use newly learned words and phrases in oral communication, see the connections between words and phrases, and read aloud with greater proficiency. Read Aloud Reading aloud level-appropriate texts gives learners a chance to focus on suprasegmentals without worrying about what to say or trying to remember a passage (Gibson, 2008). Reading aloud allows learners to practice all aspects of pronunciation–segmentals, voice setting, and suprasegmentals–in a well-defined context that allows for specific feedback from fellow learners and the teacher. Careful selection of reading aloud texts can also allow teachers to direct the focus of a lesson to specific features of pronunciation. Reading aloud also allows learners to repeat an activity done in class on their own time, thus reinforcing the rules or skills learned. Finally, Reading aloud can help newly learned patterns, words, and skills become stabilized in a learner’s repertoire (Chun, 2002; Stevick, 1989). Conclusion The application of these practices, particularly starting early when possible and analyzing learners’ needs in order to tailor the pronunciation course to those elements most likely to provide the greatest improvement, will help teachers approach pronunciation effectively and constructively and, thus, give their students the opportunity to develop clear and comprehensible speech. The key to any approach to pronunciation instruction is to apply practical principles in concert and as part of a communicative curriculum suited to the students’ circumstances and needs. References Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D., Goodwin, J., & Griner, B. (2010). Teaching pronunciation (2nd ed.). New York,

NY: Cambridge University Press. Chun, D. (2002). Discourse intonation in L2: From theory to practice. Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins. Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2013). The development of L2 oral language skills in two L1 groups: A 7-year

study. Language Learning, 63(2), 163-185. Derwing, T., Munro, M., & Wiebe, G. (1998). Evidence in factor of a broad framework for pronunciation

instruction. Language Learning, 48(3), 393-410. Derwing, T. M., Thomson, R., Foote, J., & Munro, M. J. (2012). A longitudinal study of listening perception in

adult learners of English: Implications for teachers. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 68(3), 247-266.

Gibson, S. (2008). Reading aloud: A useful learning tool? ELT Journal, 62(1), 29-36. Hahn, L. (2004). Primary stress and intelligibility: Research to motivate the teaching of suprasegmentals. TESOL

Quarterly, 38(2), 201-223. Krashen, S. D. (1973). Lateralization, language learning, and the critical period: Some new evidence. Language

Learning, 23, 63-74. McNerney, M., & Mendelsohn, D. (1992). Suprasegmentals in the pronunciation class: Setting priorities. In P.

Avery & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), Teaching American English pronunciation (pp. 185-196). Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Naiman, N. (1992). A communicative approach to pronunciation teaching. In P. Avery & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), Teaching American English pronunciation (pp. 163-171). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Patkowski, M. (1980). The sensitive period for the acquisition of syntax in a second language. Language Learning, 30(2), 449-472.

Pennington, M., & Ellis, N. (2000). Cantonese speakers’ memory for English sentences with prosodic cues.

119

The Modern Language Journal, 84(3), 372-389. Pennington, M., & Richards, J. (1986). Pronunciation revisited. TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 207-225. Saito, K. (2013). The acquisitional value of recasts in instructed second language speech learning: Teaching the

perception and production of English /r/ to adult Japanese learners. Language Learning, 63(3), 499-529. doi:10.1111/lang.12015

Saito, K., & Brajot, F. (2013). Scrutinizing the role of length of residence and age of acquisition in the interlanguage pronunciation development of English /ɹ/ by late Japanese bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(4), 847-863. doi:10.1017/S13667289120000703

Scovel, T. (1969). Foreign accent: Language acquisition and cerebral dominance. Language Learning, 19, 245-254. Stevick, E. (1989). Success with foreign languages: Seven who achieved it and what worked for them. Hemel

Hempstead: Prentice Hall International. Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2012). Deconstructing comprehensibility. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,

34(3), 475-505. Zielinski, B. (2008). The listener: No longer the silent partner in reduced intelligibility. System, 36(1), 69-84.

doi:10.1016/j.system.2007.11.004

120

Ten Guidelines for Teaching Pronunciation

Vivian Lee There are many aspects of teaching which are significant when approaching pronunciation instruction. Some guidelines for effective pronunciation instruction are non-specific to this subcategory of language acquisition, but still play a major role in its application. In the following guidelines I outline some general concepts and topic-specific aspects for teaching pronunciation, including. Motivation The individualized and collective motivational needs of learners should always be identified and addressed explicitly before starting language-learning instruction. With respect to pronunciation-related motivation, it is important that the motivational needs of the learners are realistic and level appropriate. By explicitly addressing motivational needs, the learner can create short-term and long-term goals that will further enhance their extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. By identifying the specific motivations of the students, the instructor can also provide more appropriate content and context for the learner. This can facilitate a perpetual motivational cycle. Additionally, by clearly defining the motivation behind learning pronunciation, the learner can achieve them faster and more efficiently. Short-Term and Long-term Goals Creating a clear and level-appropriate outline for how a learner will achieve their pronunciation goals is essential for their acquisition success. Students usually have an idealized concept of how they want to sound when producing a second language. These ideals should be acknowledged, and then placed into realistic short term and long-term goals with specific target dates for achievement. Pennington and Richards (1986) suggested that “the teaching of pronunciation must focus on longer-term goals; short term objectives must be developed with reference to longer-term goals” (p. 219). By creating these short-term and long-term goals, learners will have a clearer understanding of their acquisition process. Through identifying specific pronunciation points that important for comprehensibility, and giving learners clear opportunities to practice those aspects, the learners will demonstrate improvement (Avery & Ehrlich, 1992). Once a learner has achieved a short-term goal, they will feel an increase in motivation to continue to learn, and therefore are more likely to achieve long-term goals. Minimal Pairs An explicit method of improving pronunciation in learners is through the use of minimal pairs. Minimal pairs are “pairs of words that differ in meaning on the basis of change in only one sound” (Avery & Ehrlich, 1992, p. 39). Learners often impose incorrect pronunciation of sounds through negative transfer from their native language. Minimal pair exercises are an excellent way to isolate those negative transfers and apply an explicit strategy to reinforce the correct pronunciation. Part of minimal pair exercises involve identifying the positional variations of the phonemes with the instructor, and chorusing the sounds multiple times. Positional variants of phonemes should also be taught in tandem with minimal pair exercises, for more effective results (Avery & Ehrlich, 1992). If an instructor uses minimal pairs with a learner, the learner will have a better chance of reducing instances of incomprehensibility and misinterpretation. This reduction of unintelligibility can boost the learners’ confidence in their output, further motivating them towards successful second language communication. Shadowing Shadowing is a technique where the student follows the “rhythm and intonation contours of natural language samples, by producing the language at the same time as the teacher models it” (Avery & Ehrlich, 1992, pp. 169-170). This technique gives learners a chance to practice realistic discourse in real time with the direct assistance of the instructor. The practice of developing suprasegmental skills directly through shadowing can

121

have a positive result for the learner's confidence and motivation. It is a highly engaging pronunciation teaching strategy that can be both fun and useful for students. Communicative Approaches and Strategies When learners collaborate together and learn collectively, there is a greater opportunity for creative and meaningful language learning. Many instructors who practice communicative pronunciation teaching emphasize top-down processing and a student-centered environment. Avery and Ehrlich (1992) further recommended using meaningful content on the suprasegmental level, encouraging peer-evaluation methods, and task-oriented classroom activities. Student-centered communicative activities include matching of minimal pairs, using dialogues or role-playing, or peer-led shadowing practice. When learners work together, a collective sense of achievement is earned. This sense of achievement is highly motivating and can be extended to all aspects of the learning process. Dictionary Use and Metacognitive Understanding Understanding the fundamental building blocks of language on a metacognitive level can provide an enriching linguistic learning opportunity for students of all ages. Dictionary use in the class can have positive effects on a learner's pronunciation if used correctly. Learners should be given explicit instruction on vowel forms and their associated positional variants. To encourage further learner usage of dictionaries, they should be given collaborative opportunities in the classroom to use their dictionaries as a resource. Dictionary or phonetic-based instruction to raise metacognitive awareness of pronunciation includes peer answer checking, weekly spelling tests, or interactive spelling competitions (Celce-Murcia, Brinton, Goodwin, & Griner, 2010). Dictionary use in pronunciation instruction can have a significant positive and long-lasting effect on a learner's ability, so instructors should encourage and promote dictionary use as part of the second language curriculum. Suprasegmentals and Intonation When teaching pronunciation at the suprasegmental level, it is important to address contextually appropriate aspects such as intonation. According to Levis (1999), “intonation carries meaning, highlights important information... and plays a significant role in conversational management” (p. 59). These are essential aspects of communication that assist in conveying the emotional and underlying meanings of language that cannot often be conveyed with just words alone. This complex aspect of language is best taught explicitly, using meaningful language and contexts, while also providing a generalizable option (Levis, 1999). Once students are given the opportunity to use intonation correctly, they are more likely to understand the emotional context of the language being used. To improve intonation, instructors can exaggerate stress, or 'conduct' the conversation with physical movements (Avery & Ehrlich, 1992). Meaningful Context When learners are given an opportunity to practice their second language in a meaningful context, this raises the motivational affect and the practicability of the target language. There are several benefits to using a meaningful context when teaching pronunciation. Intonation, stress, and other suprasegmental aspects of pronunciation are most effectively learned when taught in a meaningful context. Meaningful context is also directly associated with the psychosocial aspect of learning, as it reflects a more realistic and practical part of pronunciation instruction. Excellent methods of applying meaningful context to pronunciation instruction include realistic dialogue, culturally relevant interviews (question/answer), intonation-based dialogue involving comprehension checks, and shadowing of realistic discourse. Meaningful Input and Listening Practice Comprehensible input can be delivered either through reading or listening. The initial aspects of pronunciation instruction revolve around a considerable amount of listening practice, as the learner becomes comfortable with the new language. It is part of form-focused instruction at first, but can also be used in cooperative instruction techniques. Listening practice is very useful for low-proficiency or shy students, as it reduces the students’ anxiety through not having them produce in front of a group (Avery & Ehrlich, 1992).

122

This type of input benefits students of all ability levels too, since the content can be easily adjusted to fit the needs of the learner. Listening practice can be used for identifying segmental forms and suprasegmental aspects of pronunciation, such as stress or intonation. For cooperative or collective group listening, learners can identify intonation patterns or complete cloze exercises. Once learners have become comfortable with production, they can also provide each other with listening opportunities through guided conversational practice. Self-Monitoring and Self-Modification A true sign on an autonomous learner is one that takes ownership of his or her mistakes and attempts to make positive changes without the assistance of the instructor. In order to achieve linguistic autonomy, a learner should practice self-monitoring and eventual self-modification. According to Avery and Ehrlich (1992), self-correction is “the ability to correct oneself when a pronunciation error has been pointed out (by another person)” (p. 215). Self-monitoring is the secondary and more autonomous step after self-correction, where the learner can identify their own errors either proactively or retroactively, and make the appropriate adjustments without the assistance of another person (Avery & Ehrlich, 1992). This is a kind of form-focused instruction that can be expanded to cooperative learning as a learner becomes more comfortable with the corrections. Once a student has learned how to become an autonomous learner through self-monitoring, their dependence on the instructor is reduced and they can even actively assist other learners in their language development. References Avery, P., & Ehrlich, S. (1992). Teaching American English pronunciation (6th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford

University Press. Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., Goodwin, J. M., & Griner, B. (2010). Teaching pronunciation: A course

book and reference guide (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Levis, J. M. (1999). Intonation in theory and practice, revised. TESOL Quarterly, 33(1), 37-63. Pennington, M. C., & Richards, J. C. (1986). Pronunciation revised. TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 207-225.

123

Guidelines for Teaching Pronunciation to Japanese Learners of English

Safumi Kamiyama Throughout the courses of the sound system and the course textbook written by Avery and Ehrlich (2012), I encountered many ideas for teaching pronunciation. In this paper, I select ten ideas and elaborate on them while having Japanese L2 learners in mind. Linguistic Differences Between English and Japanese Avery and Ehrlich (2012) pointed out the three major problems of Japanese English learners. It is beneficial for adult learners to find out the fundamental differences between Japanese and English through form-focused instruction (Saito, 2013). First, Japanese is dominated by open-syllables in which most syllables end in a vowel. In contrast, English has many closed-syllables, as the syllables end in one or more consonants. This phenomenon causes Japanese learners to encounter difficulty pronouncing closed syllables, such as in milk. If the learners can perceive the difference between /mɪlk/ and /mɪluku/, they can produce /mɪlk/ more correctly. Second, Japanese is a syllable-timed language while English is a stress-timed language. Japanese often fail to produce proper English rhythm because Japanese speakers’ pronunciation of English words and sentences lack the vowel reduction (/əә/) necessary for English rhythm. Stressed syllables in English occur at regular intervals. Teacher can address this issue by having students produce sentences while clapping to a beat. Third, Japanese has only five vowels while English has many more vowels. Considering native-language transfer, students should have phonetic training in order to make vowel distinctions that are not part of the sound inventory of Japanese (Celce-Murcia, Brinton, Goodwin, & Griner, 2012). Vowels: Distinction Between Tense Vowel and Lax Vowel The variation of vocal chords for vowels causes serious problems to Japanese. As Avery and Ehrlich (2012) pointed out, great confusion occurs with the /ε/, /ӕ/, /ᴧ/, and /a/ because some learners produce all four vowel sounds in a similar manner. During phonetic training, the teacher can have students practice minimal pairs, such as /ε/ vs. /ӕ/ in pen and pan, /ᴧ/ vs. /a/ in hut and hot. Then, students can also say sentences that include the above vowel sounds while consciously focusing on producing those vowels accurately. For example, “The fat (/fӕt/) men (/mεn/) put ten (/tεn/) baskets (/bӕskəәts/) on the black (/blӕk/) desk (/dεsk/).” Second, Japanese blur the distinction between the tense vowel such as /iy/, /ey/, and /uw/ and lax vowels such as /ɪ/, /ε/, and /ʊ/ because there is no tense/lax distinction in Japanese. I have students develop speech awareness by using minimal pairs, such as /iy/ vs. /ɪ/ in meat and mitt, /ey/ vs. /ε/ in mate and met, and /uw/ vs. /ʊ/ in pool and pull. Minimal pair sentences can be also helpful to develop listening skills. For example, “They’re going to taste that wine,” and “They’re going to test that wine.” Consonants: Distinction of Consonant Sounds not in Japanese Japanese encounter difficulty pronouncing consonants because many English consonents do not exist in Japanese. For example, Avery and Ehrlich (2012) pointed out Japanese have problems pronouncing the following consonants: /ʃ/ as in ship, /tʃ/ as in chip, /v/ as in vitamin, and /r/ as in right. They often substitute /s/ for /ʃ/, /t/ for /tʃ/, /b/ for /v/, and /l/ for /r/. This substitution causes native English speakers to hear the opposite meaning of what the Japanese speaker intended. Explicit teaching of the distinction of consonant sounds not in Japanese is necessary because intelligibility and comprehensibility are significant for purposes of communication (Derwin, Thomson, Foote, & Munro, 2012). Teacher must explain to students how to articulate these consonants and give them practice making the distinction using minimal pairs. Minimal Pairs Minimal pairs are pairs of words that differ in meaning based on a change in only one sound (Avery & Ehrlich, p, 39). In class activities, teachers should use minimal pair activities that require both recognition and production, using word cards and corresponding picture cards. Students can engage in identifying activities,

124

saying which sound is what, listening to and distinguishing the words the minimal pairs such as /l/ vs. /r/ in lamb and ram, and lime and rhyme. Teach Grammatical Endings Grammatical endings, which refer to suffixes that add grammatical information such as regular past tense or number to verbs or nouns, operate based on predictable rules. For example, the rules of the regular past tense are as follows: (a) when a verb ends with /t/ or /d/, the past tense is pronounced /əәd/, such as wanted or handed, (b) when a verb ends with a voiced sound, the past tense is pronounced /d/, such as bagged, and (c) when a verb ends with a voiceless sound, the past tense is pronounced /t/, such as backed (Avery & Ehrlich, 2012, p. 47). By examining the phonetic characteristics of sounds surrounding the past tense endings, learners can choose /əәd /, /d/, or /t/. However, the fact that Japanese does not have the sounds such as /t/ and /d/ causes students to drop them frequently. The inability to produce the sounds is often interpreted as a grammatical problem. In order for students to internalize them, teachers should integrate pronunciation training with grammar tasks through form-focused instruction and recasts. Intonation Intonation refers to the pattern of rise and fall of the pitch of an utterance (tone). Intonation is the most important suprasegmental feature because it contributes heavily to the meaning of English sentences. Rising-falling intonation is the most common intonation pattern in English and it is used in simple declarative sentences, commands, and wh-questions. Rising intonation is used in yes/no questions and it sometimes changes a declarative sentence into a yes/no question. In tag questions, final rising-falling intonation shows the speaker’s request of agreement and final rising intonation shows the speaker’s confirmation. In addition, intonation can show the speaker’s emotion. This emotional aspect of intonation is extremely important, but difficult to teach. Students can practice intonation in the ways such as shadowing and using role-plays in CLT. Contractions Contractions are often formed with auxiliary verbs. Contractions are also formed with auxiliary verbs and not. Japanese learners have a perceptual problem distinguishing between can and can’t. According to the findings of Derwing et al. (2012), teachers should not teach the distinction using the explicit citation forms, such as can /kӕn/ and can’t /kӕnt/ because can is not stressed, and it is pronounced [kəәn] in natural contexts. In order to recognize the difference between can’t and can, students should practice it through natural contexts such as shadowing. Self-Correction The development of self-correction can guide students to take responsibility and increase self-involvement in their own work (Morley, 1991). As Firth (2012) pointed out, teachers should provide clear, concise teaching and appropriate feedback. First, teachers should select specific goals for activities, such as /b/ and /v/. Second, teachers should involve as many senses as possible, including aural or visual senses (Ling, 1976). For example, teachers should draw the students’ attention to the differences between the sounds and have them look at a mirror or a diagram of the parts of the mouth. Third, teachers can use the simple and reliable mnemonic peg, which helps students to recall its proper articulation. For example, the peg can be /b/ = closure of the lips, /v/ = the upper teeth on the lower lip. Fourth, feedback allows students to acquire strategies to modify their performance (Jonsson, 2012). However, in order to diminish language anxiety (Dörnyei, 2012), teachers should give feedback implicitly. For example, teachers can recast the word containing the Japanese loanword such as /bitaminz/ for vitamins, asking, “he needs more what?” and also, offer encouraging positive words to support students. Self-monitoring The ability to self-monitor involves listening critically and, in speaking, anticipating problem points and determining whether production has been precise (Firth, 2012, p. 218). The ultimate goal of self-monitoring is to help students to become more autonomous learners. The development of self-monitoring skills can begin

125

as consciousness-raising with the goal of helping students develop awareness of their own speech” (Morley, 1991, p. 503). Self-monitoring can involve listening to a taped sample of speech and identifying appropriate or inappropriate forms. To enhance self-monitoring skills, selecting one area of pronunciation to focus on (e.g., speed of delivery) is advisable (Firth, 2012). Implementing Shadowing Shadowing is defined as a paced, auditory tracking task involving immediate vocalization of auditory presented stimuli (Lambert, 1992). Shadowing should be done with authentic texts whose meaning is understood and with texts whose vocabulary and syntax are well known to students. Shadowing, combined with a highly cognitive activity, can help students speak with smooth rhythm, reasonably fast speed, good pronunciation, and good intonation. By practicing shadowing, controlled processing of phonological coding becomes automatic processing (Baddeley, 2007). References Avery, P., & Ehrlich, S. (2012). Teaching American English pronunciation (6th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford

University Press. Baddeley, A. (2007). Working memory, though, and action. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., Goodwin, J. M., & Griner, Barry (2012). Teaching pronunciation: A

course book and reference guide (2 ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Derwing, T. M., Thomson, R. I., Foote, J. A., & Munro, M. J. (2012). A longitudinal study of listening

perception in adult learners of English: Implications for teachers. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 68(3), 247-266.

Dörnyei. Z. (2012). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Firth, S. (2012). Developing self-conscious and self-monitoring strategies. In P. Avery & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), Teaching American English pronunciation (6th ed.) (pp. 215-219). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Jonsson, A. (2012). Facilitating productive use feedback in higher education. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(1), 63-76.

Lambert, S. (1992). Shadowing. Méta, 37(2), 263-273. Ling, D. (1976). Speech and the hearing impaired child: Theory and practice. Washington, DC: Alexander

Graham Bell Institute for the Deaf. Morley, J. (1991). The pronunciation component in teaching English to speakers of other languages. TESOL

Quarterly, 25(3), 481-520. Saito, K. (2013). The acquisition value of recasts in instructed second language speech learning: Teaching the

perception and production of English /ɹ/ to adult Japanese learners. Language Learning, 63(3), 499-529.

TUJ Studies 97

Documents

Transcript of TUJ Studies 97