LSA1 Delta Module Two

NILE ONLINE DELTA MODULE 2
Phoneme Distinction:
Techniques for Pronunciation with
Advanced Spanish Learners
LSA 1
Lisa Jane Tyler
26 January 2016
(2490 words)
1
Phoneme Distinction: Techniques for Pronunciation with Advanced Spanish Learners (Lisa Jane Tyler)
Contents
Introduction 3
Language Analysis 3
Issues with Teaching 6
Issues with Learning 7
Suggestions for teaching 9
Conclusion 12
References 13
Appendix A 16
Appendix B 17
Appendix C 18
Appendix D 19
Appendix E 20
2
Introduction
The following focuses on phonology, specifically phoneme distinction in advanced adult Spanish
learners living in the UK. Spanish speakers experience difficulty with phonemic distinctions where
two English sounds are allophones in Spanish. Adults are more likely to experience difficulty
improving their pronunciation due to fossilisation (Gimson, 1975; Derwing and Munro, 2014) yet
they may therefore be well-positioned to gain from explicit phonological instruction. Furthermore,
advanced learners needing to communicate with native English speakers are likely to be motivated
to develop their pronunciation skills. Insufficient instruction in phonology is common (Gilbert, 2010;
Foote, Holtby and Derwing, 2011) yet learning to recognise and produce the sounds of English (not
necessarily achievable without explicit instruction) is beneficial to leaners. Above all, in my
experience, students find pronunciation activities engaging, interesting and revealing in terms of
how English is really spoken. Thus the case is made below for focusing on phoneme distinction with
advanced Spanish learners and a discussion follows considering the best methods for doing so.
Language Analysis
Phonology, pronunciation and phonemes
Phonology is the system of contrastive relationships among the speech sounds that constitute the
fundamental components of a language (Oxford Dictionary, 2016) including:
sounds, word stress, features of connected speech, sentence stress,

intonation and rhythm, all of which help learners understand spoken English
and make their own speech more natural, comprehensible and meaningful
British Council (2005). Pronunciation refers to the production and reception of the sounds of
speech (Dalton and Seidlhyofer, 1994, p3), incorporating a range of ingredients critical to achieving
intelligibility through oral communication (Fraser, 2001, p6). One such ingredient is segmental
articulation of individual sounds (Shelton, 2002) or phonemes which are sounds in a language that
cannot be changed without transforming meaning (Thornbury, 2006).
3
Spanish Speakers Phoneme Distinction: Intelligibility and Frequency
Improving intelligibility (being easily understood) is the goal of pronunciation teaching as opposed to
eradication of any native accent (Grant, 2014; Dalton and Seidlhyofer, 1994). Thus, lessons might
focus on any element of phonology that enhances communication (Derwing, 2006). Segmental areas
to teach are those which both inhibit intelligibility and carry a high functional load (Brinton, 2014;
Foote, Holtby and Derwing, 2011). Functional load theory denotes the frequency with which
language items are distinguished by particular phonemes and thus their relative importance to
communication (Catford, 1987, cited in Munro and Derwing 2006; p48). Empirically tested and
supported by Munro and Derwing, Catfords theory details the relative frequency of distinguishing
phonemes (figure 1). Phonemic distinctions that have a high functional load and do not exist in
Spanish must be explicitly taught to avoid confusion (caused when one cannot differentiate between
words such as cat and cut for example).
Advanced Adult Spanish Leaners in the UK and Phoneme Distinction
The phonemic distinction between /i/ and /ae/ differentiates the highest number of words and is
therefore designated a functional load value of 100%. Two commonly occurring issues for Spanish
speakers (/i:/ and /i/, and // and //) occur at 98% and 68% respectively by comparison (Dalton
and Seidlhyofer, 1994) . Lacking the ability to distinguish these phonemes inhibits communication.
My student, for examples, asked for a /bi:n baeg/ at the pre-school where she works, resulting in a
protracted and confused discussion with colleagues (who had understood bean bag rather than bin
bag). Underhills visual representation (2005, p10) below illuminates the difficulty that Spanish
speakers have, since articulating these respective phonemes (adjacent on the chart) is not physically
very different.
4
Figure 1 (Catford, 1987, cited in Munroe and Derwing 2006. P48)

5
Figure 2 (Underhill, 2005, p10)
Issues with Teaching
Minimal Pairs: An Uninspiring Approach
Minimal pairs describe words wherein one phoneme change transforms the meaning (Kelly, 2000;
Dalton and Seidlhyofer, 1994). This is one way to approach specific sounds that students are having
trouble with (Kelly, 2000) to which entire books have been devoted (eg. Ship or Sheep, Baker, 2006).
Overemphasised in the popular 1960s audiolingual method (ALM) with listen and repeat drills
aiming to eradicate any non-English accent, they consequently gained a bad reputation as dull and
ineffective (Thornbury, 2010). Celce-Murcia (1987) additionally criticised these drills for lacking
authenticity and communicative value.
6
Insufficient Training and Research
Following the ALMs decline, pronunciation was overlooked ine more natural communicative
approach (Foote, Holtby and Derwing, 2011; Gilbert, 2010; Grant, 2014). Attention to pronunciation
varies between language schools and teachers but it is comparatively marginalised (Gilbert, 2010;
Foote, Holtby and Derwing, 2011). This neglectful tendency may be due to teachers lacking sound
theoretical knowledge of the area (Kelly, 2000; MacDonald, 2002). This in turn is related to the
relatively scarce research in phonology (Derwing and Munro 2005; Gilbert, 2010).
Sceptical Teachers
It follows that teachers are reluctant to focus on phonology. One principle, presumably held by those
whose philosophical bias leans towards natural approaches to language learning, is that the majority
of learners will acquire the sounds of English without any need for explicit instruction (Dalton and
Seidlhyofer, 1994). Thornbury (2010) is sceptical that teaching pronunciation has any value. Quoting
a (rather dated) 1980 study by Suter, he identifies the only factor influencing students success in
improving pronunciation that teachers can impact upon is students own concern for accuracy.
Yet it has been shown (albeit in a small-scale study) that pronunciation training can yield
improvements at the phonemic level (Couper, 2003). Further research supports this finding (Couper,
2006) and Thomson and Derwing (2014) concur. Another small study specifically claimed to show a
significant improvement in the vowel intelligibility of participants following computer assisted
training (Thomson, 2011). These findings indicate that focusing on phonemic distinctions produces
results and, if Suters research (ibid) is correct in suggesting that teaching pronunciation features is,
to some extent, dependent on students motivation to learn then it is surely an avenue worth
pursuing in a learner-centred approach, where learners may be inspired to take an interest.
In any case, there has recently been a substantial improvement in attitudes towards pronunciation
teaching, with one study revealing that a majority of its 201 participants spoke positively about the
need to teach it explicitly, including segmental features. Furthermore, despite Thornburys
scepticism, the response prompted by his blog (ibid) revealed considerable disagreement, with many
replies expressing opinions in favour of teaching phonology, including training learners to distinguish
phonemes that do not exist in their L1. So, a supposed reluctance to teach pronunciation might be
declining, although insufficient training and research may still be holding teachers back.
7
Issues with Learning
UK residents: identity, motivation and fossilisation
In my experience advanced students living in the UK are particularly keen to study phonology and to
understand naturally spoken native English that surrounds them daily. Language is inextricably
linked to identity hence whether or not one learns (or is able to learn, or indeed wants to learn)
features of pronunciation is highly dependent on an individuals motivation (Dalton and Seidlhyofer,
1994). Thus, learners craving integration are more likely to engage and therefore to get results. Age
or length of exposure to the language is also relevant since learners become resistant to
pronunciation training over time, an issue known as fossilisation (Derwing and Munro, 2014). Yet
teachers should set aside any pronunciation prejudices against older learners (Gimson, 1975, p1),
especially since there is now evidence that fossilized errors can be corrected (Derwing and Munro,
2014).
Advanced Adult Learners: Advantages
Mature and advanced students (particularly those with an analytical learning style) tend to want to
focus on segmental features such as phonemes, as they can be separated from speech and
systematically examined (Dalton and Seidlhyofer, 1994).). It is claimed that adults benefit more than
young learners from explicit pronunciation training, with the outcome being better the more
sophisticated the learners (ibid). In my experience, however, pronunciation lessons are often
enthusiastically received by young learners. Nonetheless the positive message is that teaching
pronunciation to advanced level adults is useful.
8
Advanced Level Spanish Speakers
Advanced learners, quite reasonably, want to address elements of English they have not been able
to grasp. For those who have achieved high proficiency in reading, writing, grammar and vocabulary,
finding their ability to communicate impeded by pronunciation must be frustrating. The Spanish
vowel system is relatively simple compared to our own (Gimson, 1975) and indeed various
nationalities find lax/tense (also commonly called long/short) vowel distinctions difficult (eg. /i:/ and
/i/ in /hit/ and /hi:t/). Learners need to internally recategorise the contrast between phonemes that
are allophones in their L1 (Grant 2014; Field 2014). This L1 influence is known as negative transfer
and often results from allophonic differences between the mother tongue and the target language
(Grant 2014b, p144). Dalton and Seidlhyofer, 1994 (p.143) cite Wardhaughs 1970 Strong
Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis which logically states that problems occur where the target
phoneme does not exist in L1. Biologically this can be explained as a neural difference wherein the
brain processes sounds differently depending on the phonemes a speaker was exposed to at an early
stage of their L1 acquisition (Bomba, Choly and Pang, 2011).
Suggestions for Teaching
Noticing and Drilling
Aim: To provide learners with a model of pronunciation for phonemes that are allophones in their L1
and to give learners the chance to practice producing these sounds in context.
Procedure: (1) Drill minimal pairs (Appendix A). (2) Read sentence A or B from minimal pair list -
students indicate which sentence they hear (3) Repeat with students saying the sentence/teacher
indicating which one they hear (4) Repeat but miming (silently mouthing) rather than speaking aloud
students then practice in pairs
Commentary
Perception and production are two sides of the same coin and I believe that noticing tasks like these
are useful for developing both. I have found that typical (rather old school) exercises wherein
students listen to and identify minimal pairs can be dull and lack communicative value, which
demotivates both teacher and students (particularly advanced learners who have seen these drills a
9
million times before). These adapted exercises, however, quickly progress towards full sentences
providing more meaningful context to help students remember the sounds in speech. Additionally
this procedure is more learner-centred and allows advanced students to self-assess thus preventing
boredom. Miming words then adds a visual and kinaesthetic element thus approaching a more
physical conception of articulation by drawing attention to the position of the mouth and lips so that
more advanced students can use every available cognitive and physical resource available to them
when learning to produce the two different sounds. This is often well-received because it offers a
new approach to old exercises. However, advanced learners can become frustrated if their
understanding of pronunciation (productive or receptive) does not improve noticeably during the
course of the lesson. If fossilisation is an issue then this procedure could be demotivating for them
but other approaches below can complement it.
Computer Assisted Training
Aim: To enable learners to practice listening to and pronouncing minimal pairs with the assistance of
technology.
Procedure: (1) Use online minimal pairs (Appendix D, E) listening practice (2) Students record
themselves saying the words then listen/compare with the original (3) Students record themselves
saying ten of the words from the list then swap sound files with another student who listens, writes
the words then checks if they heard correctly (5) Peer feedback to review and establish difficult/easy
words before repeating procedure
Commentary:
This procedure still uses noticing and drilling yet the learners are in control, which I find the students
(and teacher) appreciate. A collaborative learning element remains through the interactions, which
motivates students. Additionally those predisposed to using technology benefit too. The procedure
also suits advanced learners who apply well-developed study skills through peer and self-
assessment. They also mimic the procedure in home study time providing the extended practice that
is required to overcome fossilised habits. Yet simply exposing students more to similar activities
might not significantly improve their pronunciation, particularly for advanced learners in the UK,
who have probably been exposed to the sounds of English for some time already.
10
Physical Training
Aim: To encourage learners to practice producing phonemes that are allophones in their L1 by
providing physical training in the vocal production of these sounds (with visual assistance).
Procedure: (1) Check IPA awareness; elicit words containing monopthongs on chart (figure 2) (2)
Guided discovery pair work: to find difference in tongue/lip position between left and right of chart -
provide props such as straws (if required hint how to use them by placing on the tip of the tongue to
show its position in the mouth). Students complete sentences For sounds on the left of the chart
your tongue is (3) To differentiate between /i/ and /i:/ encourage learners to find each phoneme
along a sliding scale between /i:/ and /u:/ (4) Learners work in pairs producing monopthongs whilst
their partner identifies them on the chart (silently or with props if challenging)
Commentary:
I believe it is crucial for advanced learners to approach pronunciation in a totally new way. In my
experience highlighting phonological differences and heightening learners awareness of how English
speech sounds are constructed is key to achieving a change in their knowledge. By tangibly teaching
the articulation of phonemes learners can start to understand the physical process involved in
making the sounds. This is learner-centred and suitably challenging for advanced learners, who
construct their own knowledge through trial and error with the assistance of physical and visual
props. A new approach makes learners amend their existing schema to incorporate new information
thus enabling them to address fossilised errors. Even if students cannot immediately hear it, they
can at least start to appreciate the modifications needed in the mouth to produce the different
phonemes, making the process rewarding and thus more engaging. Many advanced learners enjoy
the analytical element of tackling each sound individually and they are already familiar with the
phonemic alphabet. Many teachers lack confidence in teaching pronunciation and avoid this
approach so the instructor must be knowledgeable and able to provide support. Meaningful
communicative context is lacking so further practice in follow-up lessons is necessary: learners could
brainstorm minimal pairs and create sentences in which either word made sense (eg. The
ship/sheep is in the distance) then present them to other students, who use the chart to indicate
which phoneme they can hear in the key word.
11
Conclusion
Advanced students need new approaches to address phonemic distinction. Adapted learner-centred
minimal pair exercises promote noticing of the target language and facilitate development for
advanced learners by encouraging self-assessment and peer evaluation to challenge old habits.
Supporting this with technology could further enhance the experience and allow advanced students
some autonomy. However, physical training must be employed so learners experience a totally new
conception of the phonemes. This approach connects the physical, visual, auditory, cognitive and
social domains, amalgamating every available resource and encouraging advanced learners to
capitalise on their superior study skills whilst serving as a pre-cursor to more contextualised
communicative practice. As usual in teaching there is no single, correct solution but rather a need
to approach the issue holistically to gain positive results.
12
References
Baker, A. (2006). Ship or sheep, An intermediate pronunciation course. (3rd ed.). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bomba, M.D., Choly, D. and Pang, E.W. (2011). Phoneme discrimination and mismatch negativity in
English and Japanese speakers. Neruoreport, 22(10), 479-483.
Bowyer, T. (2000-2006). Ship or sheep, Perfect your English pronunciation with minimal pair
practice. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from www.shiporsheep.com.
Brinton, D.M. (2014). Epilogue. In L. Grant (Eds.), Pronunciation Myths (pp235-242). USA: The
University of Michigan Press.
British Council. (2005). Analyzing language. Retrieved January 18, 2016, from
https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/analysing-language.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1987). Teaching pronunciation as communication. In J. Morley (Eds.), Current

perspectives on pronunciation: Practices anchored in theory. (pp5-12). Washington: Tesol.
Couper, G. (2006). The short and long-term effecs of pronunciation instruction. Prospect, 59(4), 46-
66.
Couper, G. (2006). The value of an explicit pronunciation syllabus in ESOL teaching. Prospect, 18(3),
53-70.
Dalton, C., & Seidlhyofer, B. (1994). Pronunciation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Derwing, T.M., & Munro, M.J. (2014). Once you have been speaking a second language for years, its
too late to change your pronunciation. In L. Grant (Eds.), Pronunciation Myths (pp34-55). USA:
The University of Michigan Press.
13
Derwing, T.M. & Munro, M.J. (2005). Second Language Accent and Pronunciation Teaching: A
Research-Based . TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 379-397.
Kelly, G.K. (2000). How to teach pronunciation. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.
Field, J. (2014). Pronunciation teaching has ot establish in the minds of language learners a set of
distinct consonanant and vowel sounds. In L. Grant (Eds.), Pronunciation Myths (pp235-242).
USA: The University of Michigan Press.
Foote, J.A., Holtby, A.K. & Derwing, T.M. (2011). Survey of the teaching of pronunciation in adult ESL
programs in Canada, 2010. TESL Canada Journal, 29(1), 1-22.
Fraser, H. (2001). Teaching pronunciation: A handbook for teachers and trainers. Retrieved January
18, 2016, from http://www.eslmania.com/teacher
Gilbert, J. (2010). Pronunciation as orphan: What can be done?. Speak Out, 43, 3-7.
Gimson, A.C. (1975). A practical course of English pronunciation, a perceptual approach. London:
Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd.
Grant, L. (2014). Pronunciation Myths. USA: The University of Michigan Press.
Grant, L. (2014). Students would make better progress in pronunciation if they just practiced more.
In L. Grant (Eds.), Pronunciation Myths (pp34-55). USA: The University of Michigan Press.
Grant, L. (2010). Well Said, pronunciation for clear communication (3rd ed.). Boston: Heinle.
Hewings, M. (2004). Pronunciation practice activities, a resource book for teaching English
pronunciation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
MacDonald, S. (2002). Teachers views on their professional training and assessment practices.
Prospect, 17(3), 3-18.
14
Munro, M. J. and T. M. Derwing. 2006. The functional load principle in ESL pronunciation instruction:
An exploratory study. System, 34(4), 520531.
Oxford Dictionary. (2016). Phonology. Retrieved January 14, 2016, from

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/phonology.
Pennington, M.C. (1994). Recent research in L2 phonology: Implications for practice. In J. Morley
(Eds.) Pronunciation Pedagogy and Theory New Views, New Directions (pp92-108). Alexandria:
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.
Shelton, S. (2002-2016). Making a Case for Beginning with Suprasegmental Features in Pronunciation
Teaching. Retrieved January 14, 2016, from http://www.developingteachers.com/articles
Thomson, R.I. & Derwing, T.M. (2014). Effectiveness of L2 pronunciation instruction: A narrative
review. Applied Linguistics. 36(3). Retrieved January 16, from: http://applij.oxfordjournals.org
Thomson, R. I. (2013). ESL teachers beliefs and practices in pronunciation teaching: Confidently right
or confidently wrong? In J. Levis & K. LeVelle (Eds.). Proceedings of the 4th Pronunciation in
Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference. Aug. 2012. (pp224-233)
Thomson, R.I. (2011). Computer assisted pronunciation training: Targeting second language vowel
perception improves pronunciation. CALICO Hournal, 28(3), 744-765.
Thornbury, S. (2010). P is for pronunciation. Retrieved January 14, 2016, from

https://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/2010/08/01/p-is-for-pronunciation/
Thornbury, S. (2006) An A-Z of ELT: A Dictionary of Terms and Concepts Used in English Language
Teaching. Oxford: Macmillan
Underhill, A. (2005). Sound foundations: Learning and teaching pronunciation. Oxford: Macmillan.
15
APPENDIX A
Hewings, 2004 (p57)
16
APPENDIX B
Baker, 2006 (p7)
17
APPENDIX C
Baker, 2006 (p19)
18
APPENDIX D
Bowyer, 2000-2006 (www.shiporsheep.com)
19
APPENDIX E
Bowyer, 2000-2006 (www.shiporsheep.com)
20

LSA1 Delta Module Two

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

LSA1 Delta Module Two

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

NILE ONLINE DELTA MODULE 2

Lisa Jane Tyler

Phonology, pronunciation and phonemes

sounds, word stress, features of connected speech, sentence stress,

Spanish Speakers Phoneme Distinction: Intelligibility and Frequency

Advanced Adult Spanish Leaners in the UK and Phoneme Distinction

Figure 1 (Catford, 1987, cited in Munroe and Derwing 2006. P48)

Figure 2 (Underhill, 2005, p10)

Issues with Teaching

Minimal Pairs: An Uninspiring Approach

Insufficient Training and Research

Issues with Learning

UK residents: identity, motivation and fossilisation

Advanced Adult Learners: Advantages

Advanced Level Spanish Speakers

Suggestions for Teaching

Noticing and Drilling

Computer Assisted Training

Celce-Murcia, M. (1987). Teaching pronunciation as communication. In J. Morley (Eds.), Current

Grant, L. (2014). Pronunciation Myths. USA: The University of Michigan Press.

Oxford Dictionary. (2016). Phonology. Retrieved January 14, 2016, from

Thornbury, S. (2010). P is for pronunciation. Retrieved January 14, 2016, from

Hewings, 2004 (p57)

Baker, 2006 (p7)

Baker, 2006 (p19)

Bowyer, 2000-2006 (www.shiporsheep.com)

Bowyer, 2000-2006 (www.shiporsheep.com)

Вам также может понравиться