Abstract
This paper looks at English pronunciation and difficulties faced by Thai students. It investigates these problems by pointing out the key differences between English and Thai spoken languages and compares their respective phonetic and phonological features. Initially, it looks at the phonological differences of Cantonese and Japanese English Language Learners (ELLs) and then examines those of Thai; it proposes that teachers should have an awareness of these differences and proposes methods and approaches to enable pronunciation to be taught more effectively and also considers Thai teachers’ competence and attitudes to teaching pronunciation.
Keywords: phonological transfer, contrastive analysis, language interference
In terms of the different aspects of English language teaching, pronunciation is arguably the most neglected (Lin, Fan & Chen, 1994). Phonology is one aspect of English Language Development (ELD) that presents challenges not only to learners but also teachers, especially regarding the incorporation of phonological instruction in lessons. Different nationalities encounter varying degrees of difficulty due to encountering sounds in English which are not part of the sound inventory of their first language (L1) This is no different for Thai English Language Learners (ELLs) whose L1 phonological system has certain features which cause interference and consequent difficulty with English pronunciation. Importantly, with English as the lingua franca of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), there is now a greater need for English communicative competency in order that Thais can participate competitively in these emerging markets. This paper initially looks at the phonological differences of Cantonese and Japanese English Language Learners (ELLs) and then examines those of Thai. It proposes that teachers should have an awareness of these differences and suggests appropriate classroom methods for phonological instruction.
Literature Review
The mere fact that native speakers of English can often recognize accents of ELLs indicates that their respective native languages influence their spoken production of English (Avery & Ehrlich, 1992). This is shown by Ohata’s (2004) study amongst Japanese ELLs, which observed that many pronunciation errors are caused by the phonological transfer of aspects of their first language (L1); it suggests that mere acknowledgement of these problems does not lead to improvement in and of itself and signifies that teachers need to exploit their knowledge of these differences to design appropriate materials to enable ELLs to notice these differences for themselves. Similarly in Hong Kong, Leung and Brice (2012) conducted the Phonology Test for Cantonese Speakers of English to study the English phonological processes of adult Cantonese English speakers and found numerous examples of phonological differences among primary pre-service teachers of English.
In the case of Thai ELLs, there have been a number of studies in recent years examining these differences which were noted initially by Richards (1969) during pre-university language laboratory sessions in New Zealand. Results showed that difficulties faced by Thai ELLs do, in fact, mirror those of other Asian ELLs inasmuch as interference from L1 is a major contributory factor in pronunciation difficulties. In recent years, Wei’s (2013) journal article is the culmination of six years of observing pronunciation problems of Thai ELLs. It too acknowledges the issue of L1 phonological transfer but also gives other reasons such as learners being shy to talk in the manner of a native speaker in the presence of others and also suggests that teachers' Thai-style English pronunciation further compounds students' unintelligible English pronunciation.
According to Luksaneeyanawin (2005a), these pronunciation problems arise from the differences between the respective L1 and L2 phonological systems which can be referred to as language interference. Furthermore, McKenzie-Brown’s (2006) discussion illustrates English as having many linguistic features which cause difficulties for Thai ELLs and in order for the teacher to implement tasks to attempt to iron out these issues, contrastive analyses are conducted to try to understand learner errors by examining the composition of the two languages.
One such examination is Khamkien’s (2010) word stress assignment conducted among Thai ELLs which revealed that pronunciation competence was unsatisfactory and states that focus on pronunciation in class was neglected. Consequently, teachers themselves should be decent models of pronunciation, not just in English classes but also in other course subjects. This neglect of pronunciation focus is also highlighted in Wei, Youfu, Zhou, and Yalun’s (2002) paper which provides insights into English pronunciation problems of Thai students. It very much places the emphasis on language teachers undergoing specific pronunciation training, to provide more lectures in other subjects in English, and to provide students with opportunities to contrast articulatory aspects of L1 and L2.
Brinton (1997) goes as far as to suggest that pedagogically-speaking, the teaching of pronunciation had taken a backseat position over the years due to the historical emergence of methods which tended to prioritize language fluency over accuracy. Nevertheless, various literature exists suggesting certain methods and approaches to teaching pronunciation. For instance, Lin, Fan, & Chen’s (1994) paper Teaching Pronunciation in the Learner-Centered Classroom proposes that in Taiwan, pronunciation had received a similar lack of attention, which lead to learners having difficulties understanding others or making themselves understood. As a result of this, specific activities utilizing different learning styles were designed to address these problems.
In Thailand, with traditional methods of English language instruction still dominating classrooms, Likitrattanaporn (2014) highlights that English language accuracy in Thailand tends to focus on morphology and syntax rather than phonology. It also investigates teachers’ attitudes and competencies towards the teaching of phonological and communicative fluency and found that although Thai teachers are aware of the importance of teaching English pronunciation, they did not teach it as often as needed and did not facilitate communicative activities sufficiently. Echoing this, Varasarin’s (2007) research study calls for a more focused approach to teaching pronunciation and recommends that teachers include pronunciation and language learning strategies to support overall student learning.
This more focused approach to the teaching of pronunciation is similarly highlighted in Hong Kong (Lu, 2002). Similarly, the facilitation of persistent practice in listening, speaking, and reading aloud for students at all levels of education was neglected, with students replacing English sounds with similar-sounding Chinese characters. These observations propose that the teaching of phonetic symbols should be an essential part of the ESL teacher’s toolkit.
Difficulties for Asian ELLs
Belonging to different language families, it is understandable for Asian ELLs to encounter difficulties with English pronunciation and before focusing on difficulties encountered by Thai ELLs, it is useful to consider problems faced by other Asian learners which are shown to be largely due to incompatible differences between English and the L1. Furthermore, children may face restrictions in their ability to produce certain words due to the underdevelopment of their vocal apparatus (Leung & Brice, 2012, p.2). Nevertheless, pronunciation errors made by ELLs are usually a direct result of differences in sound inventories - these are rules of sound combination and patterns of intonation and stress of their L1 and are not mere random attempts to recreate unfamiliar sounds (Swan & Smith, 1987).
In Hong Kong, analyses of these differences among Cantonese ELLs revealed 466 phonological process variances with two syllable words proving to be the most challenging followed by three and then single syllable words. There was also evidence of a high number of vowel substitutions (Leung & Brice, 2012 p.11). Additionally, the perception of sounds is tied to production inasmuch as a learner uses the same motor processes to perceive a sound that they would use if they were producing it themselves. This suggests that exercises to aid production of sounds should also involve their correct perception (Liberman & Mattingly, 1985 in Leung & Brice 2012, p.12).
Studies have also highlighted difficulties faced by Japanese ELLs and similarly identify interference from the native language (Ohata, 2004, p.17); different rules for the combining of sounds into words (different syllable types) and differences in intonation and stress (suprasegmental) patterns, determining the melody and rhythm of the language (pitch accent vs. stress accent and syllable-timed vs. stress-timed). Subsequently, knowledge of this phonological transfer should be used by teachers to create appropriate learning activities.
Difficulties for Thai ELLs
Likewise, research also shows that phonological transfer also presents problems for Thai ELLs, which includes stress and intonation. Having no distinctive value in the L1, Thais consequently give little attention to stress in English and are generally tentative about using English intonation patterns (Richards, 1969, p.9). These findings are supported by a later study conducted among Thai participants, which demonstrates that word stress placement was somewhat unsatisfactory, with overall results suggesting low competence in English pronunciation (Khamkien, 2010, p.6).
Likewise, research also shows that phonological transfer also presents problems for Thai ELLs, which includes stress and intonation. Having no distinctive value in the L1, Thais consequently give little attention to stress in English and are generally tentative about using English intonation patterns (Richards, 1969, p.9). These findings are supported by a later study conducted among Thai participants, which demonstrates that word stress placement was somewhat unsatisfactory, with overall results suggesting low competence in English pronunciation (Khamkien, 2010, p.6).
Systemic Differences. These refer to the differences in number and types of phonemes which exist in the L1 and L2. For instance, English has 9 fricatives: /f, v, θ, ð, s, z, ʃ, ʒ, h/ whereas Thai only has 3: /f, s, h/ (see Appendix for a table showing the Phonemic Chart). Common consonantal systemic differences exhibited clearly in Thai English include /r/ and /l/. In Thai, /r/ only occurs in the initial positions. In younger Thais’ speech, /r/ is mostly pronounced as /l/ and /r/ is often dropped completely when they appear in clusters. Structural Differences. These are differences in the structure of syllables and sequences of sounds of sounds between L1 and L2. A case in point being that both languages contain the /f/ sound but in Thai it only occurs at the syllable’s initial position while in English it occurs along any position of the syllable.
Differences in Phonetic Realization. For instance, the phoneme /r/ appears in both Thai and English but its phonetic realization differs; in Thai it is an alveolar trill or tap but in English it is an alveolar approximant. Examples of this are /θ/ and /ð/ (pronounced as /s/ or/z/), /v/ pronounced as /f/, /z/ pronounced as /s/, /v/ pronounced as /f/ and /ʒ/ pronounced as /s/ Difficulties with stress and intonation are also apparent. As Thai is a tonal language, stress does not play a part in word differentiation and because of this, Thai ELLs do not give stress the appropriate attention required by English. For this reason, stress is considered as one of the biggest problems Thai ELLs face. Similarly, Thai speakers are reluctant to incorporate English intonation patterns, leaving it sounding unvaried and flat-sounding (Wei et al., 2002, p.8 and Richards, 1969, p.9).
Recommendations for Teaching Pronunciation
aving identified these pronunciation difficulties, what then are the best approaches for teachers? Besides, mere identification of pronunciation difficulties for ELLs does not result in students being able to improve by themselves; however, using contrastive analysis to study the differences between English and Thai can help identify students’ errors and equip the teacher with knowledge to make appropriate provision for these in the lesson plan (McKenzie-Brown, 2006). Knowledge gained via language analyses can still be useful in enabling teachers to integrate relevant phonological learning activities and materials into their course design (Ohata, 2004, p.17).
Alongside students’ shyness and a general reluctance to replicate native-speaker like speech in class, another factor contributing to poor pronunciation is Thai teachers’ own English pronunciation (Wei et al., 2002, p.9). According to Leung and Brice (2012, p.12), ELLs should be exposed to correct speech models and should also engage in specific production exercises as produced by Native English Speakers (NES). Nevertheless, Brinton (1997, p.7) argues that Non Native English Speakers (NNES) can also be effective language models by possessing insight into the L1 which the NES does not necessarily have and that they will often have more empathy for their learners through having been learners of the language themselves. NNES do, however, need to be able to model language appropriately and have sufficient knowledge of the English sound system (Brinton, n.d., p.12).
Regarding this, Thai teachers who were the subject of a study in Bangkok, realize that activities promoting phonological accuracy are necessary in order for students to become more confident English speakers; however, in reality, these are not taught as often as needed (Likitrattanaporn, 2014, p.6). Although some of the problems with pronunciation are due to students’ lack of motivation and effort, emphasis is placed on teachers to provide phonological accuracy and communicative activities which can also be an antidote to the general apathy surrounding learning English (p.7). Although this responsibility for phonological accuracy is placed with the teacher, Likitrattanaporn (2014, p.7 & 8) identified that Thai teachers’ believed that they already considered themselves to have sufficient knowledge of teaching pronunciation, related directly to their own background of study i.e. Bachelor of Arts or Master’s degrees in teaching English.
However, most realize the need to review and update their knowledge of teaching phonological accuracy. For this purpose, Thai teachers should undergo further training in facilitating communicative activities and that the Ministry of Education should encourage teachers to make themselves aware of current methods in English language teaching globally, attending short courses, conferences, and international seminars (p.8).
An example of this was the training of Thai teachers in areas of pronunciation and language learning strategies (Varasarin, 2007, p.12). Once trained, the teachers demonstrated significant improvement themselves and then used the same techniques to teach groups of students, whereby similar improvements were observed. This focus on pronunciation training also enabled students to increase their overall intelligibility in English, which at its essence, includes the teaching of phonetic symbols and the addition of suprasegmental (stress and intonation) aspects of language (p.186).
Similarly, Lu (2002) further insists that incomprehensible non-standard pronunciation and intonation also contributes to psychological nervousness in speakers and that phonetic symbols should be taught as part of a wider range of remedial measures (p.2). The benefits of teaching phonetic symbols are that they can correct accented pronunciation and intonation and help minimize interference from the L1 (p.3). However, to be most effective, phonetic symbols should be integrated as early as kindergarten because if bad habits form, they are much harder to remedy later. To this end, teachers need to have a proficient knowledge and command of their use, with the recommendation that both pre-service and in-service training is undergone (p.3, 4).
Subsequently, teacher training should then involve activities designed to resolve problems in three areas of pronunciation: sounds, stress and rhythm, and intonation. Lin et al, (1994) make the following suggestions:
Sounds. Upon carrying out a contrastive analysis and identifying problematic sounds, meaningful contexts can be used to conduct relevant communicative exercises. Then further exercises are developed to enable students to continue practicing the target sounds in different contexts. For example, students can experience how sounds are produced by operating a rubber band: vowel length such as the difference between /i/ and /i:/ is demonstrated by pulling lightly on the band for the /i/ sound and then stretching it to capacity for /i:/. Other vowel sounds can be practiced similarly. The rubber band can also be used in minimal pairs, where students identify the different sound – one student reads the sentence containing the minimal pair while the other operated the band according to what they hear. Using lists of minimal pairs can be used to practice problems with /æ/ (cat) and /ɑ:/ (cart), /eɪ/ (late) and /e/ (let) etc;
Rather than using continuous drills which can lead to boredom, rhymes can be used, helping students to master the target sound unconsciously. For diphthongs, this exercise practices the /eɪ/ sound, whereby students can snap their fingers or tap their desks along with the beat as they read the rhyme aloud: Pretty birds don't fly away Stay with me all the day You can sing while I play So, pretty birds don't fly away Using roleplays can help students to practice target sound in more realistic and communicative contexts. In this roleplay adapted from an activity in Pronunciation Pairs (Baker & Goldstein, 1990, in Lin et al, 1994), the /eɪ/ sound is practiced:
Mr. Gray: Hey, the train's late! I've been waiting here for ages.
Conductor: Which train are you waiting for?
Mr. Gray: The 8:18 to Taipei.
Conductor: The 8:18? I'm afraid you've made a mistake, sir.
Mr. Gray: A mistake? but I take this train every day.
Conductor: Oh, no sir. The train leaves at 8:08.
Mr. Gray: At 8:08?
Conductor: That's right. They changed the time at the end of April. Today's the eighth of May.
Mr. Gray: Changed it? I guess they changed it while I was away on vacation. Hmmm. So the train isn't late. I'm late. (p. 14)
Phonetically, final consonants in Thai are omitted, which transfers to their production of English. For instance, the word /stu:dent/ (student) will be pronounced /stu:den/ (Richards,1969, p.7). Thus, reading song lyrics aloud can be a good source of practice in producing the final consonant. In this example, students read the song lyrics of Silent Night in which the final consonants in each sentence have been underlined and then the teacher can listen to the song to notice how the final consonant sounds are produced:
Silent night, holy night.
All is calm. All is bright.
Round young virgin, mother and child.
Holy infant, so tender and mild,
Sleep in heavenly peace,
sleep in heavenly peace (Lin et al., 1994).
Stress and Rhythm. As English is a stress-timed language, word and sentence stress are both aspects which need practice. While using the whiteboard, the teacher should emphasize the stress of words by underlining, circling, and / or coloring or placing small and large dots above words to identify stressed and unstressed syllables. As well as this, visual aids can greatly improve students’ ability to notice the place of stress in a word and to avoid their misplacement. Furthermore, Stress-matching games are useful whereby a student claps the stress of a word and their partner identifies words from a list which match the rhythm (Lin et al., 1994).
For sentence stress, students can underline content words in a sentence and then emphasize these words when repeating back the sentence: For example, “He wants to be an actor, and he wants to live in Hollywood.”
Additionally, reading sentences to the tune of nursery rhymes is also helpful for internalizing sentence stress -- students easily learn nursery rhymes, helping them to maintain rhythm patterns naturally (Lin et al., 1994). Similarly, jazz chants using authentic language makes it easier for students to practice sentence rhythm; students establish the tempo and can count the rhythm by either finger snapping, tapping on the desk, or clapping (Lin et al., 1994).
Intonation. Traditionally, Thai ELLs tend to pay more attention to vocabulary and grammar and speak English using a flat tone with little change in pitch which leads to misused intonation and lack of emotion to express the situation (Lado, 1989, in Lin et al., 1994).
A suggested way of helping students to become aware of intonation patterns is to give them the opportunity to listen to contrasting recordings between themselves and a suitable English language model so that they can compare the differences. Dialogue should ideally feature rising/falling intonation and rising intonation, such as in this example whereby a couple are at the airport looking for their friend:
Lisa: Lee, look! Here come the people from the plane. Is that Estelle with them?
Lee: Which one?
Lisa: The tall one.
Lee: The one with the suitcase?
Lisa: No. The one with the package.
Lee: Yes. That's Estelle.
Lisa: Hello, Estelle. How was your trip?
Estelle: Fine. It was a very good flight.
When students listen to the dialogue, they should immediately identify differences in intonation between the two versions. These intonation patterns can then be analyzed via drawing pitch lines or curves (Lado, 1989, p.2-3, in Lin et al., 1994).
Conclusion and Future Study
In order to better understand the problem of English pronunciation amongst Thai ELLs, it is necessary to examine its causative factors: structural and systemic differences, transference from Thai to English, in conjunction with a previous lack of pronunciation focus in the classroom. Based on these observations, the teacher’s goal should be to integrate focused classroom activities which enable the improvement of English pronunciation whilst at the same time reducing the interference of Thai. Recognizing that this can be a time-consuming task, it is surely worth the effort to improve the quality of instruction via further teacher training. Moreover, emphasizing the improvement of the communicative value of the students’ pronunciation will in turn improve communicative competence, essential for Thailand’s ability to participate competitively in the ASEAN community.
References
Avery, P. & Ehrlich, S. (1992). Teaching American English Pronunciation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baker, A., & Goldstein, S. (1990). Pronunciation pairs: An introductory course for students of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brinton, D. (1997). Teaching Pronunciation: Some EFL Considerations. MEXTESOL Journal, 20(4), 11-20. Retrieved from http://mextesol.net/journal/public/files/4072162ba55c6cd7fb381565aed5931a.pdf
Brinton, D. (n.d.) Short Course in Teaching Pronunciation (1st ed.). California: Soka University of America. Retrieved from http://www.dlf.ac.th/uploads/train/125861536612067.pdf
Khamkhien, A. (2010). Thai Learners’ English Pronunciation Competence: Lesson Learned from Word Stress Assignment. Journal Of Language Teaching And Research, 1(6), 757-764. Retrieved from http://www.academypublication.com/issues/past/jltr/vol01/06/01.pdf
Lado, R. (1989). Lado English series. Book 3. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Liberman, A., & Mattingly, I. (1985). The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition, 21(1), 1-36. Retrieved from http://psych.colorado.edu/~kimlab/Liberman_Mattingly.Cognition1985.pdf
Lin, H., Fan, C., & Chen, C. (1994). Teaching Pronunciation in the Learner-Centered Classroom. Retrieved from http://www2.nkfust.edu.tw/~emchen/Pron/papers/paper1.html
Likitrattanaporn, W. (2014). Teaching Phonological Accuracy and Communicative Fluency at Thai Secondary Schools. English Language Teaching, 7(2). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n2p1
Leung, C., & Brice, A. (2012). An Analysis of Phonological Processes Involved in Spoken English of Hong Kong Primary Pre-service Teachers. Language Testing In Asia, 2(2). Retrieved from http://www.languagetestingasia.com/content/pdf/2229-0443-2-2-42.pdf
Lu, D. (2002). Phonetic Symbols: A Necessary Stepping Stone for ESL Learners. English Teaching Forum Magazine, 40(4). Retrieved from http://americanenglish.state.gov/files/ae/resource_files/02-40-4-g.pdf
Luksaneeyanawin, S. (2005a). Thai English (1st ed.). Tokyo: Waseda University. Retrieved from http://www.waseda.jp/ocw/AsianStudies/9A77WorldEnglishSpring2005/Assignments/00 _Thai_/ThaiE_1.pdf
Luksaneeyanawin, S. (2005b). Thai English Part Two Phonology (1st ed.). Tokyo: Waseda University. Retrieved from http://www.waseda.jp/ocw/AsianStudies/9A77WorldEnglishSpring2005/Assignments/00_Thai_/ThaiE_2.pdf
McKenzie-Brown, P. (2006). A Study in Thai. Language Matters - Studies in Energy, History and Language. Retrieved from http://languageinstinct.blogspot.com/2006/11/thailanguage.html
Ohata, K. (2004). Phonological Differences between Japanese and English: Several Potentially Problematic Areas of Pronunciation for Japanese ESL/EFL Learners. Asian EFL Journal, (December 2004). Retrieved from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/Dec_04_ko.pdf
Richards, J. (1969). Pronunciation Features of Thai Speakers of English. Linguistic Society Of New Zealand, 1967-68 (10-11), 67-75. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED033374.pdf
Swan, M. & Smith, B. (Eds.). (1987). Learner English: A teacher’s guide to interference and other problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Varasarin, P. (2007). An Action Research Study of Pronunciation Training, Language Learning Strategies and Speaking Confidence (Ph.D). Victoria University.
Wei, M & Zhou, Y. (2013) Transfer of Phonological Awareness from Thai to English among Grade Three Students in Thailand Retreived from: http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/april_2013/wei_zhou.pdf (important - shows the importance of reading ability in the transfer of phonology from Thai to English)
Wei, Youfu & Zhou, Yalun (2002) Insights into English Pronunciation Problems of Thai Students. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED476746.pdf
This paper looks at English pronunciation and difficulties faced by Thai students. It investigates these problems by pointing out the key differences between English and Thai spoken languages and compares their respective phonetic and phonological features. Initially, it looks at the phonological differences of Cantonese and Japanese English Language Learners (ELLs) and then examines those of Thai; it proposes that teachers should have an awareness of these differences and proposes methods and approaches to enable pronunciation to be taught more effectively and also considers Thai teachers’ competence and attitudes to teaching pronunciation.
Keywords: phonological transfer, contrastive analysis, language interference
In terms of the different aspects of English language teaching, pronunciation is arguably the most neglected (Lin, Fan & Chen, 1994). Phonology is one aspect of English Language Development (ELD) that presents challenges not only to learners but also teachers, especially regarding the incorporation of phonological instruction in lessons. Different nationalities encounter varying degrees of difficulty due to encountering sounds in English which are not part of the sound inventory of their first language (L1) This is no different for Thai English Language Learners (ELLs) whose L1 phonological system has certain features which cause interference and consequent difficulty with English pronunciation. Importantly, with English as the lingua franca of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), there is now a greater need for English communicative competency in order that Thais can participate competitively in these emerging markets. This paper initially looks at the phonological differences of Cantonese and Japanese English Language Learners (ELLs) and then examines those of Thai. It proposes that teachers should have an awareness of these differences and suggests appropriate classroom methods for phonological instruction.
Literature Review
The mere fact that native speakers of English can often recognize accents of ELLs indicates that their respective native languages influence their spoken production of English (Avery & Ehrlich, 1992). This is shown by Ohata’s (2004) study amongst Japanese ELLs, which observed that many pronunciation errors are caused by the phonological transfer of aspects of their first language (L1); it suggests that mere acknowledgement of these problems does not lead to improvement in and of itself and signifies that teachers need to exploit their knowledge of these differences to design appropriate materials to enable ELLs to notice these differences for themselves. Similarly in Hong Kong, Leung and Brice (2012) conducted the Phonology Test for Cantonese Speakers of English to study the English phonological processes of adult Cantonese English speakers and found numerous examples of phonological differences among primary pre-service teachers of English.
In the case of Thai ELLs, there have been a number of studies in recent years examining these differences which were noted initially by Richards (1969) during pre-university language laboratory sessions in New Zealand. Results showed that difficulties faced by Thai ELLs do, in fact, mirror those of other Asian ELLs inasmuch as interference from L1 is a major contributory factor in pronunciation difficulties. In recent years, Wei’s (2013) journal article is the culmination of six years of observing pronunciation problems of Thai ELLs. It too acknowledges the issue of L1 phonological transfer but also gives other reasons such as learners being shy to talk in the manner of a native speaker in the presence of others and also suggests that teachers' Thai-style English pronunciation further compounds students' unintelligible English pronunciation.
According to Luksaneeyanawin (2005a), these pronunciation problems arise from the differences between the respective L1 and L2 phonological systems which can be referred to as language interference. Furthermore, McKenzie-Brown’s (2006) discussion illustrates English as having many linguistic features which cause difficulties for Thai ELLs and in order for the teacher to implement tasks to attempt to iron out these issues, contrastive analyses are conducted to try to understand learner errors by examining the composition of the two languages.
One such examination is Khamkien’s (2010) word stress assignment conducted among Thai ELLs which revealed that pronunciation competence was unsatisfactory and states that focus on pronunciation in class was neglected. Consequently, teachers themselves should be decent models of pronunciation, not just in English classes but also in other course subjects. This neglect of pronunciation focus is also highlighted in Wei, Youfu, Zhou, and Yalun’s (2002) paper which provides insights into English pronunciation problems of Thai students. It very much places the emphasis on language teachers undergoing specific pronunciation training, to provide more lectures in other subjects in English, and to provide students with opportunities to contrast articulatory aspects of L1 and L2.
Brinton (1997) goes as far as to suggest that pedagogically-speaking, the teaching of pronunciation had taken a backseat position over the years due to the historical emergence of methods which tended to prioritize language fluency over accuracy. Nevertheless, various literature exists suggesting certain methods and approaches to teaching pronunciation. For instance, Lin, Fan, & Chen’s (1994) paper Teaching Pronunciation in the Learner-Centered Classroom proposes that in Taiwan, pronunciation had received a similar lack of attention, which lead to learners having difficulties understanding others or making themselves understood. As a result of this, specific activities utilizing different learning styles were designed to address these problems.
In Thailand, with traditional methods of English language instruction still dominating classrooms, Likitrattanaporn (2014) highlights that English language accuracy in Thailand tends to focus on morphology and syntax rather than phonology. It also investigates teachers’ attitudes and competencies towards the teaching of phonological and communicative fluency and found that although Thai teachers are aware of the importance of teaching English pronunciation, they did not teach it as often as needed and did not facilitate communicative activities sufficiently. Echoing this, Varasarin’s (2007) research study calls for a more focused approach to teaching pronunciation and recommends that teachers include pronunciation and language learning strategies to support overall student learning.
This more focused approach to the teaching of pronunciation is similarly highlighted in Hong Kong (Lu, 2002). Similarly, the facilitation of persistent practice in listening, speaking, and reading aloud for students at all levels of education was neglected, with students replacing English sounds with similar-sounding Chinese characters. These observations propose that the teaching of phonetic symbols should be an essential part of the ESL teacher’s toolkit.
Difficulties for Asian ELLs
Belonging to different language families, it is understandable for Asian ELLs to encounter difficulties with English pronunciation and before focusing on difficulties encountered by Thai ELLs, it is useful to consider problems faced by other Asian learners which are shown to be largely due to incompatible differences between English and the L1. Furthermore, children may face restrictions in their ability to produce certain words due to the underdevelopment of their vocal apparatus (Leung & Brice, 2012, p.2). Nevertheless, pronunciation errors made by ELLs are usually a direct result of differences in sound inventories - these are rules of sound combination and patterns of intonation and stress of their L1 and are not mere random attempts to recreate unfamiliar sounds (Swan & Smith, 1987).
In Hong Kong, analyses of these differences among Cantonese ELLs revealed 466 phonological process variances with two syllable words proving to be the most challenging followed by three and then single syllable words. There was also evidence of a high number of vowel substitutions (Leung & Brice, 2012 p.11). Additionally, the perception of sounds is tied to production inasmuch as a learner uses the same motor processes to perceive a sound that they would use if they were producing it themselves. This suggests that exercises to aid production of sounds should also involve their correct perception (Liberman & Mattingly, 1985 in Leung & Brice 2012, p.12).
Studies have also highlighted difficulties faced by Japanese ELLs and similarly identify interference from the native language (Ohata, 2004, p.17); different rules for the combining of sounds into words (different syllable types) and differences in intonation and stress (suprasegmental) patterns, determining the melody and rhythm of the language (pitch accent vs. stress accent and syllable-timed vs. stress-timed). Subsequently, knowledge of this phonological transfer should be used by teachers to create appropriate learning activities.
Difficulties for Thai ELLs
Likewise, research also shows that phonological transfer also presents problems for Thai ELLs, which includes stress and intonation. Having no distinctive value in the L1, Thais consequently give little attention to stress in English and are generally tentative about using English intonation patterns (Richards, 1969, p.9). These findings are supported by a later study conducted among Thai participants, which demonstrates that word stress placement was somewhat unsatisfactory, with overall results suggesting low competence in English pronunciation (Khamkien, 2010, p.6).
Likewise, research also shows that phonological transfer also presents problems for Thai ELLs, which includes stress and intonation. Having no distinctive value in the L1, Thais consequently give little attention to stress in English and are generally tentative about using English intonation patterns (Richards, 1969, p.9). These findings are supported by a later study conducted among Thai participants, which demonstrates that word stress placement was somewhat unsatisfactory, with overall results suggesting low competence in English pronunciation (Khamkien, 2010, p.6).
Systemic Differences. These refer to the differences in number and types of phonemes which exist in the L1 and L2. For instance, English has 9 fricatives: /f, v, θ, ð, s, z, ʃ, ʒ, h/ whereas Thai only has 3: /f, s, h/ (see Appendix for a table showing the Phonemic Chart). Common consonantal systemic differences exhibited clearly in Thai English include /r/ and /l/. In Thai, /r/ only occurs in the initial positions. In younger Thais’ speech, /r/ is mostly pronounced as /l/ and /r/ is often dropped completely when they appear in clusters. Structural Differences. These are differences in the structure of syllables and sequences of sounds of sounds between L1 and L2. A case in point being that both languages contain the /f/ sound but in Thai it only occurs at the syllable’s initial position while in English it occurs along any position of the syllable.
Differences in Phonetic Realization. For instance, the phoneme /r/ appears in both Thai and English but its phonetic realization differs; in Thai it is an alveolar trill or tap but in English it is an alveolar approximant. Examples of this are /θ/ and /ð/ (pronounced as /s/ or/z/), /v/ pronounced as /f/, /z/ pronounced as /s/, /v/ pronounced as /f/ and /ʒ/ pronounced as /s/ Difficulties with stress and intonation are also apparent. As Thai is a tonal language, stress does not play a part in word differentiation and because of this, Thai ELLs do not give stress the appropriate attention required by English. For this reason, stress is considered as one of the biggest problems Thai ELLs face. Similarly, Thai speakers are reluctant to incorporate English intonation patterns, leaving it sounding unvaried and flat-sounding (Wei et al., 2002, p.8 and Richards, 1969, p.9).
Recommendations for Teaching Pronunciation
aving identified these pronunciation difficulties, what then are the best approaches for teachers? Besides, mere identification of pronunciation difficulties for ELLs does not result in students being able to improve by themselves; however, using contrastive analysis to study the differences between English and Thai can help identify students’ errors and equip the teacher with knowledge to make appropriate provision for these in the lesson plan (McKenzie-Brown, 2006). Knowledge gained via language analyses can still be useful in enabling teachers to integrate relevant phonological learning activities and materials into their course design (Ohata, 2004, p.17).
Alongside students’ shyness and a general reluctance to replicate native-speaker like speech in class, another factor contributing to poor pronunciation is Thai teachers’ own English pronunciation (Wei et al., 2002, p.9). According to Leung and Brice (2012, p.12), ELLs should be exposed to correct speech models and should also engage in specific production exercises as produced by Native English Speakers (NES). Nevertheless, Brinton (1997, p.7) argues that Non Native English Speakers (NNES) can also be effective language models by possessing insight into the L1 which the NES does not necessarily have and that they will often have more empathy for their learners through having been learners of the language themselves. NNES do, however, need to be able to model language appropriately and have sufficient knowledge of the English sound system (Brinton, n.d., p.12).
Regarding this, Thai teachers who were the subject of a study in Bangkok, realize that activities promoting phonological accuracy are necessary in order for students to become more confident English speakers; however, in reality, these are not taught as often as needed (Likitrattanaporn, 2014, p.6). Although some of the problems with pronunciation are due to students’ lack of motivation and effort, emphasis is placed on teachers to provide phonological accuracy and communicative activities which can also be an antidote to the general apathy surrounding learning English (p.7). Although this responsibility for phonological accuracy is placed with the teacher, Likitrattanaporn (2014, p.7 & 8) identified that Thai teachers’ believed that they already considered themselves to have sufficient knowledge of teaching pronunciation, related directly to their own background of study i.e. Bachelor of Arts or Master’s degrees in teaching English.
However, most realize the need to review and update their knowledge of teaching phonological accuracy. For this purpose, Thai teachers should undergo further training in facilitating communicative activities and that the Ministry of Education should encourage teachers to make themselves aware of current methods in English language teaching globally, attending short courses, conferences, and international seminars (p.8).
An example of this was the training of Thai teachers in areas of pronunciation and language learning strategies (Varasarin, 2007, p.12). Once trained, the teachers demonstrated significant improvement themselves and then used the same techniques to teach groups of students, whereby similar improvements were observed. This focus on pronunciation training also enabled students to increase their overall intelligibility in English, which at its essence, includes the teaching of phonetic symbols and the addition of suprasegmental (stress and intonation) aspects of language (p.186).
Similarly, Lu (2002) further insists that incomprehensible non-standard pronunciation and intonation also contributes to psychological nervousness in speakers and that phonetic symbols should be taught as part of a wider range of remedial measures (p.2). The benefits of teaching phonetic symbols are that they can correct accented pronunciation and intonation and help minimize interference from the L1 (p.3). However, to be most effective, phonetic symbols should be integrated as early as kindergarten because if bad habits form, they are much harder to remedy later. To this end, teachers need to have a proficient knowledge and command of their use, with the recommendation that both pre-service and in-service training is undergone (p.3, 4).
Subsequently, teacher training should then involve activities designed to resolve problems in three areas of pronunciation: sounds, stress and rhythm, and intonation. Lin et al, (1994) make the following suggestions:
Sounds. Upon carrying out a contrastive analysis and identifying problematic sounds, meaningful contexts can be used to conduct relevant communicative exercises. Then further exercises are developed to enable students to continue practicing the target sounds in different contexts. For example, students can experience how sounds are produced by operating a rubber band: vowel length such as the difference between /i/ and /i:/ is demonstrated by pulling lightly on the band for the /i/ sound and then stretching it to capacity for /i:/. Other vowel sounds can be practiced similarly. The rubber band can also be used in minimal pairs, where students identify the different sound – one student reads the sentence containing the minimal pair while the other operated the band according to what they hear. Using lists of minimal pairs can be used to practice problems with /æ/ (cat) and /ɑ:/ (cart), /eɪ/ (late) and /e/ (let) etc;
Rather than using continuous drills which can lead to boredom, rhymes can be used, helping students to master the target sound unconsciously. For diphthongs, this exercise practices the /eɪ/ sound, whereby students can snap their fingers or tap their desks along with the beat as they read the rhyme aloud: Pretty birds don't fly away Stay with me all the day You can sing while I play So, pretty birds don't fly away Using roleplays can help students to practice target sound in more realistic and communicative contexts. In this roleplay adapted from an activity in Pronunciation Pairs (Baker & Goldstein, 1990, in Lin et al, 1994), the /eɪ/ sound is practiced:
Mr. Gray: Hey, the train's late! I've been waiting here for ages.
Conductor: Which train are you waiting for?
Mr. Gray: The 8:18 to Taipei.
Conductor: The 8:18? I'm afraid you've made a mistake, sir.
Mr. Gray: A mistake? but I take this train every day.
Conductor: Oh, no sir. The train leaves at 8:08.
Mr. Gray: At 8:08?
Conductor: That's right. They changed the time at the end of April. Today's the eighth of May.
Mr. Gray: Changed it? I guess they changed it while I was away on vacation. Hmmm. So the train isn't late. I'm late. (p. 14)
Phonetically, final consonants in Thai are omitted, which transfers to their production of English. For instance, the word /stu:dent/ (student) will be pronounced /stu:den/ (Richards,1969, p.7). Thus, reading song lyrics aloud can be a good source of practice in producing the final consonant. In this example, students read the song lyrics of Silent Night in which the final consonants in each sentence have been underlined and then the teacher can listen to the song to notice how the final consonant sounds are produced:
Silent night, holy night.
All is calm. All is bright.
Round young virgin, mother and child.
Holy infant, so tender and mild,
Sleep in heavenly peace,
sleep in heavenly peace (Lin et al., 1994).
Stress and Rhythm. As English is a stress-timed language, word and sentence stress are both aspects which need practice. While using the whiteboard, the teacher should emphasize the stress of words by underlining, circling, and / or coloring or placing small and large dots above words to identify stressed and unstressed syllables. As well as this, visual aids can greatly improve students’ ability to notice the place of stress in a word and to avoid their misplacement. Furthermore, Stress-matching games are useful whereby a student claps the stress of a word and their partner identifies words from a list which match the rhythm (Lin et al., 1994).
For sentence stress, students can underline content words in a sentence and then emphasize these words when repeating back the sentence: For example, “He wants to be an actor, and he wants to live in Hollywood.”
Additionally, reading sentences to the tune of nursery rhymes is also helpful for internalizing sentence stress -- students easily learn nursery rhymes, helping them to maintain rhythm patterns naturally (Lin et al., 1994). Similarly, jazz chants using authentic language makes it easier for students to practice sentence rhythm; students establish the tempo and can count the rhythm by either finger snapping, tapping on the desk, or clapping (Lin et al., 1994).
Intonation. Traditionally, Thai ELLs tend to pay more attention to vocabulary and grammar and speak English using a flat tone with little change in pitch which leads to misused intonation and lack of emotion to express the situation (Lado, 1989, in Lin et al., 1994).
A suggested way of helping students to become aware of intonation patterns is to give them the opportunity to listen to contrasting recordings between themselves and a suitable English language model so that they can compare the differences. Dialogue should ideally feature rising/falling intonation and rising intonation, such as in this example whereby a couple are at the airport looking for their friend:
Lisa: Lee, look! Here come the people from the plane. Is that Estelle with them?
Lee: Which one?
Lisa: The tall one.
Lee: The one with the suitcase?
Lisa: No. The one with the package.
Lee: Yes. That's Estelle.
Lisa: Hello, Estelle. How was your trip?
Estelle: Fine. It was a very good flight.
When students listen to the dialogue, they should immediately identify differences in intonation between the two versions. These intonation patterns can then be analyzed via drawing pitch lines or curves (Lado, 1989, p.2-3, in Lin et al., 1994).
Conclusion and Future Study
In order to better understand the problem of English pronunciation amongst Thai ELLs, it is necessary to examine its causative factors: structural and systemic differences, transference from Thai to English, in conjunction with a previous lack of pronunciation focus in the classroom. Based on these observations, the teacher’s goal should be to integrate focused classroom activities which enable the improvement of English pronunciation whilst at the same time reducing the interference of Thai. Recognizing that this can be a time-consuming task, it is surely worth the effort to improve the quality of instruction via further teacher training. Moreover, emphasizing the improvement of the communicative value of the students’ pronunciation will in turn improve communicative competence, essential for Thailand’s ability to participate competitively in the ASEAN community.
References
Avery, P. & Ehrlich, S. (1992). Teaching American English Pronunciation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baker, A., & Goldstein, S. (1990). Pronunciation pairs: An introductory course for students of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brinton, D. (1997). Teaching Pronunciation: Some EFL Considerations. MEXTESOL Journal, 20(4), 11-20. Retrieved from http://mextesol.net/journal/public/files/4072162ba55c6cd7fb381565aed5931a.pdf
Brinton, D. (n.d.) Short Course in Teaching Pronunciation (1st ed.). California: Soka University of America. Retrieved from http://www.dlf.ac.th/uploads/train/125861536612067.pdf
Khamkhien, A. (2010). Thai Learners’ English Pronunciation Competence: Lesson Learned from Word Stress Assignment. Journal Of Language Teaching And Research, 1(6), 757-764. Retrieved from http://www.academypublication.com/issues/past/jltr/vol01/06/01.pdf
Lado, R. (1989). Lado English series. Book 3. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Liberman, A., & Mattingly, I. (1985). The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition, 21(1), 1-36. Retrieved from http://psych.colorado.edu/~kimlab/Liberman_Mattingly.Cognition1985.pdf
Lin, H., Fan, C., & Chen, C. (1994). Teaching Pronunciation in the Learner-Centered Classroom. Retrieved from http://www2.nkfust.edu.tw/~emchen/Pron/papers/paper1.html
Likitrattanaporn, W. (2014). Teaching Phonological Accuracy and Communicative Fluency at Thai Secondary Schools. English Language Teaching, 7(2). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n2p1
Leung, C., & Brice, A. (2012). An Analysis of Phonological Processes Involved in Spoken English of Hong Kong Primary Pre-service Teachers. Language Testing In Asia, 2(2). Retrieved from http://www.languagetestingasia.com/content/pdf/2229-0443-2-2-42.pdf
Lu, D. (2002). Phonetic Symbols: A Necessary Stepping Stone for ESL Learners. English Teaching Forum Magazine, 40(4). Retrieved from http://americanenglish.state.gov/files/ae/resource_files/02-40-4-g.pdf
Luksaneeyanawin, S. (2005a). Thai English (1st ed.). Tokyo: Waseda University. Retrieved from http://www.waseda.jp/ocw/AsianStudies/9A77WorldEnglishSpring2005/Assignments/00 _Thai_/ThaiE_1.pdf
Luksaneeyanawin, S. (2005b). Thai English Part Two Phonology (1st ed.). Tokyo: Waseda University. Retrieved from http://www.waseda.jp/ocw/AsianStudies/9A77WorldEnglishSpring2005/Assignments/00_Thai_/ThaiE_2.pdf
McKenzie-Brown, P. (2006). A Study in Thai. Language Matters - Studies in Energy, History and Language. Retrieved from http://languageinstinct.blogspot.com/2006/11/thailanguage.html
Ohata, K. (2004). Phonological Differences between Japanese and English: Several Potentially Problematic Areas of Pronunciation for Japanese ESL/EFL Learners. Asian EFL Journal, (December 2004). Retrieved from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/Dec_04_ko.pdf
Richards, J. (1969). Pronunciation Features of Thai Speakers of English. Linguistic Society Of New Zealand, 1967-68 (10-11), 67-75. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED033374.pdf
Swan, M. & Smith, B. (Eds.). (1987). Learner English: A teacher’s guide to interference and other problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Varasarin, P. (2007). An Action Research Study of Pronunciation Training, Language Learning Strategies and Speaking Confidence (Ph.D). Victoria University.
Wei, M & Zhou, Y. (2013) Transfer of Phonological Awareness from Thai to English among Grade Three Students in Thailand Retreived from: http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/april_2013/wei_zhou.pdf (important - shows the importance of reading ability in the transfer of phonology from Thai to English)
Wei, Youfu & Zhou, Yalun (2002) Insights into English Pronunciation Problems of Thai Students. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED476746.pdf