Analysing the acoustic evidence of consonant productions among students at the university level

Siti Nur'Aini

doi:10.21831/ltr.v23i1.67775

Analysing the acoustic evidence of consonant productions among students at the university level

Siti Nur'Aini, Universitas PGRI Semarang, Indonesia

10.21831/ltr.v23i1.67775

Abstract

Learners of English as a second language (L2) whose first language (L1) is Indonesian tend to struggle to produce aspirated consonants. This study investigates whether the difficulties came from the interference of the L1 for the production of these sounds: [k], [b], [d], [g] in the final positions, and [p] and [t] in the stressed syllable. This study involved two cohorts of English department university students with different levels of fluency in L2 speech production. The L2 learners were asked to pronounce 25 words from a textbook previously used to teach them. The L2 learners were exposed to a British English-speaking speech model, which became a benchmark for the L2 learners’ pronunciation by asking them to imitate the pronunciation. Annotation of data was conducted twice by a second annotator to ensure the objectivity of the scores given to the L2 learners which was analised using paired sample t-test. Findings suggest that the sounds with the lowest success rate of production were [p] in the stressed syllable, [k], and [g] in the final position. The production was unsuccessful because the L2 learners did not have phonological awareness of how the L2 consonant sounds were produced near-natively and were affected by their L1. The lack of awareness led to the failure to produce [p], [k], and [g] sounds because these sounds did not exist in their L1 and interference of the L1 was embed to the L2 speech production. The format analysis results using PRAAT indicate that there is an improvement in the participants’ pronunciation after exposure to the native speaker’s speech sound. The implication of this research is paramount for L2 learners and lecturers in highlighting the importance of targeted instruction and intervention to address the challenges in speech production. Contrasting the phonetic features of L1 and L2 sounds helped the learners to defer interference in their L2 speech production. This study encourages continuous assessment of L2 learners to ensure that they maintain the consistency of speech production to sound near-native.

Keywords

consonant sounds; L1 interference; phonetic training

Full Text:

PDF

References

The assessment of the sounds produced by the L2 learners indicated that consonants /k/ and /g/ are the ones that give the most challenges to them. The two sounds are velar consonants, which should be pronounced by putting the back part of the tongue against the soft palate, also known as the velum. The place was at the back part of the roof of the mouth. In this study, it was found that the voiced and voiceless velar sounds were the most difficult to produce because the Indonesian language has a devoicing process where a speech sound that should be voiced is made voiceless. The evidence indicated that the L2 learners could not distinguish between /k/ and /g/ sounds. This inability to distinguish the two sounds resulted in mispronunciation of the words ending in /k/ and /g/, such as back, bag, and dog. Several L2 learners pronounce the word dog as dock. It is apparent that mother tongue interference plays a part in the L2 learners’ pronunciation, altering the English sounds to be slightly different from how they should be pronounced. Near native pronunciation was successfully produced by some L2 learners only after they were trained and exposed to the native speaker sounds. It is important to note that although the pronunciation was not similar to the native, the L2 learners’ pronunciation was still understandable, and they did not alter the meaning of the words. Thus, their speech productions were acceptable, especially because their pronunciation indicated their identity as they carried their mother tongue in their speech. It offered language variety, and their deviance from the English sounds did not mean that they lacked the capabilities to imitate the sounds. It is just that the structure of the L2 was different from their L1 or mother tongue. This interference happens in many languages, and the Indonesian language happens to be one of them.

Implication

From the result of this research, it was discovered that exposing them to the native speaker’s voice and asking them to repeat the model speech sounds gave significant change in student’s pronunciation, especially for difficult consonant sounds like [k], [b], [d], [g] in the final positions and [p] and [t] in the stressed syllable. The exposure was especially useful in evoking natural native-like pronunciation. The results from the targeted instruction and intervention to improve pronunciation indicated the necessity of exposure to the L2 sounds. Further investigation should seek whether continuous assessment could help maintain L2 learners’ understanding of the phonetic features. It is encouraged that further research in this field is conducted for different consonant sounds that make Indonesian students find difficulties in pronouncing the words.

REFERENCES

Ader, K., & Miljan, M. (2015). External factors and the interference of L1 Estonian on L2 English pronunciation: An apparent-time study. Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühingu aastaraamat, 11, 21-36.

Alexander, L. G. (1980). Practice and progress: An integrated course for pre-intermediate students. Longman.

Alzinaidi, M. H., & Latif, M. M. A. (2019). Diagnosing Saudi students' English consonant pronunciation errors. Arab World English Journal, 10(4), 180-193.

Ankerstein, C. (2017). Germans are not aiming for a fossilized form of English: A response to Booth (2015). 33(4), 30-32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078417000281

Arora, V., Lahiri, A., & Reetz, H. (2018). Phonological feature-based speech recognition system for pronunciation training in non-native language learning. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 143(1), 98-108. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5017834

Aydinli, E., & Aydinli, J. (2024). Exposing linguistic imperialism: Why global IR has to be multilingual. Review of International Studies, 1-22. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210523000700

Babaoğlu, R. (2021). Linguistic imperialism or cultural diplomacy? British Council and the People’s Houses in early Republican Turkey. Bilig(96), 255-282.

Bakar, Z. A., & Ridhuan, M. (2015). Importance of correct pronunciation in spoken English: Dimension of second language learners' perspective. Social Sciences & Humanities, 23(S), 143-158.

Biglari, N., & Struys, E. (2021). Native language interference in English L2 word recognition and word integration skills. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 11(1), 1-11.

Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2019). PRAAT: Doing phonetics by computer. In (Version 6.1.13) http://www.praat.org/4.3.

Booth, J. E. (2015). The fossilization of non-current English pronunciation in German EFL teaching. 31(4), 15-20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078415000346

Brown, D. H., & Abeywickrama, P. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices (2nd ed.). Pearson Education ESL.

Cao, R. (2016). Improving English pronunciation teaching and learning via speech corpora of learners with dialectal backgrounds. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 11(4), 90-94. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v11i04.5461

Chen, H. (2020). A contrastive analysis of classroom-based language assessments. English Language Teaching, 13(5), 110-114.

Cheng, A. (2021). Maintenance of phonetic and phonological distance in the English and Korean back vowel contours of heritage bilinguals. Journal of Phonetics, 89, 101109. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2021.101109

Cox, R. (2015). 'What language are you?' A glimpse into multilingual childhoods. English in Australia (0155-2147), 50(1), 49-54.

Demirezen, M. (2016). Assimilation as a co-articulation producer in words and pronunciation problems for Turkish English teachers. 16(2), 477-509. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2016.2.0235

Deswarte, C., Reyes-Rincón, J. H., Baquero, F. J., & Plata-PeñaFort, C. (2020). Fossilizing mistakes of French pronunciation in Spanish-speaking students. 12(25), 59-76. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.m12-25.efpf

Ellis, E. (2016). The plurilingual TESOL teacher: The hidden languaged lives of TESOL teachers and why they matter. De Gruyter Mouton.

Franklin, A., & McDaniel, L. (2016). Exploring a phonological process approach to adult pronunciation training. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 25(2), 172-182. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_AJSLP-14-0172

Gass, S. M., Behney, J., & Plonsky, L. (2020). Second Language Acquisition: An introductory course. Routledge.

Geng, Y., & Jin, L. (2023). Anxiety and enjoyment of older learners of English in Chinese Universities of the third age. Educational Gerontology, 49(6), 507-526. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2022.2127699

Gilakjani, A. P. (2012). The significance of pronunciation in English language teaching. English Language Teaching, 5(4). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n4p96

Gopalan, M., Rosinger, K., & Ahn, J. B. (2020). Use of quasi-experimental research designs in education research: Growth, promise, and challenges. Review of Research in Education, 44(1), 218-243.

Goswami, A. (2020). Changing contours: The interference of the mother tongue on English speaking sylheti Bengali. Journal of English as an International Language, 15(1), 100-134.

Hassanzadeh, M., & Salehizadeh, M. J. (2020). Focus on form options in second language pronunciation instruction: The case of lexical stress. TESOL Journal, 11(2), e486.

Haziri, S., Dulaj, F., Neziri, S., & Duraj, P. (2023). A contrastive analysis of the definition of parts of speech in English and Albanian. 13(4), 225-235. https://doi.org/10.36941/jesr-2023-0104

Izquierdo, M., & Blanco, M. P. (2020). A multi-level contrastive analysis of promotional strategies in specialised discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 58, 43-57.

Jianping, L. (2014). A study of mother tongue interference in pronunciation of college English learning in China. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 4(8), 1702-1706. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.8.1702-1706

Kirkpatrick, A. (2014). English in Southeast Asia: Pedagogical and policy implications. World Englishes, 33(4), 426-438.

Koptleuova, K., Khairzhanova, A., Jumagaliyeva, U., Baiseuova, G., & Kurmangalieva, A. (2022). Contrastive analysis of cross-linguistic interference of trilingual oil workers. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 13-27. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.911516

Lacoste, Y., Dancause, K., Bernard, P., & Gadais, T. (2021). A quasi-experimental study of the effects of an outdoor learning program on physical activity patterns of children with a migrant background: The PASE study. Physical Activity and Health, 5(1), 236-249. https://doi.org/10.5334/paah.133

Li, F. (2016). Contrastive study between pronunciation Chinese L1 and English L2 from the perspective of interference based on observations in genuine teaching contexts. English Language Teaching, 9(10), 90-100.

Liakin, D., Cardoso, W., & Liakina, N. (2015). Learning L2 pronunciation with a mobile speech recognizer: French/y/. CALICO Journal, 32(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v32i1.25962

Liu, H., Li, W., de Bruin, A., & He, Y. (2021). Should I focus on self-language actions or should I follow others? Cross-language interference effects in voluntary and cued language switching. Acta psychologica, 216, 103308.

Liu, X., Wu, D., Ye, Y., Xu, M., Jiao, J., & Lin, W. (2020). Improving accuracy in imitating and reading aloud via speech visualization technology. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 15(8), 144-160. https://doi.org/10.3991/IJET.V15I08.11475

Macdonald, D., Yule, G., & Powers, M. (1994). Attempts to improve English L2 pronunciation: The variable effects of different types of instruction. Language Learning, 44(1), 75-100.

Magdin, M., Sulka, T., Tomanová, J., & Vozár, M. (2019). Voice analysis using PRAAT software and classification of user emotional state. International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence, 5(6), 33-42. https://doi.org/10.9781/ijimai.2019.03.004

Melnik, G. A., & Peperkamp, S. (2021). High-variability phonetic training enhances second language lexical processing: Evidence from online training of French learners of English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24(3), 497-506. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/ELECSYM.2016.7861055

Mutqiyyah, R., & Muhammad, A. F. (2017). Developing mobile app of English pronunciation test using android studio. International Electronics Symposium, Denpasar, Indonesia.

Nishio, Y., & Joto, A. (2022). Improving fossilized English pronunciation by simultaneously viewing a video footage of oneself on an ICT self-learning system. 64, 249-286. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85145642396&partnerID=40&md5=a0329c3743e1360d124a55b21aff9f95

Noviyenty, L., & Putri, M. I. (2021). Mother tongue interference towards students’ English pronunciation: A case study in IAIN Curup. International Conference on Educational Sciences and Teacher Profession (ICETeP 2020),

Núñez Batalla, F., González Márquez, R., Peláez González, M. B., González Laborda, I., Fernández Fernández, M., & Morato Galán, M. (2014). Acoustic voice analysis using the Praat programme: Comparative study with the Dr. Speech programme. Análisis acústico de la voz mediante el progama Praat: estudio comparativo con el programa Dr. Speech (Spanish; Castilian), 65(3), 170-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otoeng.2014.05.007

Qomariana, Y., Puspani, I. A. M., & Rahayuni, N. K. S. (2019). Mother tongue interference on EFL: The case of English department students in Udayana university. Proceedings of the 65th TEFLIN international conference, Denpasar, Bali.

Rahal, A. (2018). Phonetic fossilization: Is it a matter of perfection or intelligibility? In (pp. 244-265). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-4009-0.ch012

Razavi, M., Rasipuram, R., & Magimai-Doss, M. (2016). Acoustic data-driven grapheme-to-phoneme conversion in the probabilistic lexical modeling framework. Speech Communication, 80, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2016.03.003

Rohani, G., Wahyu, M., & Rahmadsyah, R. (2019). Errors in pronouncing English phonemes: A Praat analysis. Language Literacy: Journal of Linguistics, Literature, and Language Teaching, 3(1), 49-63. https://doi.org/10.30743/ll.v3i1.1216

Ruch, H., & Harrington, J. (2014). Synchronic and diachronic factors in the change from pre-aspiration to post-aspiration in Andalusian Spanish. Journal of Phonetics, 45, 12-25.

Sai Vineeth, K. S., Phaneendhra, V., & Prince, S. (2018). Identification of vowel phonemes for speech correction using PRAAT scripting and SPPAS. International Conference on Communication and Signal Processing, India.

Saito, K., Hanzawa, K., Petrova, K., Kachlicka, M., Suzukida, Y., & Tierney, A. (2022). Incidental and multimodal high variability phonetic training: Potential, limits, and future directions. Language Learning, 72(4), 1049-1091.

Taglialatela, A. (2021). Authenticity and awareness of english as a lingua franca in english language classrooms. Glottodidactica, 48(1), 103-121. https://doi.org/10.14746/gl.2021.48.1.06

Tejedor-Garcia, C., Escudero-Mancebo, D., Camara-Arenas, E., Gonzalez-Ferreras, C., & Cardenoso-Payo, V. (2020). Assessing pronunciation improvement in students of English using a controlled computer-assisted pronunciation tool. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 13(2), 269-282, Article 9034084. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2020.2980261

Thyab, R. A. (2016). Mother-tongue interference in the acquisition of English articles by L1 Arabic students. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(3), 1-4.

Wagner, M. A., Broersma, M., McQueen, J. M., Dhaene, S., & Lemhöfer, K. (2021). Phonetic convergence to non-native speech: Acoustic and perceptual evidence. Journal of Phonetics, 88, 101076. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2021.101076

Yuvayapan, F. (2019). Translanguaging in EFL classrooms: Teachers' perceptions and practices. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies(2), 678-694.

Zeng, J., Ponce, A. R., & Li, Y. (2023). English linguistic neo-imperialism in the era of globalization: A conceptual viewpoint. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1149471.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21831/ltr.v23i1.67775