Common errors of english fricatives made by first year english major students at hanoi university

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OFPOST-GRADUATE STUDIES **************** KERIM KARA COMMON ERRORS OF ENGLISH FRICATIVES MADE

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF

POST-GRADUATE STUDIES ****************

KERIM KARA

COMMON ERRORS OF ENGLISH FRICATIVES MADE BY FIRST YEAR ENGLISH MAJOR

STUDENTS AT HANOI UNIVERSITY

(Các lỗi sai phổ biến trong việc phát âm các phụ âm xát ở

sinh viên năm thứ nhất trường Đại Học Hà Nội)

M.A MINOR THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 60140111

HA NOI-2014

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF

POST-GRADUATE STUDIES ****************

KERIM KARA

COMMON ERRORS OF ENGLISH FRICATIVES MADE BY FIRST YEAR ENGLISH MAJOR

STUDENTS AT HANOI UNIVERSITY

(Các lỗi sai phổ biến trong việc phát âm các phụ âm xát ở

sinh viên năm thứ nhất trường Đại Học Hà Nội)

M.A MINOR THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 60140111

Supervisor: Dr Huynh Anh Tuan

HA NOI-2014

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

I here by declare that the research paper titled “Common errors of English fricatives

made by Vietnamese learners” my own work and to the best of my knowledge It contains

no materials previously published or written by another person Any contribution made to

the research by others, with whom I have studied at Ha Noi University of Language andInternational Studies or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis

Author Name: Kerim KaraSignature:

First and foremost I offer my sincerest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr Huynh Anh Tuan,who has supported me throughout my thesis with his patience and knowledge whilstallowing me the room to work in my own way I attribute the level of my Masters degree

to his encouragement and effort and without him this thesis, too, would not have beencompleted or written One simply could not wish for a better or friendlier supervisor

Besides my advisor, I would like to thank to my colleagues Mr Kadir Basaran andMr.Abdil Karakoc, for their encouragement, insightful comments, and hard questions.Last but not the least, I would like to thank my family: my mom Fikriye Kara and mybrother Sinan Kara , for supporting me spiritually throughout my life

by first- year English majors at Hanoi University whereas the second examines possiblecauses that may be the contributing factors behind the pronunciation problems the studentsface Upon achieving the second aim, the researcher hopes further to put forwards viablerecommendations with a view to assisting students in their bid to improve their ownEnglish pronunciation skills.

English, previously included the curriculum from the first year of middle school, is nowofficially taught for children from six years old Foreign language centers are dramaticallyincreasing in number, and English is the most popular foreign language offered forlearners Although English has become an important demand for schooling and jobopportunities, Vietnamese people cannot pronounce English properly Like some otherlanguages, Vietnamese has phonotactic features that keep native learners from pronouncingEnglish like native speakers

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: English consonants (Gimson,1989) ……… ……… … 7

Table 2: English fricatives ( Raoch,1991) ……… .……… … 9

Table 3: Vietnamese consonants ( Trang Ngoc Dung, 2010) ……… … … 12

Table 4: Vietnamese initial consonants ( Tran Ngoc Dung, 2010) ……… …13

Table 5: Vietnamese final consonants( Tran Ngoc Dung, 2010)……… …13

Table 6: Confusion of fricatives ……… … 29

Table 7: Intra-language replacement of English fricatives ……… … 31

Table 8: Replaced and replacing consonants ……… … 32

Table 9: Inter-language replacement of English fricatives……… …… … 34

Table 10: Omission of fricatives……… …….35

Table 11: Sound addition in pronouncing English fricatives ………… ……… …… 38

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Vietnamese syllable structure ( Ngo Nhu Binh, 2009)……… …… 16

Figure 2: Vietnamese syllable structure ( Doan Xuan Kien, 2005)………… … … 16

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

L1: First language of a learner

L2: Second language of a language learner

NL: Native language

TL: Target language

RP: Received Pronunciation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Certificate of Originality ii

Acknowledgements ii

List of tables iv

List of figures iv

List of abbreviations iv

Table of contents v

PART I: INTRODUCTION……… 1

1.1 Background to the study……… …… 1

1.2 Aims of the study……… …3

1.3 Research Questions ……… ………3

1.4 Significance and scope of the study……… …………3

1.5 Organization of the study……… …………4

PART II: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER I : LITERATURE REVIEW……… …5

2.1.1 Received Pronunciation……… ….5

2.1.2 English sound system … ……… … 6

2.1.3 English consonants and classification……… 6

2.1.3.1 Place of articulation……… … 6

2.1.3.2 Manner of articulation ……… …7

2.1.3.3 Voicing……… … 8

2.1.3.4 Positions of the soft-palate……… 8

2.1.4 English consonants characteristics ……… …….8

2.1.4.1 The position of English consonant in a syllable ……… ……8

2.1.4.2 The distinction of voiced and voiceless consonants ……… ……9

2.1.4.3 English Fricatives ……… ……9

2.1.4.4 Production of labio-dental fricatives /f/ and /v/……… 10

2.1.4.5 Production of dental fricatives /θ/ and / ð / ……… …10

2.1.4.6 Production of alveolar fricatives /s/ and /z/ ……… ….11

2.1.4.7 Production of palato-alveolar fricatives /ʃ / and / ʒ/ ……… …… 11

2.1.4.8 Production of glottal fricative /h/ ……… ……12

2.1.5 A phonological contrastive analysis of Vietnamese an English………… ….12

2.1.5.1 A contrastive analysis of Vietnamese and English consonant systems… …12

2.1.5.2 A contrastive analysis of Vietnamese and English syllable structure … ….16

2.1.6 Pronunciation errors …….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….… ….17

2.1.6.1 Errors …….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….……… … 17

2.1.6.2 Errors and mistakes ….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…… … 18

2.1.6.3 Common errors in the pronunciation of English fricatives …….… …… 19

2.1.7 Language transfer….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….… ……20

CHAPTER II: RESEARCH AND METHODOLOGY 22

2.2.1 Introduction ……… ……… ……… 22

2.2.2 Subjects ……… ……… …………22

2.2.3 Instrumentations ……… ……… ……….22

2.2.4 Procedures ……… ……… ……….23

CHAPTER III: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 25

2.3.1 Error classifications ……… ……… ……25

2.3.2 Errors grouped according to sounds ……… ………25

2.3.2.1 Errors in list reading … ……… …25

2.3.2.2 Errors in paragraph reading ……… ……25

2.3.2.3 Errors in speaking …… ……… ……26

2.3.3 Errors grouped according to types ……… …… 26

2.3.3.1 Errors in list reading……… …………26

2.3.3.2 Errors in paragraph reading ……… ……… 26

2.3.3.3 Errors in speaking ……… ……27

2.3.4 Data analysis ……… …… 27

2.3.5 Sound replacement ……… ………….30

2.3.5.1 Intra-language replacement ……… ………31

2.3.5.2 Inter-language replacement ……… ………33

2.3.5.3 Sound omission ……… ……… 35

2.3.5.4 Sound addition ……… ……… 37

2.3.6 Possible causes of these pronunciation errors ………… ………… 40

2.3.6.1 Confusing English fricatives ……… ………40

2.3.6.2 Consonants unique to English ……… …………41

2.3.6.3 English distinctive syllable structure ……… …………42

2.3.6.4 Morphological difference between Vietnamese and English ……… …42

2.3.6.5 Learners‟ inflexible organs of speech ……… ….43

PART III: CONCLUSION 44

3.1 Summary of the study ……… ………44

3.1.2 Recommendation……… … 44

3.1.3 Recommendations for students ……… … 46

3.1.4 Recommendations for teachers and students of English 48

3.1.5 Conclusion 49

REFERENCES……… ………51

APPENDICES ……… …………I

PART I: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the study

In the age of deepening global integration, with the steady rise of English as aninternational language which serves as a gate way to an inexhaustible source of wide-ranging knowledge and acts as an irreplaceable bridge between nations when it comes toexchange in trade, technology, and politics, it is a necessity, if not to say a must, for allwho wish to thrive, to put English under their control However, among the four mostessential English skills, namely, listening, speaking, reading, and writing, English speaking

in general, and English pronunciation in particular, have always come to the forefront asthe foremost challenging aspects of language acquisition (Bjarkman & Hammond, 2008),for two reasons First, speaking is the one stubbornly posing the greatest number ofchallenges to not only English learners, but also native speakers, due to its complicatedpronunciation (Gilbert, 2008) Second, the mastery of English pronunciation, hence,English speaking skills, naturally facilitates the acquisition of the other skills (Zhang,2009) Good pronunciation, therefore, lays a firm foundation for language acquisition andbrings confidence and trustworthiness to non-native English speakers since it is commonlyused as the criterion to evaluate language proficiency (Fraser, 2000) Duong Thi Nu (2008)was in agreement with Fraser when she asserted that although Vietnamese Englishspeakers may master extensive vocabulary and grammar, poor pronunciation still preventsthem from being understood, creating chronic unintelligibility problems and lowering theircredibility and prestige in the eyes of native English speakers

English, being a global language, has penetrated into the education system of almost allcountries in the world, including Vietnam, as a compulsory subject at all levels and forms

of education It is a contradiction but an easily understandable fact that Englishpronunciation, though serving as a stepping stone for the mastery of the language, maysomewhat be intentionally neglected or undervalued by both Vietnamese learners andteachers of English, due to the fact that it presents seemingly insurmountable challenges forthose whose native language‟s phonetics is strikingly different from that of English (Gang,2000) Hanoi University, formerly focusing exclusively on language teaching, provideslanguage learners with a foundation of pronunciation the very start of

the course English pronunciation, in particular, is intensively introduced to students from

the first semester, using the course book named English Pronunciation In Use by Mark

Hancock (2003), with a view to familiarizing students with English sound systems, stress,and intonation, thereby, equipping them with a necessary tool for further acquisition ofrelated skills Nevertheless, after one semester of studying pronunciation which involvesextensive exercises, drillings, and testing, a sizable number of first year English majors atHanoi University still find themselves fall short of their initial expectation and face variousproblems in the pronunciation of English sounds (Bui Thi Binh, 2011) Among thesechallenging sounds, as Nguyen Thi Phuc Hoa (1999) pointed out, English consonants, ingeneral, and English fricatives, which pose serious challenges for non-native Englishspeakers all around the world, in particular, stand out What noteworthy is that even afternearly four years of frequent exposure to English and receiving a further course in Englishphonetics and phonology, fourth year English majors still experience the same problems inpronunciation like those of first-year (Bui Thi Binh, 2011) This is not unusual in light ofmany research results confirming the importance acquiring proper pronunciation in the firstyear of language learning Pham Cam Chi (2009), for example, pointed out thatpronunciation should be mastered from the initial stages of language learning, and that, thepronunciation problems existing beyond the first year of language learning, will likely topersist and become the habits which are really difficult for language learners to get rid of inmore advanced stages

On being an English teacher of numerous students from Ha Noi University, thus, giving achance to become fully aware of the situation, the writer of this paper would like toconduct a study to figure out the common errors committed by first-year English majors atHanoi University in the pronunciation of English fricatives, examine possible causes ofthese errors, as well as offer some suggestions for overcoming these challenges Adetermined effort is devoted with a sincere hope of putting forward practicalrecommendations to assist both teachers and students of English in the process of teachingand learning pronunciation so that common errors in pronouncing English fricatives could

be minimized at the beginning stage of language acquisition This, in turn, assists inbuilding up language learners‟ confidence in English speaking in particular and Englishusage in general

1.2 Aims of the study

This research was conducted with three interrelated aims The first aim focuses on figuringout errors in the pronunciation of English fricatives commonly made by first- year Englishmajors at Hanoi University The second examines possible causes that may be thecontributing factors behind the pronunciation problems facing the students Uponachieving the second aim, the researcher hopes further to put forwards viablerecommendations with a view to assisting students in their bid to improve their ownEnglish pronunciation skills

1.3 Research questions

Based on the discussion in the sections above, the research questions of this study wereformulated as follows:

1 What are the errors commonly made by first year English majors at Hanoi University

in their pronunciation of English fricatives?

2 What are the possible sources of errors?

3 What measures should be taken to tackle the problems?

1.4 Scope and significance of the study

With a view to assessing students‟ pronunciation of English fricatives from variousaspects, this study covers analyses of errors committed by first year English students whenthey pronounce the consonants in words standing in isolation, in connected speech (text),and in real speech (speaking), as well as the contributing factors behind these errors Theresults gleaned from analyzing the recordings and questionnaire will serve as a basis forfeedback for teachers and learners of English in general, and to the respondents of thestudy and their teachers in particular, so that pronunciation teaching in the first year atEnglish department of Hanoi University could be further specifically tailored to the uniqueproblems facing students, thereby, minimizing the preventable pronunciation errors

1.5 Organization of the study

This paper is made up of three parts In Part I, the background, aims, scope, as well assignificance of the study are elaborated What follows is the Part II reviewing theoriesregarding English consonants, contrasting points between English and Vietnamesephonological systems, and common errors in pronouncing English fricatives by non-nativeEnglish speakers Part III focuses on the methodology, which includes the subjects,instruments, as well as procedures underpinning the study Moreover, plays the role ofanalyzing and discussing the findings of the study The conclusion brings the paper to theend by offering suggestions for better pronunciation of English fricatives and presentingthe conclusion of the study

PART II: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW

This part intends to provide theoretical background and a relevant literature review ofprevious related studies concerning English fricatives and Received Pronunciation, andlanguage transfer, so that readers can get better understanding of the research A briefcontrastive analysis of Vietnamese and English consonants systems will also be presentedwith a view to supporting further analysis

2.1.1 Received Pronunciation

Different people may have different accents in speaking the same language, or as Roach (1991)generalized in his book: “languages are pronounced differently by people from differentgeographical places, from different social classes, of different ages and different educationalbackgrounds” (p.4) English, being an international language, is spoken by people around theworld with varying accents, among which, British, American, and Australian English havelong been considered as the three most widely accepted or standard accents of English.According to Wikipedia, “Received Pronunciation” (RP) is often considered the standardaccent in Britain, while in the United States, “General American” accent is generally equatedwith standard accent, and that of Australia is deemed to be General Australian As Roach(2004) elaborated, RP is the term coined by linguist A J Ellis for more than a century Prior tothat, it was named by Daniel Jones as Public School Pronunciation or further as General Britishand Educated Southern British English It was not until Daniel Jones adopted it for the second

edition of the English Pronouncing Dictionary (1924) that RP became representative of the

accent spoken by the social elite in England RP was then considered the Queen‟s English, orthe English of strong preference for people coming from middle-class or upper-class origin inBritain It, subsequently, has long been used in prestigious universities and official radio andtelevisions channels in Britain, such as Radio 3, Radio 4, and BBC World Service.Unsurprisingly, RP is still regarded as a standard pronunciation for English language teachingworldwide, including Vietnam RP standard can be found in pronunciation books such as

English Phonetics and Phonology by Roach (2000) or Better English Pronunciation by

O‟Connor (2002), and other

pronunciation teaching materials of strong preference and high trustworthiness amongVietnamese learners of English Thus, it is appropriate for the author of this paper to adopt

RP English as the standard based on which analyses of errors made by students areconducted

2.1.2 English fricatives

English sound system features 44 sounds, classified into 2 groups, one includes 20 vowels,and the other contains 24 consonants The purpose of this paper necessitates theelaborations of English fricatives (consonants) only; therefore, theories on Englishconsonants systems, especially fricatives, will be carefully analyzed, providing afoundation for further discussion of finding results (Davenport & Hannahs, 1998)

2.1.3 English consonant classification

English consonants are, as Gimson (1989) elaborated, “articulated in one of two ways,either there is a closing of one of the vocal organs, forming such a narrow constriction that

it is possible to hear the sound of the air passing through, or the closing movement iscompleted, giving a total blockage The closing movement may involve lips, tongue, orthroat, but in each case, the overall effect is very different from the relatively open andunimpeded articulation found in vowels” (p 19) English consonants are classified based

on four criteria, namely, place of articulation, manner of articulation, voicing, and position

of soft palate (Roach, 1991) The following parts paint a more detailed picture of theclassifications based on these criteria

2.1.3.3 Voicing

Voicing represents an important criterion, since the pronunciation of many words inEnglish is distinguished solely based on this criterion (Fledge & Brown, 1982) Englishconsonants, with respect to voicing, are classified into two groups:

 Voiceless consonants includes nine consonants that are pronounced without vibration of the vocal cords: /p/, /f/, /t/, /s/, /θ/, /ʃ/, /h/, /tʃ/, /k/

 Voiced consonants, namely, /b/, /v/, /d/, /z/, / ð /, /ʒ, /d ʒ/, /g/, /l/, /r/, /m/, /n/,/ŋ/, /j/, and /w/, are produced with the vocal cords vibrating with varying degrees

2.1.3.4 Positions of soft-palate

With regard to positions of soft palate, English consonants fall into 2 categories, one withconsonants produced with the soft-palate raised so that the airstream goes out throughmouth, while another includes sounds made while the soft palate is lowered, forcing theairstream to get out through nose, as listed below:

 Oral consonants: /p/, /f/, /t/, /s/, /θ/, ʃ/, /h/, / tʃ/, /k/, /b/, /v/, /g/, /d/, /z/, / ð /, ʒ/, /dʒ/, /l/, /r/, /j/, /w/

 Nasal consonants: /m/, /n/, /ŋ/

2.1.4 English consonant characteristics

The following analysis of special characteristics borne by English consonants hopes toserve as a basis for further discussion of findings and recommendations presented in thispaper

2.1.4.1 The position of English consonants in a syllable

One of the prominent characteristics of English consonants is their ability to stand virtually

in all positions, initially, medially, or finally, in a syllable, except for some sounds such as /ŋ/, /ʒ/, /j/ /h/ and /w/ (Davenport & Hannahs, 1998) This represents the rather flexibility

of English consonants compared with those in other languages in the world and plays a role

in making up a diversity of English words, at the same time, creates a considerable number

of challenges for those learners whose mother tongue has limited distribution of consonants

in a syllable (Xiao & Zhang, 2009)

2.1.4.2 The distinction of voiced and voiceless consonants

Generally, compared with other languages in the world, such as Spanish, Italian, orVietnamese, English emphasizes the importance of voicing to a greater degree since inminimal pairs like “bid” and “bit”, voicing makes a real difference to the meaning of the words(Fledge & Brown, 1982) This, however, may represent a challenge to non-native Englishspeakers whose first language undervalues this distinction (Fullana & Mora, 2007) Theproblem is further complicated when those words are found in connected speech whichrequires a native-standard adjustments of vowel and reduction of final consonants while stillkeeping all the words understandable when pronounced (Anthony Nguyen, 2007)

2.1.4.3 English fricatives

According to Kambata (1996, cited in Nguyen Thi Phuc Hoa, 1999 , p.23), Englishfricatives with nine consonants, as presented in the following table, are the consonantswhich are produced by bringing the articulators closely together, thus, a narrow passage isformed and acts as a channel through which the air stream escapes with friction Or asRoach (1991) illustrated, fricatives “are consonants with the characteristic that when theyare produced, air escapes through a small passage and makes a hissing sound” (p 47).Based on place of articulation, English fricatives fall into five main categories, four ofthem contain 2 consonants which are distinct from each other only by a slight voicing

Table 2: English fricatives (Roach, 1991)

What follows will be a brief discussion of the pronunciation of all English fricativeswhich acts as a facilitator of further analyses.

2.1.4.4 Production of labio-dental fricatives /f/ and /v/

The two sounds, voiceless fricative /f/ and voiced fricative /v/ have quite wide distribution,with their presence in all positions in a syllable They occur initially in words such as

“five”,” vie”, medially in “fifth” and “survive”, and finally in “life” and live” According toRoach (1985), English labio-dental fricatives are pronounced by raising the soft palate andshutting off the nasal resonator The air escapes from a narrow passage formed by theslight contact between the edge of the upper teeth and the surface of the lower lip, causingfriction Or as Ha Cam Tam (2005) elaborated, in the production of English labio-dentalfricatives, “the inner surface of the lower lip makes a light contact with the edge of theupper teeth, so that the escaping air produces friction (p 3) There is no voicing in thepronunciation of /f/, while /v/ is produced with varying degrees of vocal cord vibration,depending on the sounds following it

2.1.4.5 Production of dental fricatives /θ/ and / ð /

The production of the two inter-dental fricatives is described by Thomas (1947- cited inTran Thi Trinh Hue, 2011,p.17) as “formed by placing the tip of the tongue against eitherthe cutting edges or the back of the upper teeth, and forcing the breath between the tip andthe teeth, or through the spaces between the teeth, or through both openings” (p 17), while,according to Underhill (1994), the tip of the tongue is just slightly pressed against theinside edge of the top front teeth, and the air stream is therefore just able to flow outthrough a small gap between the tongue and the tip Roach (1985), however, considered thepronunciation of English dental fricatives as a process in which the tongue is placed insidethe teeth, with the tip touching the inside of the upper teeth, the air, therefore, escapesthrough the gaps between the tongue and the teeth Whatever theories may be put forwarddescribing the pronunciation of these two consonants, according to Hattem (2009), amongEnglish consonants in general and English fricatives in particular, dental fricatives /θ/ and /

ð/ have always come to the forefront as the most challenging sounds -native Englishspeakers Like other pairs of fricatives,/θ/ is produced without the

vibration of vocal cords, while its voiced counterpart-/ ð / requires some degree ofvibration in its pronunciation.

2.1.4.6 Production of a lveolar fricatives /s/ and /z/

Like labio-dental fricatives /f/ and /v/, the two alveolar fricative /s/ and /z/ are produced bythe raise of the soft palate and the shut off of the resonator This process is followed by aslight contact of the blade and tip of the tongue with the upper alveolar ridge, thereby; theside rim of the tongue comes to close contact with the upper teeth (Roach, 1991) Thearticulation of these sounds is quite intense, causing noticeable friction with the air passingthrough a narrow passage formed along the center of the tongue (Davenport & Hannahs,1998) Alveolar fricative /s/ bears no voicing, whereas the production of /z/ is featured bystrong vibration of the vocal cords (Roach, 1991)

2.1.4.7 Production of palato-alveolar fricatives / ʃ / and / ʒ/

The production of /ʃ/, /ʒ/ is considered a combined process of producing alveolar fricatives/s/ and /z/, and the raising of the front of the tongue toward the soft palate The wholeprocess can be described as “The soft palate is being raised and the nasal resonator shutoff, the tip and blade of the tongue make a light contact with the alveolar ridge, the front ofthe tongue being raised at the same time in the direction of the hard palate and the side rims

of the tongue being in contact with the upper side teeth” (Cruttenden, 2001, p.189) Whatstrongly distinguishes the articulation of /ʃ/, /ʒ/ from that of /s/ and /z/ is that the tongueinvolved in the process touches an area of the hard palate that is further back than that inthe production of /s and /z/ The distinction is also illustrated by the general round lips thatnative-English speakers often have when pronouncing /ʃ/ and /ʒ/, though in some cases, theshape of the lips is determined mostly by the sounds following these two sounds (Ha CamTam, 2005) Since the air is diffused in the wide area between the tongue and the roof ofthe mouth, the production of /ʃ/ and /ʒ/ is generally less intense, which translates into arather low degree of vibration in the process of producing / ʒ/, while in that of /ʃ/, the vocalcords have no role to play (Duong Thi Nu, 2008) The sound /ʒ/ has quite limiteddistribution due to its recent and infrequent appearance in English sound system This

sound is often found in English words which are borrowed from French and mostfrequently stands at word medial position (Roach, 1991) while the other above mentionedfricatives have wide distribution in all positions of a syllable.

2.1.4.8 Production of glottal fricative /h/

Though the place of articulation of /h/ is glottal, which means that /h/ is produced by thefriction coming from the narrowing between the vocal cords, in real pronunciation of /h/ incombination with other vowels, the process of pronouncing this consonant is actual notseparated from that of the vowels following it Glottal fricative /h/, therefore, bears thequality of the vowels it precedes (Davenport & Hannahs, 1998) For example, in the word

“head” which is pronounced as /hed/, the production of /h/ will be made simultaneouslywith that of the vowel /e/, with the same positions of jaw, tongue, and lips like that of /e/

2.1.5 A phonological contrastive analysis of Vietnamese and English

2.1.5.1 A contrastive analysis of Vietnamese and English consonant systems

Vietnamese consonants system includes 26 consonants, among them, 22 can stand in theinitial position, while only 6 consonants appear in the final position (Tran Ngoc Dung,2010), as showed in the following tables:

Table 3: Vietnamese consonants (Tran Ngoc Dung, 2010)

As illustrated by the three tables above, Vietnamese consonants are totally absent insyllable medial position, and distributed rather limitedly in the final position, with only sixconsonants able to stand in syllable final position, three of them /p/, /k/, /t/ are unaspiratedwhile the other three /m/, /n/ and /ŋ/ are nasals.

English consonants, on the other hand, have wide distribution with virtually all consonantsable to occur at all three positions of a syllable, except for some specific sounds such as /ʒ/which often occurs medially and /h/ which never stand finally

(Ladefoged, 1975).

A comparison of table 1 and table 3 reveals there are sounds that are unique to English,namely, the two dental fricatives /θ/ and / ð / In addition, a closer look at table 4 showsthat although it seems that both English and Vietnamese possess palato-alveolar fricative /ʃ/, Vietnamese /ʂ/ is retroflexed, while that of English is merely palato-alveolar

Though English and Vietnamese share many consonants, due to the limited distribution ofVietnamese consonants, which enable them to stand mostly in the two positions, medialand final, there are sounds specific to English, causing considerable difficulties for students

of English who tend to transfer their first language‟s sound system to their secondlanguage in the process of language learning (Bui Thi Binh, 2011) Table 6 elaborates onthe consonants that Vietnamese and English have in common, as well as those specific toeach language

Table 6: Comparison of Vietnamese and English Consonant Sounds In Initial and – Final Position ( Giang 2000).

Syllable-As table 6 details, in the initial position, Vietnamese and English share 14 consonants,while that of the final position stands is only six sounds which are able to occur inVietnamese syllable final position, namely, nasals /m/, /n/, /ŋ/ and voiceless orals /p/, /k/and /t/ A considerable number of initial consonants, including four fricatives /ʃ/, / ʒ/, /θ/

and / ð /, and all of the fricatives in the final position are unique to English.

Moreover, English consonants are featured by their ability to stand in consonant clusters,occurring mostly in syllable initial and final position, while, according to Doan ThienThuat (1999), modern Vietnamese consonant system possesses no consonant clusters,though in the past, there existed cases in which 2 consonants can stand together in syllableinitial position This may serve as a basis for predicting errors that may be committed byEnglish learners on encountering the sounds absent in their mother tongue‟s soundinventory and sound patterns foreign to Vietnamese phonetics

2.1.5.2 A contrastive analysis of Vietnamese and English syllable structure

Different theories have been put forwards with a view to fully and properly portrayingVietnamese syllable structure Among these, Ngo Nhu Binh‟s (2009) stood out, as sheasserted that tone and nuclear vowel play an indispensible and overwhelming part inVietnamese syllable structure while initial and final consonant/semi-vowel are optional.What noteworthy here in her theory is that labialization also has a role to play in a syllable,and initial consonant, labialization, nuclear vowels, final consonants/semi-vowels belong tothe same layer inferior to tat of tone as illustrated by the figure below:

Figure 1: Vietnamese syllable structure (Ngo Nhu Binh, 2009)

Others, like Doan Xuan Kien (2005), however, refuted that tone, initial consonant and rime(vowel and final consonant) play equal part in Vietnamese syllable while there are no semi-vowels in the final position, as can be seen in figure 2:

Figure 2: Vietnamese syllable structure (Doan Xuan Kien, 2005)

Le Van Ly (1948) as cited in Doan Xuan Kien (2005) goes so far as to confirm that there

are no layers in Vietnamese syllable structure, and that there are generally four types ofstructure portraying Vietnamese syllables, namely, (C) (V), (V), (C) (V) (C), (V) (C) Incongruent with Kien, Dinh, Hoang, and Nguyen (1972, as cited in Le Chau Hoai Nhat &Cunningham, 2010) assert that Vietnamese syllable is featured by these above fourstructures, cutting across them is the dominant role of nuclear vowel.

Different approaches above, however, converge in one point, highlighting the equal role, ifnot to say superior role that vowels has over consonants in Vietnamese syllable Inaddition, the structure (C) (V) with one consonant at the beginning and a vowel followingtwo seems to characterize Vietnamese structure (Le Chau Hoai Nhat & Cunningham,2010) Meeting Le Chau Hoai Nhat and Cunningham at this point, Anthony Nguyen (2007)believed that the coda of Vietnamese most of the time consists of vowels, which translatesinto the heavy semantic load borne by those sounds

The structure of English syllable, on the contrary, places greater emphasis on consonants,which translates into a rather overloading appearance of them in a syllable (Nguyen ThiThu Thao, 2007) Subsequently, within a syllable, English consonants carry a largesemantics load as compared with English vowels (Pham Thi Song Thuyet, 2009) Englishsyllable generally follows the following structures (C) (V), (C) (V) (C), (C) (V) (C) (C),(C) (C) (V) (C), (C) (C) (C) (V) (C) (Erickson, as cited in Tang M.Giang, 2007) Spencer(1996) and Crystal (2002) (as cited in Le Chau Hoai Nhat & Cunningham, 2010) evenconsidered the structure (C) (C) (C) (V) (C) (C) (C) (C) the one characteristic of Englishsyllable This may explain why English learners whose mother tongue attaches moreimportance to vowels compared with consonants, like those students from Vietnam, oftenencounter huge challenges in pronouncing English clusters which require continuousmovement among consonants, especially consonant clusters in the syllable final position(Phung Thi Phuong Lan, 2010)

2.1.6 Pronunciation errors

2.1.6.1 Errors

Errors making proves to be an unavoidable part in the process of learning a language (BuiThi Binh, 2011) The following discussion of the term “error” sheds light on further

analyses of the pronunciation problems facing Vietnamese learners of English andconclusion of this paper Linguists around the world have put forwards various definitions

of errors in language acquisition Among them, Ellis (1997 cited in Bhela, 1999) stood out

as to assert that “errors reflect gaps in the learners‟ knowledge; they occur because thelearners does not know what is correct” (p 2) In congruent with this definition, Dulay et

al (1982) considered errors “the systematic deviations due to the learner‟s still developingknowledge of the second language rule system” Eckman (1981) went further to emphasizethat error, though inevitable and necessary in the course of language acquisition, exert bothpositive and negative impacts on language learners‟ progress in mastering the language It

is therefore necessary that errors should be carefully examined and brought intoperspective with a view to facilitating the process of language learning Corder (1981),however, classified errors into two types, “errors of performance” which happen to nativespeakers due to tiredness and carelessness and “errors of competence”, ones that reflectvividly the learner‟s incompetent knowledge of the language that they are learning Thisnecessitates further clarification of the concept and its impact in language acquisition

2.1.6.2 Errors and mistakes

In everyday speech, little distinction is drawn between the two term “error” and “mistake”.However, from the linguistic perspectives, errors and mistakes stand at the two ends oflanguage acquisition Errors, as described by Dulay et al, (1982) and other linguists are

“parts of conversation or composition that deviate from some selected norm of maturelanguage performance” (p 138), which are indispensably occurring due to inadequatelanguage competence at the initial stage of language learning, (Coder, 1981) Mistakes, onthe other hand, are defined by Richard (1974) as of little importance to language learningand of non-systematic occurrence Torrijos (2009) had his own way of distinguishingerrors and mistakes: “errors should be classified into two types, one that do not reflect adefect in the knowledge of language –errors of performance or mistakes– and those whoreveal the underlying knowledge of the language to date –errors of competence” (p 150)

Or as Corder (1967 cited in Ngo Phuong Anh, 2009 p.2) makes it, “mistakes are akin toslips of the tongue” while “an error is systematic and often not recognized by

learners as an error” Thus, it can be concluded that errors in language learning are oftenassociated with failures due to incompetence and should be minimized On thoroughlyunderstanding the nature of errors, their distinction from mistakes, and the generallyinsufficient awareness of English learners regarding errors in the learning process, theircauses, as well as their negative effects on language acquisition, it is important thatresearch be conducted in this area so that preventable errors can be avoided, teachingmethods could be better tailored (Torrijos, 2009), thereby, facilitating the process oflanguage learning and avoid the carrying of persistent errors to the advanced stage oflanguage acquisition.

2.1.6.3 Common errors in the pronunciation of English fricatives

Much attention has been attached to errors in the pronunciation of English consonants ingeneral and English fricatives in particular by linguists worldwide (Xiao & Zhang, 2009).English fricatives have long been cited as among the most challenging sounds to non-native speakers who speak a language that bears a combination of different phonologicalfeatures different from that of English (Timonen, 2011) A literature review of studiesconducted around the world has showed that sound omission and sound confusion are themost frequently cited errors in the articulation of English fricatives Ha Cam Tam (2005)provided further evidence to support this assertion by pointing out that “sound omission,sound confusion and sound redundancy” characterizes the pronunciation of Englishfricatives by Vietnamese English learners The research by Luu Trong Tuan (2011) furtherrevealed that English consonants standing finally and in clusters are most often subject toomission, while those occurring initially are vulnerable to sound replacement, both intra-language (the replacement of one sound by another in the same language such as /s/ for /z/)and inter-language (or language transfer-characterized by the substitution of one sound inmother tongue for the sound in the target language, such as

that of Vietnamese /z‟/ (d/gi) for English / ð /) Nguyen Quoc Hung (2000) specificallyemphasized through his study that the two dental fricatives /θ/ and / ð / present the mostchronic and seemingly insurmountable obstacles for non-native speakers coming from allcorner of the world, undoubtedly, including Vietnamese Or as Byung (2004) furtherelaborated, on facing these sounds, English learners often

resort to replacement, whether by sounds similar in English, or most commonly, by soundsavailable and somewhat similar in their own mother tongue‟s source of consonants.Results gleaned from the study of Timonen (2011) provided support and complementation

to what have been mentioned According to her findings, except for the three sounds /v/,/f/, and /h/, all other English fricatives become subjects of frequent mispronunciation byEnglish learners, especially those who have just embarked on the language learningjourney

That Vietnamese English learners encounter difficulty in pronouncing English fricativeshas now become uncontroversial, calling for more thorough and context- specific research

in the area so that errors are specifically pinpointed, causes are revealed, and necessarymeasures could be taken Intelligibility, learner‟s confidence, communicationeffectiveness, as well as pronunciation teaching method, may, thereby, be greatly improved(Nguyen Ngan, 2008) It is hoped that this paper can play a humble part in this endeavor

“By linguistic transfer, we mean what the learners carry over to or generalize in theirknowledge about their native language (NL) to help them learn to use a target language(TL) (p 1) He went further to confirm that by the word language transfer, we can meanboth positive and negative transfer Agreeing with Liu, Murphy (2003) pointed out that,language transfer has two roles in second language acquisition, one facilitates the process

of language learning (positive transfer), and another inhibits it (negative transfer) Incongruent with the conclusion of these researchers, Torrijos (2009) asserted that “negativetransfer” in language learning is often associated with errors which are persistent should beproactively avoided by both teachers and learners of language Investigating deeply intothe issue of language transfer, Alonso (1998) pointed that

negative transfer could generally be divided into two main patterns, namely, “transfer tosomewhere” and “transfer to nowhere” By the first term, he meant the language learners‟transfer of grammatical, phonological, or semantic patterns from L1 to L2 due to eithermarked similarities between L1 and L2 or overgeneralization of L1 patterns to L2 so as tomake L2 more compatible to learners‟ habits in mother tongue The term “transfer tonowhere”, however, was defined by him as the process in which large differences betweenL1 and L2 inhibits learners‟ ability to have clear conceptualization of L2 patterns, causingthem to commit errors within L2 only, which are unrelated to L1 patterns Theseperspectives on language transfer will serve as a basis for further analyses and discussion

of pronunciation errors in this paper

CHAPTER II: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

2.2.1 Introduction

The method used in this paper is of empirical nature, calling for the participation of thosewho directly involve in learning English, specifically first year English majors at HanoiUniversity In this chapter, the subjects, instrumentations, the methods, as well as theprocedures employed in the research will be discussed in detail

2.2.2 Subjects

The subjects of this study were 30 first year students in the English Department, HanoiUniversity The university which specializes in foreign languages is among the prestigiousuniversities of Vietnam in teaching foreign languages English Department is also one ofthe largest departments in the university The classes were chosen randomly without anyprior knowledge of the researcher about the level of English proficiency, teaching andstudying situation or any special features of these classes, so that the findings could betterreflect the real situation of pronunciation problems of first year English students at theuniversity The participants were from three classes: 2A, 8A, and 10A 10B, coming fromdifferent parts of Vietnam with different socio-economic situations; so, the levels ofEnglish among them are undoubtedly varying Most of them are female, which reallyreflects the male-female ratio in English department, Hanoi University whose more than 90percent of students are female When this research was conducted, they had been learning

at Hanoi University for nearly two semesters, and had studied the pronunciation course

book named English Pronunciation in Use (Mark Hancock, 2003) Hence, these subjects

had got chance of getting accustomed to English pronunciation rules and had aconsiderable amount of time practicing English pronunciation

2.2.3 Instrumentations

In order to collect the data, the researcher divided the questionnaire into four differentparts, each serves a specific purpose (See Appendix 1, 2, 3, and 4 for details) In the firstpart, words that contain English fricatives are presented in three lists, each with allfricatives in one of the three positions, initial, medial, and final, of a syllable, and some in

consonant clusters, except for two special consonants like /ʒ/ and /h/ which have limiteddistribution, with a view to assessing students‟ errors in the pronunciation of these sounds

in combination with other sounds in a word Students were required to read out loud thelists after looking at them in advance and making sure they recognize all the wordsincluded Part 2 which includes a text in which all the words in Part 1 is intentionallyintegrated goes further as to find out student‟s errors in pronouncing these sounds inconnected speech (text), which requires greater language competence in terms of soundlinking, sound elision, and intonation In Part 3, a set of five questions asks for students‟personal opinion about their difficulties in pronouncing English fricatives in words andconnected speech, their ability to recognize these sounds in listening, and their proficiency

in English pronunciation The effort intends to find out whether students truly recognizetheir actual problems in the pronunciation of English fricatives and whether they haveconfidence in English pronunciation after nearly a year of studying at Hanoi University

In Part 4, a list of ten speaking topics was presented to students and they were asked tochoose one topic to talk about The purpose was to examine the number as well as thepatterns of errors related to pronunciation of English fricatives committed by students inthe context of speaking as compared with those in the context of list and text reading Thesurvey was conducted at Hanoi University in April 2011 Thirty randomly chosen studentswere asked to record their English pronunciation in Part 1 and Part 2, and 10 out of themwere then randomly asked to speak naturally on the spot about one topic in Part 4 and theirpresentations were simultaneously recorded Before being recorded, they were asked togive their general information such as name and class Samsung recorder was employed inthe recording process The recordings were then played by Window Media Player forfurther analyses

2.2.4 Procedures

The following section will present the procedures in which this study was conducted.First, the researcher prepared three lists of words containing an appropriate number of thenine English fricatives, a paragraph integrating all these words, a set of five follow-

up questions, and a list of ten speaking topics for students to choose from.

Second, the subjects were asked to have a look at the lists and the paragraph carefully tomake sure they were quite familiar with every word in them After that, a total of 30students, one by one, were asked to read the lists and the paragraph in a continuousmanner Each reading was recorded After that, 30 chosen students went on to give answer

to the five questions by circling the options most appropriate to them Finally, ten out ofthe thirty respondents were randomly selected, each had about 3 to 5 minutes to speakabout the topic chosen from the list in Part 4, the recordings in this part were madeseparately

Third, the records of each subject in Part 1, 2, and 4 were carefully listened to so that theresearcher could figure out the student‟s errors in the pronunciation of English fricatives.The researcher listened to every student‟s recording to note down errors Afterwards,errors were counted due to the repetition times and categorized based on the error types.The answers for five questions in Part 3 were also summarized and presented in the form ofcharts with a view to providing further evidence for the analyses

In conclusion, this chapter provided readers with an illustration of methods and proceduresused in the paper In the next chapter, figures, statistics and data discussions will bepresented in order to answer the research questions

CHAPTER III: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Through the recording conducted in three classes as mentioned in the previous chapter, inthis part, the data were analyzed and discussed in order to answer the three researchquestions The researcher hopes that the findings can represent an authentic clue that helps

to work out an effective way of teaching pronunciation to Vietnamese students

2.3.1 Error classifications

2.3.2 Errors grouped according to sounds

2.3.2.1 Errors in list reading

Based on the analysis of the recordings made when students read the list of 30 wordscontaining English fricatives in three syllable positions, 357 errors were found, of which,

118 is related to /θ/ and / ð /, 92 to the two sounds /ʃ/and /ʒ/, 84 to sounds /s/ and /z/, andthe other 63 to the pair /f/ and /v/ It should be noted that there exist no errors related to thepronunciation of glottal fricative /h/ These figures are in strong agreement with theprediction of the researcher before writing the paper, confirming that the four sounds /θ/,/ð/, /ʃ/ and /ʒ/ are among the ones ranking highest on the list of being vulnerable tomispronunciation

2.3.2.2 Errors in paragraph reading

As predicted in the literature review, difficulty is heightened when the words are combinedinto connected speech, causing more trouble for students, especially when the consonantsstand in the final position of the word The results gleaned from the recording show that, inparagraph reading, students committed a total of 438 errors falling into 4 categories Thefirst includes 139 errors in pronouncing dental fricatives /θ/ and / ð / The second contains

125 failures in pronouncing palato-alveolar fricatives /ʃ/ and / ʒ/ The third categoryrecords 103 deviations from pronouncing alveolar fricatives /s/ and /z/, and the remainingconsists of 71 errors related to the pronunciation of labio-dental fricatives /f/ and /v/

2.3.2.3 Errors in speaking

In congruent with the researcher‟s prediction, the number of errors occurring in freespeaking is much higher than that of list and text reading since in the first situation.According to Bhela (1999), in the course of speaking, students may be affected by the habit

of thinking and pronouncing in mother tongue, prompting their pronunciation of Englishfricatives deviate greatly from the standard practice by native speakers Specifically, as ofpronouncing /θ/ and / ð /, 173 errors were recorded, the figures for the three pairs /ʃ/ and /ʒ/, /s/ and /z/, and /f/ and /v/ are 158, 139 and 117, respectively

2.3.3 Errors grouped according to types

The categorization of errors according to types will serve as a facilitator for better analysis

of the causes and possible ways to fix the errors committed After a careful analysis of therecordings, the results came out as follows:

2.3.3.1 Errors in list reading

Thanks to the simple nature of list reading which provide students with sufficient time toadjust there articulators and breath and does not require a combination of pronunciationskills, the majority of students generally committed only two types of errors, namely,sound confusion (intra-language) and sound replacement (intra/ inter- language), whilesome made omission of ending fricatives, especially when they stands in consonantclusters Of 357 errors recorded, 72 goes to sound confusion, 156 comes to soundreplacement and the other 129 falls into the category of sound omission

2.3.3.2 Errors in paragraph reading

Paragraph reading, as mentioned above, presented more difficulties for the respondents,given their still-developing linking, elision and intonation skills In reading the text given,aside from the three above-listed types of errors, students committed another type of errorswhich are oftentimes defined by linguists as sound addition, or sound redundancy Whatnote worthy here is the strong tendency of

students to omit consonants when it comes to reading connected speech reflected in that theerrors in terms of sound omission in paragraph reading are significantly higher than those

of list reading, with the figure amounting to 165, while that of sound replacement in thiscase drops to only117 There is predictably no noticeable change in the number errorsregarding sound confusion in text reading (76) compared with that in list reading Thenumber of errors occurring for the newly emerging type of error-sound addition stands at

80, which may be explained by students‟ effort to keep the final consonants by adding avowel

2.3.3.3 Errors in speaking

Similar to the pattern found in part 4.1.1.3, speaking presents huge challenge to first- yearEnglish students whose pronunciation of isolated words and word combination in text stillfall far short of standard As easily predicted, in making natural speech, students focusedmore on choosing the right words to express the next ideas coming across their mind andwhile continuing to express the current ones, understandably, little attention was paid topronunciation (Nguyen Thi Phuc Hoa, 1999), let alone the disadvantage compared withreading in terms of having no words in front of the eyes from which to deduce thepronunciation from The four types of errors, sound confusion, sound replacement, soundomission, and sound addition respectively record the following figures: 96, 186, 197, and

108 As can be interpreted from these figures, to beginners of language learning, naturalspeech represents the single most stubborn challenge in terms of pronunciation, and amongfour types of errors, sound omission and sound replacement overwhelm

2.3.4 Data analysis

A detailed list of error figures as well as error types above remains unable to pinpoint outthe nature of each error types, causing difficulties in trying to find out the relevant cures forthe problems The following analysis attempts to elaborate on each type of errors, thereby,serving as a basis for further deduction about the findings and implications of the study

* Sound confusion