Topic: Select one EFL/ESL student to read a passage given.

Using one standard

pronunciation, analyze how the student’s pronunciation differs from the standard, and
discuss what might be the causes of this variation. This paper should be 2 to 4 pages long
and should include the description of the student’s personal and linguistic background,
analysis of the pronunciation in comparison to the standard set and the discussion of the
causes for the variation in pronunciation.

Accurate pronunciation is a precondition for good speaking of English. By the word

accurate, English words shall be pronounced in conformity to one of the standard Englishes:
British English, American English, or Australian English. However, it is true that no matter
how rigorous ESL/EFL learners have put their efforts into the target language, they cannot
achieve nativelikeness in terms of phoneme articulation and speaking competence on a large
scale.
In this context, I have selected one of my EFL sophomores at Foreign Languages Center
(FLC), the National University of Management (NUM), to read a passage entitled as The Cat
and the Mice (See Appendix A). This student has been learning English for nearly eight years
since she was at the age of 12, yet her current language proficiency remains at an upper-
intermediate level at the time of reading administration. She has spent much of her time
learning the target language with many Khmer EFL teachers through several well-known
ELT textbooks: Essential English Book, Streamline English, English for Cambodia, and New
Headway, each of which has its own characteristics (i.e. formats, organizations, contents,
methodologies, aims and objectives, etc).
In this paper, I will analyze how her pronunciation differs from the standard (Oxford
Advanced Learner’s Dictionary 7th Edition), and discuss what might be the causes of this
variation. Basically, this selected participant pronounces approximately 28 words in
systematic nonconformity to the standard pronunciation. Such deviation, which I call
“variation” in this study, can be grouped into eight clear patterns, the first pattern of which is
the deletion of every final /t/, /d/ and /id/ of an -ed inflection. For example, instead of
pronouncing devoured as /di'vauǝd/, perceived as /pǝ'si:vd/, jumped as /ʤmpt/, pretended
as /pri'tendid/, pounced as /paunst/, killed as /kild/, pleased as /pli:zd/, and whitened as
/waitnd/, she mispronounces each of them as /di'vɚs/, /pǝ'si:v/, /ʤmp/, /pri'tend/, /pauns/,
/kil/, /pli:s/, and /waitn/, respectively. I would call such variations as “zero-ed inflectional
phonemes”, and this does not affect the comprehensibility or the intelligibility of the
discourse or the utterance.
 Like many teachers of English in Singapore, Cambodian EFL teachers emphasize that
the retention of the final /t/, /d/, and /id/ of an ed- inflection is imperative (David, 2006).
However, we need to be aware that the dropping of the final /t/, /d/, and /id/ is common in
both American English (Guy, 1980, as cited in David, 2006) and in British English (Temple,
2005, as cited in David, 2006). In fact, the retention of every final /t/, /d/, and /id/ of an -ed
inflection may be deemed as an over-careful, unnatural style of pronunciation (David, 2006).
The fact that every /t/, /d/ and /id/ of an -ed inflection is dropped might largely be
attributed to the first language (L1). In Khmer language, all verbs are not morphologically
inflected in both the past tense and the past participle. As such, this student might over-
extend this L1 rule to pronouncing the second language (L2) verbs, failing to take an -ed
inflectional phoneme for granted. For example, the English sentence “I worked in Siem Reap
yesterday” can be equivalent in meaning to the Khmer sentence “Khñum-Dhvoeka-Nau-
Siem-Reap-Msilmiñ” (“I work in Siem Reap yesterday”), in which the verb Dhvoekka (=
work) is not changed into the past tense form in any way. The reason is that the remoteness
of Khmer verbs is primarily indicated by time adverbials (i.e. yesterday, recently, two weeks
ago, etc), not by inflection.
Another variation pattern is that every final /s/ of an -s inflection is always deleted in all
plural nouns. For instance, she mispronounces the words holes as /hǝul/ and bags as /bæg/,
which shall be /hǝuls/ and /bægs/ in standard English, respectively. In my opinion,
Cambodian EFL teachers should focus more on the enunciation of every /s/ and /z/ of an -s
inflection in plural nouns because failing to do so will lead to semantic confusion. For
example, if I say “I have cow.” to my interlocutor, then he might not know how many cows I
have since the noun “cow” is not quantified by any numeral adjectives (i.e. two, many,
several, etc), or because it is not added with an -s inflection to indicate plurality. As a result,
it is safer if every /s/ is retained in all regular plural nouns in terms of pronunciation. My
interpretation is in agreement with that of David (2006, p. 20), claiming, “… teachers should
not be too concerned if students sometimes omit final /t/ and /d/, and greater emphasis should
be directed to the -s inflection, as final /s/ and /z/ are hardly ever omitted in British or
American English.”
This variation pattern, like the first one, might be influenced by Khmer language, in
which all nouns are not grammatically inflected in plural forms, and plurality is basically
determined by quantifiers (i.e. muoy, pi, etc) or total reduplication (i.e. srey-srey = many
women, chas-chas = many old people, etc), except some words borrowed from Pali or
Sanskrit (e.g. sesanuses = a group of students). Because all plural nouns in Khmer language
are not added with an -s inflection, the participant might over-extend this assumption to
pronouncing English plural nouns whereby an -s inflection is ignored during speaking or
reading. This act, using a zero-s inflectional phoneme, becomes what I call in this paper
“habit” or “automaticity”.
The third variation pattern is the substitution of /ð/ with /d/, as in the words them /dǝm/,
this /dis/, themselves /dǝm'sels/, and though /dǝu/, and the over-compensation of /θ/ with /s/,
as in the words forth /fɔ:s/ and stealthily /'sti:lsili/. Both /ð/ and /θ/ constitute the alveolar
phoneme /t/ in combination with the glottal sound /h/. This variation might be attributed to
the fact that this student has not been aware that /ð/ and /θ/ are different from /d/ and /s/. In
other words, she might not know that /ð/ and /θ/ are dental sounds (i.e. They are formed with
the tongue tip behind the upper front teeth), whereas /d/ and /s/ are alveolar sounds (i.e. They
are formed with the front part of the tongue on the alveolar ridge). Interestingly, it is also
difficult for most Cambodian EFL students to pronounce these two dental sounds since they
are not available in the sound system of Khmer language, and in order for them to pronounce
these sounds accurately, rigorous efforts need to be made by repeated drilling and by training
them to put the tongue in correct places of articulation (i.e. dental, alveolar, etc).
The forth variation pattern is the replacement of /z/ with /s/, as in the words themselves
and pleased, which she mispronounces as /dem'sels/ and /pli:s/, respectively. In this case, the
participant might try to avoid the /z/ sound because this phoneme is difficult and even
impossible to produce without enough focus on it, or at a fast speaking or reading speed. This
finding is in agreement with that of Carey (n.d.), claiming that learners tend to avoid some
aspects of production that they know to be problematic for them, and that avoidance
strategies can be used at the grammatical as well as at the phonemic level.
The fifth variation pattern is the mispronouncing of the double vowel [ea] as /i:/, as in
the word stealthily /'sti:lθili/ and the single vowel [o] as /ǝu/, as in the word purpose
/'pɜ:pǝus/. Such variation might be due to the fact that the participant makes
overgeneralization of other similar words which she has encountered before. In the case of
the word stealthily, she might assume that since she can pronounce the word steal as /sti:l/,
she then over-extends this rule to the word stealthily, and pronounces it as /'sti:lθili/ rather
than as /'stelθili/. This case is also true with the word purpose because this student might
have seen some words with the vowel [o] in the middle, and they are very often pronounced
as an /ǝu/ sound, as in the words post /pǝust/, most /mǝust/, close /klǝus/, expose as
/ik'spǝuz/, and so on. This variation also comes into existence because the participant might
have got exposed to the way that her significant others (i.e. teachers, classmates, and other
EFL learners) have pronounced the word purpose as /'pɜ:pǝus/.
The sixth variation pattern is the mispronouncing of the vowel [our] as /ɚs/, as in the
word devoured /di'vɚs/ and as /ɔ:/, as in the word flour /flɔ:/. This nonconformity might be
the result of insufficient knowledge of the target language words. Simply put, the participant
might have never encountered such words before she starts reading the assigned passage. She
might have been able to correct such mistakes if she had been allowed to check a dictionary
on the day of administration.
The seventh variation pattern is that the student, instead of pronouncing the words one as
/wʌn/, madam as /'mædǝm/, and continually as /kǝn'tinjuǝli/, mispronounces each of them as
/wo:n/, /ma:da:m/, and /kɔn'tinjuǝli/, respectively. Unlike the earlier case, this variation might
be the result of fossilized errors. This student might have heard many people, especially her
teachers of English, pronounce each of the three words as /wo:n/, /ma:da:m/, and
/kɔn'tinjuǝli/, and thus she follows suit and fails to refer to her dictionary for pronunciation
guidance. As a result, such variation has become fossilized, and it seems to be systematic and
hard to change if attention and time are insufficient.
The last variation pattern is the mispronouncing of the words kept as /ki:p/, though as
/sɔ:t/, dead as /det/, and mice as /mai/. This deviation might be attributed to stylistic
variation. By the word stylistic variation, I mean, in this study, that variations in style of
speech occur according to psycholinguistic factors, namely the situation, the context, the
addressee(s), and the location. As Carey (n.d.) put,
“In the gathering of speech data, factors which may affect the authenticity of the data are:
the self consciousness felt by the subject and the pressure to perform in the situation of a
studio recording; unfamiliarity with the context or lexis of the test sentences; the pressure
to achieve a “good result” for the addressee; and the artificial environment and
discomforts associated with remaining still in a recording studio.”
On the day of reading administration, I have observed that the participant tends to feel a
bit nervous and sometimes inattentive when she comes to the words kept, though, dead, and
mice (Please refer to the recording for concrete evidence). As a result, I think that she might
be able to pronounce the words correctly if she pays closer attention to and makes herself feel
more relaxed before reading or if the reading is done a bit slowly.
In conclusion, four critical issues of pronunciation variation are identified in this study:
(1) the deletion of inflectional phonemes (i.e. /t/, /d/, /id/, /s/, etc), (2) the difficulties of
articulating the L2 phonemes not available in the sound system of Khmer language (i.e. /ð/,
/θ/, /z/, etc), (3) the use of orthography as a base to pronounce words (i.e. [ea]=/i:/, [o]=/ǝu/,
etc), and (4) the correlation of habit formation with mispronunciation (i.e. one = /wo:n/,
madam = /ma:da:m/, continually = /kɔn'tinjuǝli/, etc). In this context, it is suggested that
Cambodian EFL teachers should focus more on drilling students to articulate the L2
phonemes which the L1, Khmer language in particular, does not share. In so doing, they
should make use of “minimal pairs” and “minimal sets” to enable the students to differentiate
words of similar sounds (e.g /ð/, /θ/, /d/, /s/, and /z/), and they should also train them where to
place the tongue in the mouth (places of articulation) and how certain sounds or phonemes
are produced (manners of articulation). Most significantly, the same data should be used for
future analysis and discussion with the focus on other larger aspects of pronunciation:
thought groups, prominence, intonation, rhythm, reduced speech, and linking, each of which
plays a pivotal role in the intelligibility or comprehensibility of the discourse or the utterance.

Works Cited

Carey, M. (n.d.). Interlanguage phonology: Sources of L2 pronunciation errors. Retrieved

April 10, 2010, from http://clas.mq.edu.au/phonetics/phonology/interlanguage/
pronerrors.html

Deterding, D. (2006). Deletion of final /t/ and /d/ in BBC English. STETS Language and
Communication Review. Retrieved April 10, 2010, from http://stets.org.sg/
Vol5N1_2006_21to24deterding.pdf
Appendix A

The Cat and the Mice

A certain house was overrun with Mice. A Cat, discovering this, made her way into it, and
began to catch and eat them one by one. The Mice, being continually devoured, kept
themselves close in their holes. The Cat, no longer able to get at them, perceived that she
must tempt them forth by some device. For this purpose she jumped upon a peg, and,
suspending herself from it, pretended to be dead. When the Mice came near she pounced
among them and killed a great number. Pleased with the success of the trick, she tried
another. She whitened herself with flour, and lay still on the heap of bags, as though she was
one of them. The young Mice crept dangerously near her, but an old one peeping stealthily
out said: "Ah, my good madam, though you should turn into a real flour-bag, I will not come
too near you."

(Extracted from Aesop's Fables Online at http://readbookonline.net/readOnLine/6701)

Appendix B

Table of Pronunciation Variation and Standard Pronunciation

Standard Pronunciation
Pronunciation Variation
1. bags bægs bæg
2. continually kǝn'tinjuǝli kɔn'tinjuǝli
3. dead ded det
4. devoured di'vauǝ(r)d di'vɚs
5. flour 'flauǝ(r) flɔ:
6. forth fɔ:θ fɔ:s
7. holes hǝuls hǝul
8. jumped ʤʌmpt ʤʌmp
9. kept kept ki:p
10. killed kild kil
11. madam 'mædǝm ma:da:m
12. mice maɪs mai
13. one wʌn wo:n
14. perceived pǝ'si:vd pǝ'si:v
15. pleased (2x) pli:zd pli:s
16. pounced paunst pauns
17. pretended pri'tendid pri'tend
18. purpose 'pɜ:pǝs 'pɜ:pǝus
19. stealthily (2x) 'stelθili 'sti:lsili
20. them ðǝm dǝm
21. themselves (2x) ðǝm'selvz dem'sels
22. this ðis dis
23. though (2x) ðǝu dǝu, sɔ:t
24. whitened 'waitnd 'waitn