VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HOCHIMINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS AND LITERATURE *** IMPROVING THE PRONUNCIATION OF ENGLISH FRICATIVES BY USING COMPUTER SOFTWARE A thesis submitted to the Faculty of English Linguistics & Literature in partial fulfillment of the Master’s degree in TESOL By TRẦN THỊ LỆ THỦY Supervised by NGUYỄN THỊ KIỀU THU, PH.D HO CHI MINH CITY, NOVEMBER 2012 CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY I hereby certify that this thesis entitled “Improving the Pronunciation of English Fricatives by Using Computer Software” submitted in terms of the Statements of Requirements for Theses in Master’s Programs issued by the Higher Degree Committee, is my own work This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in any other institution Ho Chi Minh City, 2012 TRẦN THỊ LỆ THỦY RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS I hereby state that I, TRẦN THỊ LỆ THỦY, being the candidate for the degree of Master of Arts in TESOL, accept the requirements of the university relating to the retention and use of Master’s Thesis deposited in the University Library I agree that the original of my Master’s Thesis deposited in the University Library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in accordance with the normal conditions established by the Library for the care, loan and reproduction for theses Ho Chi Minh City, 2012 TRẦN THỊ LỆ THỦY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first like to express my deepest gratitude to my thesis supervisor, Dr Nguyen Thi Kieu Thu for her precious guidance, strong support, helpful criticism and instructive comments on my writing Without her helps and encouragement, this M.A thesis would not have been successfully accomplished I would also like to sincerely acknowledge my debt to Ms Pham Thi Ngoc Hoa, the former dean of the English Department, University of Ho Chi Minh City, who has spent a lot of her time teaching acoustic phonetics to me and giving me careful proof-reading and instruction Her patient, dedication and valuable advice helped me confidently express my ideas in this study I wish to sincerely thank Mr Nguyen Minh Duc, M.A at the University of Social Sciences and Humanities, who taught me knowledge about computer software I am grateful to Dr To Minh Thanh, senior lecturer of the Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature for her advice and assistance, and to all of the professors and lecturers of the master course in TESOL for their devotions which provided me with a better approach to English teaching and studying Next, I would like to thank Mr Clement Chapados Girard and all the teachers at Hung Vuong University, who supported me to carry out the experimental teaching, to all of the students in my class for their enthusiastic participation in this research, and to all of my friends in TESOL course for their moral support and good friendship Last but not least, I would love to send my thanks to my beloved family, my parents, my sisters, who well believe in and keep on encouraging me in completing the thesis TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No Statement of authority i Retention and use of the thesis ii Acknowledgements iii Table of contents iv List of abbreviations x Abstract xi CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the study 1.2 Aims of the study 1.3 Research questions 1.4 Significance of the study 1.5 Limitation of the study 1.6 Organization CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 English consonants 2.1.1The description of English consonants 2.1.1.1 English consonants in terms of place of articulation 2.1.1.2 English consonants in terms of manner of articulation 2.1.1.3 English consonants in terms of voicing 2.2 Fricatives 2.2.1 The description of English fricatives 2.2.1.1 / f / and / v / 2.2.1.2 / θ / and / ð / 2.2.1.3 / s / and / z / 2.2.1.4 / ʃ / and / ʒ / 2.3 Articulatory Phonetics versus Acoustic Phonetics 10 2.4 Acoustics as a branch of Physics 11 2.5 Application of acoustics in the study of speech sounds 12 2.5.1 Spectrograms: information about the place of articulation, manner of articulation, voicing, pitch, intensity and loudness 12 2.5.1.1 Place of articulation 12 2.5.1.2 Manner of articulation 14 2.5.1.3 Voicing 15 2.5.1.4 Pitch 15 2.5.2 Waveforms: information about the manner of articulation and loudness 16 2.5.2.1 Manner of articulation 17 2.5.2.2 Loudness 17 2.6 Application of acoustics phonetics in the study of English fricatives 18 2.6.1 Place of articulation 19 2.6.2 Manner of articulation 19 2.6.3 Pitch 20 2.6.4 Loudness 22 2.6.5 Voicing 23 2.7 Computer software in teaching pronunciation 23 2.7.1 Introduction of some computer software to teach pronunciation 24 2.7.1.1 EyeSpeak 23 2.7.1.2 Sephonics 24 2.7.1.3 Ultimate phonics 25 2.7.1.4 Pronunciation Power 25 2.7.1.5 Praat 25 2.8 Previous study 26 2.9 Conceptual framework 27 2.10 Summary 27 CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY 28 3.1 Setting 28 3.1.1 Research population 28 3.1.2 Students’ age 29 3.1.3 Students’ gender 29 3.1.4 Students’ learning experience 29 3.2 Research problems 30 3.2.1 Access to the computer 30 3.2.2 Difficulties with acoustic notions 30 3.3 Research design 30 3.4 Research instruments 31 3.4.1 Questionnaires 31 3.4.2 Tests 32 3.4.2.1 Pre-test 32 3.4.2.2 Post-test 33 3.4.3 Experimental teaching 33 3.4.3.1 The teacher 33 3.4.3.2Teaching instruments 33 3.4.3.3 Experimental teaching procedure 34 3.4.3.3.1Preparation stage 34 3.4.3.3.2 Experimental teaching stage 35 3.4.3.3.3 Sample lesson 36 3.5 Data collection procedure 38 3.6 Treatment of data 39 3.6.1 Questionnaire results 39 3.6.2 Test results 39 3.6.3 Pronunciation test results 40 3.6.3.1Quantification and grading of place of articulation 40 3.6.3.2 Quantification and grading of manner of articulation 41 3.6.3.3 Quantification and grading of pitch 41 3.6.3.4 Quantification and grading of loudness 42 3.6.5 The quantification and grading of voicing 42 3.7 Summary 43 CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 44 4.1 Results 44 4.1.1 Results of Questionnaire 44 4.1.1.1 Students’ opinion about the teaching and learning of English pronunciation 44 4.1.1.2 Students’ English studying habits at home 47 4.1.2 Results of Questionnaire 49 4.1.3 Results of the pre-test 53 4.1.4 Results of the post-test 54 4.1.5 Results of students’ spectrograms and waveforms 56 4.1.5.1 Results of students’ spectrograms and waveforms of /f/ and /v/ 56 4.1.5.1.1 Place of articulation 56 4.1.5.1.2 Manner of articulation 58 4.1.5.1.3 Voicing 61 4.1.5.1.4 Pitch 62 4.1.5.1.5 Loudness 64 4.1.5.2 Results of students’ spectrograms and waveforms of /θ/ and /ð/ 65 4.1.5.2.1Place of articulation 65 4.1.5.2.2Manner of articulation 67 4.1.5.2.3Voicing 68 4.1.5.2.4 Pitch 69 4.1.5.2.5 Loudness 70 4.2 Discussion 71 4.2.1 Discussion on the questionnaires 71 4.2.2 Discussion on the pronunciation tests 72 4.2.2.1 Place of articulation 72 4.2.2.2 Manner of articulation 72 4.2.2.3 Voicing 75 4.2.2.4 Pitch 76 4.2.2.5 Loudness 76 4.3 Summary 78 CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS 79 5.1 Conclusion 79 5.1.1Answer to the first question 79 5.1.2 Answer to the second question 79 5.1.3Answer to the third question 80 5.2 Strengths and limitations 81 5.2.1 Strengths of the study 81 5.2.2 Limitations of the study 81 5.3 Suggestions 81 5.3.1 Suggestions to administrators 82 5.3.2 Suggestions to teachers 82 5.3.3 Suggestions to students 82 5.3.4 Suggestions for further research 82 5.4 Summary 83 BIBLIOGRAPHY 84 APPENDICES 88 Appendix 88 Pre-test 88 Key of pre-test 91 Post-test 93 Key of post test 96 Appendix 98 PART II: DISTRIBUTION OF PRONUNCIATION SCORES OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Score per one: (for each feature) BELOW WEAK: (score: 0) WEAK: (score: 0.25) AVERAGE: (score: 0.50) FAIR: (score: 0.75) GOOD: (score: 1) 126 Test time Pre test of Experimental group /f/ Below Below weak Forward Frequency % Place of Right Articulatio Weak Average Fair Good Weak Average Fair Good Total 23 11 2 38 20 25 23.4% 4.2% 4.2% 81.1% 10.6% 42.5% 53.1% Frequency Frequency 20 22 12.6% 4.2% 2.1% 18.9% 4.4% 42.5% 46.9% Total Higher 100% Frequency % Right Pitch 100.0% 14 21 22 6.3% 10.6% 12.6% 29.5% 2.1% 44.6% 46.9% Frequency % Lower Frequency % 15 10 33 21 25 17.2% 32.0% 21.3% 70.5% 8.5% 44.6% 53.1% 12 17 15 24 44 25.6% 10.6% 36.2% 8.5% 32.0% 51.1% 2.1% 93.7% Total Man Fric 100.0% Frequency With Friction % ner Affr Frequency % Friction Without Frequency % Stop Artic n Weak 48.9% % ulatio Total % Retracted n of Post test of Experimental group Appr 2 4.2% 4.2% 28 28 59.6% 59.6% 3 6.3% 6.3% Frequency % Total Louder 100.0% Frequency % Loudness 100.0% Right 100.0% 26 39 18 16 40 4.2% 55.3% 14.8% 8.5% 82.8% 4.2% 8.5% 38.0% 33.5% 84.2% Frequency % Softer Frequency % 1 2.1% 2.1% 8.5% 4.2% 17.2% 4.2% 10.6% 14.8% Total Voiced 100.0% 100 0% Frequency % Voicing Voiceless Frequency % Total 39 1 47 25 13 47 83.2% 12.6% 2.1% 2.1% 100.0% 53.1% 27.7% 4.4% 14.8% 100.0% 100.0% 100 0% 127 Test time Pre test of Experimental group /v/ Post test of Experimental group Below Weak Forward Frequency % Place of Right Articulatio Average Fair Good Higher Frequency Right Pitch Fair Good Total 11 23 29 6.6% 10.6% 4.2% 23.5% 2.1% 10.6% 49.0% 61.7% 18 11 35 16 18 12.9% 38.2% 23.4% 76.5% 4.2% 34.1% 38.3% Frequency 100 0% 17 12 10 39 13 18 36.3% 25.7% 21.4% 83.2% 10.6% 24.7% 38.0% Frequency % Lower Frequency % 12 17 29 4.2% 8.4% 4.2% 16.8% 25.7% 36.3% 62.0% 29 31 19 21 44 2.1% 61.8% 2.1% 66.0% 8.4% 40.6% 44.7% 93.7% Total Fric Man 100.0% Frequency Friction With % Affr Artic Frequency % Friction Without Frequency % Stop n Average 100.0% % ulatio Weak 2.1% Total of Weak Frequency % ner Total % Retracted n Below Weak Appr Frequency % Right 2.1% 2.1% 12 2 25.6% 25.6% 4.2% 4.2% 4 8.4% 8.4% Frequency 100 0% 23 15 43 2.1% 8.4% 4.2% 14.7% 4.2% 6.3% 49.0% 32.1% 91.6% Frequency % Softer Frequency % 31 40 2 10.6% 66.3% 6.3% 2.1% 85.3% 4.2% 4.2% 8.4% 13 21 44 47 12.6% 27.9% 14.8% 44.7% 2.1% 4.3% 93.6% 100.0% Total Voiced 100.0% Frequency % Voicing 100.0% % Loudness 12 Total Louder 100 0% Voiceless 47 100.0% 100 0% Frequency % Total 100.0% 100 0% 128 Test time /θ/ Pre test of Experimental group Post test of Experimental group Below Weak Forward Frequency % Place of Right Articulatio Weak Average Fair Good Higher Frequency Pitch Fair Good Total 4 12 29 32 6.3% 8.4% 8.4% 25.2% 2.1% 4.2% 61.7% 65.9% 13 13 35 14 15 4.2% 15.2% 27.7% 27.7% 74.8% 2.1% 32.0% 34.1% 14 33 13 15 4.2% 27.8% 32.0% 32 100 0% 10.6% 19.5% 29.9% 10.6% 70.6% 14 12 19 6.3% 12.6% 6.3% 4.2% 29.4% 2.1% 25.5% 40.4% Frequency % Lower Frequency % Total Man Friction With Affr Friction Stop n 100 0% 2 25 36 4.2% 4.2% 53.5% 18.9% 4.2% 76.6% 11 11 11 11 23.4% 23.4% 23.4% 23.4% 34 34 72.4% 72.4% Appr Total Louder 100.0% Frequency % Loudness 68.0% 100.0% Fric Without ulatio Average 100.0% Frequency % Right Artic Weak 2.1% Total of Weak Frequency % ner Total % Retracted n Below Right 100 0% 17 21 46 37.0% 45.7% 17.4% 97.9% 6.3% 17 15 44 48.2% 31.9% 6.3% 92.7% Frequency % Softer Frequency % 1 3 2.1% 2.1% 6.3% 6.3% Total Voiced 100.0% 100 0% Frequency % Voicing Voiceless Frequency % Total 44 95.8% 2.1% 2.1% 46 26 21 47 95.8% 55.3% 44.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100 0% 129 Test time /ð/ Pre test of Experimental group Post test of Experimental group Below Weak Forward Frequency % Place of Below Weak Average Fair Good Retracted Frequency % Average Fair Good Total 11 14 1 12 10 24 2.1% 4.2% 23.4% 29.7% 2.1% 2.1% 25.6% 21.2% 51.0% 13 10 33 18 23 2.1% 39.4% 27.3% 30.3% 70.3% 10.6% 38.4% 49.0% 14 10 29.9% 16.8% 21.5% 2 4.2% 4.2% 8.4% Total 100.0% Frequency Higher % Right 15.0 % 100 0% 39 17 22 83.2% 10.6% 36.5% 47.1% 25 Frequency Pitch % Frequency Lower % Total Fric Friction With Affr n Friction Without Stop ulatio 15 16.8% 4.2% 2.1% 14.9 % 31.7% 52.9% 100 0% Frequency 16 17 % 34.0% 2.1% 36.1% Frequency 7 % 14.9 % 14.9 % Frequency 40 40 10 % 85.1% 85.1% 19.1% 2.1% 21.2% 19 19 40.0% 40.0% % Total 100.0% Frequency % Right s 100 0% 12 24 13 29 25.% 12.5% 10.3% 2.1% 50.0% 21.6% 10.6% 27.3% 6.3% 65.8% Frequency % Softer Frequency % 17 24 1 16 18 2.1% 35.3% 12.6% 50.0% 2.1% 2.1% 30.0% 34.2% Total Voiced 100.0% Frequency % Voicing Frequency Appr Louder Loudnes 100.0% Man Artic Weak % ion of Weak Frequency Right Articulat ner Total Voiceless 38 4.2% 8.4% 4.2% 82.5% 46 100.0% 100 0% 42 47 8.4% 2.1% 89.3% 100.0% Frequency % Total 100.0% 100 0% 130 Appendix PART I: COMPARISONS OF SCORES IN BOTH GROUPS Score per five: (for each test) Below weak: - Weak: >1- Average: >2 – Fair: >3 – Good: >4 – Score per ten (for total) Below weak: – 3.4 Weak: 3.5 – 4.9 Average: 5.0 – 6.4 Fair: 6.5 – 7.9 Good: 8.0 - 10 Test Pronunciation Test Listening Frequen Test time Grade Pre test of Below Experiment weak al group Weak cy Mean Percent 14.9 28 59.6 Frequen cy 1.6 Mean Percent 10.6 41 87.2 2.1 10 21.3 Fair 4.3 Total 47 100.0 47 100.0 8.9 2.2 37 82.2 37 82.2 Average 6.7 15.6 Fair 2.2 Total 45 100.0 45 100.0 Average Pre test of Below Control Weak group Weak 1.7 1.4 1.5 131 Test Pronunciation Test Listening Frequen Test time Grade Post test of Below cy Mean Percent Frequen cy Mean Percent Experiment Weak al group Weak 4.3 3.5 Average 57.4 Fair 45 95.7 20 42.6 Total 47 100.0 47 100.0 32 71.1 4.4 33 73.3 10 22.2 45 100.0 Post test of Weak Control Poor group 27 Average 13 28.9 Fair Total 45 100.0 2.7 2.9 1.8 132 Test time Grade Total Scores Frequency Pre test of Experimental group Below Weak Weak 2.00 2.50 3.00 12 3.50 13 Percent Mean 34.0 3.1 61.7 Average 4.00 16 5.00 4.3 47 100.0 24.4 Total Pre test of Control group Below Weak 2.00 3.00 10 Weak 3.50 17 4.00 15 5.00 5.50 71.1 Average Total 45 3.3 4.4 100.0 133 PART II: CHARTS OF SCORE DISTRIBUTION A PRE-TEST 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Below Weak Weak Average Fair Pre test of Experimental group Pre-test of listening of experimental group 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Below Weak Weak Average Fair Pre test of Experimental group Pre-test of pronunciation of experimental group 134 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Below Weak Weak Average Fair Pre test of Control group Pre-test of listening of control group 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Below Weak Weak Average Fair Pre test of Control group Pre-test of pronunciation of control group 135 B POST- TEST 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 Below Weak Weak Average Fair Post test of Experimental group Post-test of listening of experimental group 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 Below Weak Weak Average Fair Post test of Experimental group Post-test of pronunciation of experimental group 136 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Below Weak Weak Average Fair Post test of Control group Post-test of listening of control group 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 Below Weak Weak Average Fair Post test of Control group Post-test of pronunciation of control group 137 C TOTAL (LISTENING + PRONUNCIATION TEST) 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Below Weak Weak Average Fair Pre test of Experimental group Distribution of grade in pre-test of experiment group 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Below Weak Weak Average Fair Pre test of Control group Distribution of grade in pre-test of control group 138 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Below Weak Weak Average Fair Post test of Experimental group Distribution of grade in post-test of experiment group 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Below Weak Weak Average Fair Post test of Control group Distribution of grade in post-test of control group 139 140 ... in various aspects of language teaching Computer- assisted language learning (CALL) is a method of language teaching and learning in which computer technology is used as an aid to the presentation,... how computer software could be applied to teaching and learning pronunciation 1.2 Aims of the study This study aims to measure the effectiveness of applying computer software to teaching and learning... knowledge about computer software I am grateful to Dr To Minh Thanh, senior lecturer of the Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature for her advice and assistance, and to all of the professors and