VIETNAMESE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HO CHI MINH CITY NATIONAL UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES  USING MINIMAL PAIRS TO TEACH ENGLISH DISCRETE SOUNDS TO ENGLISH NON-MAJORED STUDENTS: A CASE STUDY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TRANSPORT IN HCMC A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in TESOL Submitted by LÊ THANH TÚ Supervisor TÔ MINH THANH, Ph.D. Ho Chi Minh City, September 2009 DEDICATION to my family, the great teachers, and friends of my life STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP I hereby certify that this thesis entitled “USING MINIMAL PAIRS TO TEACH ENGLISH DISCRETE SOUNDS TO ENGLISH NON-MAJORED STUDENTS: A CASE STUDY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TRANSPORT IN HCMC” 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, September 2nd, 2009 LÊ THANH TÚ i RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS I hereby state that I, LÊ THANH TÚ, 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, September 2nd, 2009 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Statement of authority ....................................................................................... i Retention and use of the thesis ........................................................................ ii Table of contents ............................................................................................. iii List of figures .................................................................................................. vii List of tables ..................................................................................................... ix List of abbreviations and symbols................................................................... xi Acknowledgements ......................................................................................... xii Abstract ......................................................................................................... xiii INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................1 0.1. Rationale of the study....................................................................................1 0.2. Aims of the study..........................................................................................2 0.3. Significance of the study...............................................................................3 0.4. Design of the study .......................................................................................3 0.5. Limitation of the study ..................................................................................4 0.6. Delimitation of the study...............................................................................5 Chapter 1 LITERATURE REVIEW..........................................................................................6 1.1. Basic terms ...................................................................................................6 1.1.1 Minimal pairs..............................................................................................6 1.1.2. Discrete sounds ..........................................................................................6 1.1.3. Consonant Zero..........................................................................................7 1.2. Speech sounds...............................................................................................8 1.2.1. Vowels.......................................................................................................8 1.2.1.1. Definition................................................................................................8 1.2.1.2. Classification...........................................................................................8 1.2.2. Consonants...............................................................................................10 1.2.2.1. Definition..............................................................................................10 1.2.2.2. Classification.........................................................................................10 1.2.2.2.1. Places of articulation ..........................................................................10 1.2.2.2.2. Manners of articulation.......................................................................11 1.2.2.2.3. Voicing ..............................................................................................14 1.2.3. Diphthongs.............................................................................................. 15 1.2.4.. Phonemes............................................................................................... 15 1.2.5. Allophones.............................................................................................. 16 1.3 Relationship between minimal pairs and pronunciation acquisition............. 16 1.4. Relevant research and theory...................................................................... 17 1.4.1 Relevant researches.................................................................................. 17 1.4.2. Relevant theory of pronunciation teaching .............................................. 18 1.5. Principles and techniques in pronunciation teaching....................................20 1.6. Summary.................................................................................................... 24 Chapter 2 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................25 iii 2.1. Research questions..................................................................................... 25 2.2. Materials and instruments .......................................................................... 25 2.2.1. Classroom tasks .......................................................................................25 2.2.2. Audiovisual aids.......................................................................................26 2.2.3. Technological tools ..................................................................................26 2.2.3.1. Teaching tools.......................................................................................26 2.2.3.2. Recording tool.......................................................................................30 2.2.3.3. Analysing tools .....................................................................................30 2.2.4. Pronunciation test.....................................................................................33 2.2.5. Recordings ...............................................................................................34 2.2.6. Questionnaires..........................................................................................34 2.2.7. Interviews ................................................................................................35 2.2.8. Observations ............................................................................................35 2.3. Responsive community ...............................................................................35 2.3.1. The student subjects ................................................................................ 35 2.3.2. The teacher subjects .................................................................................36 2.4. Research procedures................................................................................... 36 2.4.1. Getting started......................................................................................... 36 2.4.2. Doing the experimental teaching ............................................................. 37 2.4.3. Testing the students’ achievement ........................................................... 37 2.4.4. Collecting data ........................................................................................ 37 2.4.5. Analysing data .........................................................................................37 2.4.6. Testing the study’s hypotheses .................................................................38 2.5. Summary.................................................................................................... 38 Chapter 3 DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS......................................................................39 3.1. Results of questionnaires............................................................................ 39 3.1.1. Results of Students’ Questionnaire 1 ........................................................39 3.1.2. Results of Students’ Questionnaire 2 ........................................................47 3.1.3. Results of Teachers’ Questionnaire ..........................................................53 3.2. Results of the test scores ............................................................................ 62 3.2.1. Results of Diagnostic Test........................................................................62 3.2.2. Results of Achievement Test....................................................................65 3.3. Results of the students’ recordings ..............................................................69 3.3.1. Results of Before Recordings ...................................................................70 3.3.2. Results of After Recordings .....................................................................72 3.4. Results of the interviews ............................................................................ 74 3.4.1. Results of interviews with the teacher subjects ........................................ 74 3.4.2. Results of interviews with the student subjects ........................................ 76 3.5. Results of the researcher’s observations ..................................................... 79 3.6. Results of testing the two hypotheses ......................................................... 80 3.6.1. Results of testing the first hypothesis ...................................................... 80 3.6.2. Results of testing the second hypothesis.................................................. 83 3.7. Summary.................................................................................................... 89 Chapter 4 SUGGESTED TEACHING STRATEGIES ...........................................................90 4.1. Getting students to employ correct articulators........................................... 90 iv 4.2. Using minimal pairs as a teaching and learning tool................................... 92 4.2.1. Single minimal pairs ................................................................................92 4.2.2. Integrated minimal pairs...........................................................................93 4.2.3. Minimal pair phrases................................................................................96 4.2.4. Minimal pair sentences.............................................................................97 4.3. Using minimal pairs as games or classroom activities ................................ 98 4.3.1. Matching activities ...................................................................................98 4.3.2. Recognition activities.............................................................................101 4.3.3. Bingo sheets...........................................................................................104 4.3.4. Tongue twisters......................................................................................106 4.3.5. Flash cards .............................................................................................107 4.3.6. Conversations.........................................................................................108 4.3.7. Worksheets ............................................................................................109 4.3.8. Information gap......................................................................................111 4.3.9. Climb King ............................................................................................112 4.4. Getting students to record their own pronunciation ................................. 113 4.5. Summary.................................................................................................. 113 Chapter 5 CONTRIBUTIONS AND TEACHING IMPLICATIONS ..................................114 5.1. Contributions ........................................................................................... 114 5.2. Teaching implications .............................................................................. 115 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................120 BIBLIOGRAPHY..................................................................................................123 APPENDICES........................................................................................................125 Appendix 1A: Students’ Questionnaire 1(Vietnamese Version) ...................... 125 Appendix 1B: Students’ Questionnaire 1 (English Version).............................126 Appendix 2A: Students’ Questionnaire 2 (Vietnamese Version) ..................... 127 Appendix 2B: Students’ Questionnaire 2 (English Version)............................ 128 Appendix 3: Teachers’ Questionnaire (English Version) .............................. 129 Appendix 4: Pronunciation Test Paper ......................................................... 131 Appendix 5: Pronunciation Test Answer Sheet .............................................132 Appendix 6: Answer Keys to Pronunciation Test ..........................................133 Appendix 7: Pronunciation Test Transcript ...................................................134 Appendix 8: Student Recording Paper ...........................................................135 Appendix 9: Lesson Plans .............................................................................136 Lesson Plan 1 ............................................................................137 Lesson Plan 2 ............................................................................141 Lesson Plan 3 ............................................................................144 Lesson Plan 4 ............................................................................147 Lesson Plan 5 ............................................................................150 Lesson Plan 6 ............................................................................153 Lesson Plan 7 ............................................................................156 Lesson Plan 8 ............................................................................159 Lesson Plan 9 ............................................................................162 Appendix 10: Check List for Class Observation ..............................................165 v Appendix 11: Check List for Teacher’s Self-evaluation...................................167 Appendix 12: Check List for Interview with Teacher Subjects ........................168 Appendix 13: Check List for Interview with Student Subjects.........................170 Appendix 14: CD of Pronunciation Test, Before Recordings, After Recordings, and the video clip “At the Chinese Restaurant”......................................................172 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1: Interfaces of ProPower1 and ProPower2 ................................................................. 26 Figure 2.2: List of sounds from Lessons in ProPower1 and ProPower2 ................................... 26 Figure 2.3: Side View, Front View and Air Flow Legend as observed in ProPower2 ................. 27 Figure 2.4: Side View Legend as observed in ProPower2 ......................................................... 27 Figure 2.5: Description as observed in ProPower2.................................................................... 28 Figure 2.6: Suggestion as observed in ProPower2 .................................................................... 28 Figure 2.7: Interfaces of Exercises as observed in ProPower2 ................................................. 29 Figure 2.8: Interfaces of LYA28 ................................................................................................. 29 Figure 2.9: Interfaces of video clips for “eat” and “it” as observed in LYA28 ............................ 30 Figure 2.10: Interface of All Audio Recorder – Version 2.10........................................................ 30 Figure 2.11: Spectrogram of the production of “light” by S36 before ET ................................ 31 Figure 2.12: Spectrogram of the production of “light” by S19 before ET ................................... 32 Figure 2.13: Interface of SPSS ..................................................................................................... 32 Figure 3.1: Students’ time for learning English ......................................................................... 40 Figure 3.2: Students’ self-evaluation of their pronunciation before ET ..................................... 40 Figure 3.3: Students’ awareness of pronunciation before ET .................................................... 41 Figure 3.4: Students’ frequency of practising pronunciation before ET ................................... 42 Figure 3.5: Students’ expected use of English in the future ...................................................... 43 Figure 3.6: Students’ time spent on learning English per day ................................................... 44 Figure 3.7: Previous teachers’ pronunciation teaching .............................................................. 45 Figure 3.8: Students’ problems in pronunciation before ET ...................................................... 46 Figure 3.9: Students’ opinion on the benefits of minimal pairs.................................................. 47 Figure 3.10: Students’ raised awareness of pronunciation after ET ............................................ 48 Figure 3.11: Students’ expected frequency of pronunciation practice after ET .......................... 48 Figure 3.12: Students’ interest in learning pronunciation with minimal pairs ............................ 49 Figure 3.13: Students’ opinion on the classroom activities .......................................................... 50 Figure 3.14: Students’ expected frequency of pronunciation classes ........................................... 50 Figure 3.15: Students’ choice of the most difficult sounds to learn ............................................. 51 Figure 3.16: Students’ after ET suggestions of how to solve their own problems ........................ 52 Figure 3.17: Teachers’ opinion on the benefits of minimal pairs in pronunciation teaching ....... 53 Figure 3.18: Teachers’ evaluation of their students’ motivation .................................................. 54 Figure 3.19: Teachers’ expected frequency of pronunciation teaching ........................................ 54 Figure 3.20: Time spent on designing classroom activities with minimal pairs ........................... 55 Figure 3.21: Teachers’ choice of suitable activities employing minimal pairs ............................ 56 Figure 3.22: Teachers’ opinion on the most difficult sounds to teach .......................................... 56 Figure 3.23: Teachers’ opinion on teaching aids for pronunciation teaching ............................... 57 Figure 3.24: Teachers’ sources of minimal pairs for their pronunciation teaching ....................... 58 Figure 3.25: Teachers’ evaluation of their students’ pronunciation improvement ....................... 59 vi Figure 3.26: Teachers’ opinion on how accurate their assessment of their students’ pronunciation improvement is .................................................................................. 60 Figure 3.27: Teachers’ difficulties in teaching pronunciation to at UT-HCMC............................ 61 Figure 3.28: Teachers’ suggestions for teaching pronunciation to the whole population at UT-HCMC ............................................................................................. 61 Figure 3.29: Distribution of grade groups in Diagnostic Test ....................................................... 64 Figure 3.30: Distribution of grade groups in Achievement Test ................................................. 67 Figure 3.31: Distribution of grade groups in the two tests ............................................................ 69 Figure 3.32: Distribution of mistake groups in Before Recordings .............................................. 71 Figure 3.33: Distribution of mistake groups in the two sets of recordings ................................... 74 Figure 3.34: Spectrograms of “light” produced by NS and S19 before ET ................................. 81 Figure 3.35: Spectrograms of “my” produced by NS and S42 before ET ................................... 81 Figure 3.36: Spectrograms of “play” produced by NS and S29 before ET ................................. 81 Figure 3.37: Spectrograms of “thank” by NS and S53 before ET ............................................... 82 Figure 3.38: Spectrograms of “read”, “rid” by NS and “read” by S31 before ET .................... 82 Figure 3.39: Spectrograms of “to”; “do” by NS and “to” by S35 before ET.............................. 82 Figure 3.40: Distribution of mistake groups before and after ET ................................................. 84 Figure 3.41: Students’ frequency of self-studying English pronunciation before and after ET 85 Figure 3.42: Spectrograms of “light” produced by NS and S19 before and after ET................... 86 Figure 3.43: Spectrograms of “my” produced by NS and S42 before and after ET .................... 86 Figure 3.44: Spectrograms “play” produced by NS and S29 before and after ET ...................... 87 Figure 3.45: Spectrograms of “thank” produced by NS and S53 before and after ET ................ 87 Figure 3.46: Spectrograms of “read” produced by NS and S31before and after ET ................... 88 Figure 3.47: Spectrograms of “to” by NS and S35 before and after ET....................................... 88 Figure 4.1: Articulators involved in producing /T/ as observed in ProPower2........................... 90 Figure 4.2: Articulators involved in producing /T/ ..................................................................... 91 Figure 4.3: Minimal pairs for /b/ and /p/ ..................................................................................... 92 Figure 4.4: Minimal pairs for /s/, /z/and /S/................................................................................. 93 Figure 4.5: Three words forming integrated minimal pairs ........................................................ 94 Figure 4.6: Four words forming integrated minimal pairs .......................................................... 94 Figure 4.7: Five words forming integrated minimal pairs .......................................................... 94 Figure 4.8: Six words forming integrated minimal pairs ............................................................ 95 Figure 4.9: Seven words forming integrated minimal pairs ........................................................ 95 Figure 4.10: Eight words forming integrated minimal pairs.......................................................... 95 Figure 4.11: Two minimal pair phrases with mono-syllabic words .............................................. 96 Figure 4.12: Three minimal pair phrases with mono-syllabic words (For the case of CZ) ................................................................................................ 96 Figure 4.13: Two minimal pair phrases with poly-syllabic words ................................................ 96 Figure 4.14: Three minimal pair phrases with mono-syllabic words ........................................... 97 Figure 4.15: Four minimal pair phrases with poly-syllabic words ................................................ 97 Figure 4.16: Minimal pair sentences for /I/ and /i;/ as observed in LYA28.................................... 97 Figure 4.17a: Pictures with guided phonemic transcriptions .......................................................... 99 Figure 4.17b: Pictures without any phonemic transcriptions .......................................................... 99 Figure 4.18: Handout for minimal pair matching activity ............................................................ 99 Figure 4.19a: Words with their phonemic transcriptions ............................................................. 100 Figure 4.19b: Words without any phonemic transcriptions .......................................................... 100 Figure 4.20: Minimal pairs for /p/ and /b/ ................................................................................... 101 Figure 4.21: Minimal pair phrases for /p/ and /b/ ....................................................................... 102 Figure 4.22: Listening discrimination for /p/ as observed in ProPower2.................................... 103 vii Figure 4.23: Minimal pair Bingo sheet for /&/ and /e/ [Celce-Murcia et al, 1996: 118]......... 104 Figure 4.24: Minimal pair Bingo sheet for multiple sound contrasts ......................................... 105 Figure 4.25: Minimal pair contrasts of final consonants [Celce-Murcia et al, 1996: 76] ........... 107 Figure 4.26: Worksheets with minimal pair sentences [Celce-Murcia et al, 1996: 117] ............ 110 Figure 4.27: Information gap exercise to discriminate between /Q/ and /V/ [Celce-Murcia et al, 1996: 121] .............................................................................. 111 Figure 4.28: Minimal pair tree to play Climb King for /&/ and /e/ ............................................. 112 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1: Classification of consonants according to place articulation ......................10 Table 3.1: Students’ time for learning English .......................................................... 39 Table 3.2: Students’ self-evaluation of their pronunciation before ET....................... 40 Table 3.3: Students’ awareness of pronunciation before ET ...................................... 41 Table 3.4: Students’ frequency of practising pronunciation before ET ...................... 42 Table 3.5: Students’ expected use of English in the future ........................................ 43 Table 3.6: Students’ time spent on learning English per day ..................................... 44 Table 3.7: Previous teachers’ pronunciation teaching................................................ 45 Table 3.8: Students’ problems in pronunciation before ET........................................ 46 Table 3.9: Students’ opinion on the benefits of minimal pairs ................................... 47 Table 3.10: Students’ raised awareness of pronunciation after ET............................... 47 Table 3.11: Students’ expected frequency of pronunciation practice after ET ............. 48 Table 3.12: Students’ interest in learning pronunciation with minimal pairs ............... 49 Table 3.13: Students’ opinion on the classroom activities ............................................49 Table 3.14: Students’ expected frequency of pronunciation classes.............................. 50 Table 3.15: Students’ choice of the most difficult sounds to learn................................ 51 Table 3.16: Students’ after ET suggestions of how to solve their own problems ..........52 Table 3.17: Teachers’ opinion on the benefits of minimal pairs in pronunciation teaching .........................................................................53 Table 3.18: Teachers’ evaluation of their students’ motivation ....................................53 Table 3.19: Teachers’ expected frequency of pronunciation teaching...........................54 Table 3.20: Time spent on designing classroom activities with minimal pairs..............55 Table 3.21: Teachers’ choice of suitable activities employing minimal pairs ..............55 Table 3.22: Teachers’ opinion on the most difficult sounds to teach ............................56 Table 3.23: Teachers’ opinion on teaching aids for pronunciation teaching..................57 Table 3.24: Teachers’ sources of minimal pairs for their pronunciation teaching .........58 Table 3.25: Teachers’ evaluation of their students’ pronunciation improvement ..........59 Table 3.26: Teachers’ opinion on how accurate their assessment of their students’ pronunciation improvement is .......................................59 Table 3.27: Results of Diagnostic Test.........................................................................62 Table 3.28: Distribution of grade groups in Diagnostic Test ........................................63 Table 3.29: Results of Achievement Test.....................................................................65 Table 3.30: Distribution of grade groups in Achievement Test ...................................66 Table 3.31: Distribution of grade groups in the two tests .............................................68 Table 3.32: Distribution of mistake groups in Before Recordings ................................ 70 Table 3.33: Overall calculation of mistake groups in Before Recordings .....................70 Table 3.34: Distribution of mistake groups in After Recordings...................................72 Table 3.35: Distribution of students’ mistake groups in the two sets of recordings....73 ix Table 3.36: Overall calculation of students’ scores in the two tests .............................. 83 Table 3.37: Overall calculation of students’ mistakes in the two sets of recordings .....83 Table 3.38: Frequency of students’ self-studying English pronunciation before and after ET....................................................................................84 x LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS CZ Consonant Zero EFL English as a foreign language ESL English as a second language ET The experimental teaching stage LYA28 Lose Your Accent in 28 Days L1 first language/mother tongue L2 Second language NS The native speaker of English ProPower1 Pronunciation Power 1 ProPower2 Pronunciation Power 2 RC Research code of a student SPSS Statistics Package for Social Sciences S_ Student numbered _ UT-HCMC University of Transport in Ho Chi Minh City / or /{/ Phonetic symbol of Consonant Zero M1 Omitting the word-final consonant M2 Adding the word-final /s/ to English words not ending in /s/ M3 Adding the schwa /6/ in the middle of a consonant cluster M4 Mispronouncing strange sounds to Vietnamese people, e.g. /T/ and /D/ M5 Failing to differentiate between long and short vowels M6 Failing to differentiate between voiced and voiceless consonants xi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS With affection and appreciation, I would like to acknowledge the indebtedness to those whose contributions served as great help during the process of conducting this M.A. thesis. First of all, I would like to express my deep gratitude to my thesis supervisor, Dr. Tô Minh Thanh for her enthusiastic guidance, useful advice, careful proof-reading and instructive comments on my writing. Without these helps, this M.A. thesis would not have been successfully accomplished. I would also like to send my special thanks to Mr. Tim Moore, Senior Teacher Adults of British Council - Ho Chi Minh City, for the recording of the pronunciation test which served as an element of the study’s instrument; to Ms Nguyen Thi Nguyet Anh and Mr. Nguyen Tan Loc for the enthusiastic help and the integrative collaboration during the conduction of the study. I am also grateful to all of the professors and lecturers in charge of the master course in TESOL for their devotions which provided me with a better approach to English teaching and studying. Next, I wish to sincerely thank the leaders of the University of Transport in Ho Chi Minh City for the permission with which the students of Class CN07B at this university was allowed to be the student subjects of this experimental research; to all of the colleagues at the university for the advice and suggestions both of which appeared to be very useful for the classroom activities as well as the data collection; and to all of the students in the class for the enthusiastic participation in this research. Last but not least, I would love to thank all the authors whose books, journals and articles have served as very helpful theoretical references for this M.A. thesis. xii ABSTRACT English speech sounds may be considered the foundation for further progress in any other aspect of English pronunciation. Nevertheless, here and there in present context of English teaching and learning in Vietnam, inadequate attention is paid to the acquisition of these sounds. Such ignorance is believed to have led to poor pronunciation of English among a remarkable number of Vietnamese learners of this language. This fact has suggested that it is necessary to find a satisfactory solution to the problem. Such a solution is supposed to base itself on the teaching and learning of English discrete sounds. Using minimal pairs seems to be a sensible suggestion in such a case thanks to its own power to better both the awareness and the performance of the learner in pronunciation. Employing minimal pairs as a means to teach speech sounds may no longer be a new technique nowadays. However, its full use has yet been made in the particular setting of Vietnam. In the light of this view, this case study was intended to investigate the effectiveness of this technique in the specific context of the first-year students at the University of Transport in Ho Chi Minh City. More specifically, this research was conducted with the participation of 54 students in class CN07B as the student subject and the instrumental employment of the four pieces of application software designed for learning English Pronunciation: Pronunciation Power 1, Pronunciation Power 2, Lose Your Accent in 28 Days and Praat. In addition, some recordings, questionnaires, interviews, pronunciation tests and exercises as well as a number of class activities designed by the researcher were also used as other components of the study’s instrument. Conducted, both quantitatively and qualitatively, this MA thesis, to some extent, explored the potential problems facing the students in acquiring English discrete sounds; and the findings seem to be practically applicable to the context of the student population. Actually, some of the strategies turned out to be of great use to pronunciation teaching and learning at the subject institution. Expectedly, if properly applied, such techniques may practically facilitate the teaching and learning of English pronunciation to both English-majored and English non-majored students at other educational institutions facing similar problems. xiii INTRODUCTION The introduction describes the rationale for choosing the topic, states the aims of the study done for and reported in this M.A. thesis, identifies the significance of the study, depicts the study’s design, and indicates the study’s limitation as well as delimitation. 0.1. Rationale of the study Theoretically, most educators agree that minimal pairs1 greatly facilitate students’ acquisition of discrete sounds2. With their own power, minimal pair drills3 create a contrastive environment where these sounds are phonemically presented in such a way that they can be perceived with utmost ease and high motivation. Such an environment is fulfilled with contexts where a single phoneme4 functions as to denote word meaning. Contexts of this kind demonstrate the importance of pronunciation in oral communication, and thus force students into the habit of speaking with accurate pronunciation and interpreting a spoken message with precise recognition of phonetic form of words. These facts indicate that practice with minimal pairs can naturally raise students’ awareness of pronunciation and improve their production as well as recognition at word level laying the foundation for their further progress in oral skills. Practically, communicative competence has recently been considered the first priority of most EFL teachers as well as learners. In this aspect, it is pronunciation that partially shapes the speaker’s success. Actually, Celce-Murcia, Brinton and Goodwin [1996:1] claim that “successful communication cannot take place without correct pronunciation”. In other words, the pronunciation from the speaker and the recognition from the listener have great influences on the quality of communication for both of the parties. Furthermore, in his discussion about acquisition of speech sounds, Chomsky [1972: 29] states that “the person who acquired knowledge of a language has internalised a system of rules that relate sound and meaning.” 1 Minimal pairs are “pairs of words that differ in meaning on the basic of a change in only one sound.” [Avery and Ehrlich, 1992: 39]. See Section 1.1.1 for further information. 2 In the scope of this study, discrete sounds are vowels and consonants articulated separately. See Section 1.1.2 for further information. 3 A minimal pair drill is “a DRILL in which MINIMAL PAIRS are practiced together, especially in order to help students to learn to distinguish a sound contrast” [Richards et al, 1993: 231] 4 A phoneme is “the smallest unit of sound in a language which can distinguish two words.” [Richards, Platt and Weber, 1987: 214]. See Section 1.2.4 for further information. 1 Accordingly, the relation between sound and meaning is so close. Nevertheless, here and there, inadequate attention is paid to pronunciation learning. The situation of the first-year students at the University of Transport in Ho Chi Minh City (abbreviated to UT-HCMC) is a good case in point. A considerable number of these English non-majored students fail to pronounce English sounds properly. Utterances in which words with similar sound forms, such as wine and wife, cannot be distinguished are of high frequency. Such mispronunciation may cause misinterpretation and potential discomfort devaluing the speaker’s effort in oral communication irrespective of their fairly good stock of vocabulary and grammatical structure. Therefore, it is necessary to find a satisfactory solution to the problem, if not to put an end to the situation. Connectedly, it is reasonable to assume that one of the first attempts to make these students fully aware of the significance of pronunciation in their second language (abbreviated to L2) acquisition is to distinguish English discrete sounds from one another by highlighting the process in which the sounds are recognized and produced first in individual words and next in phrases or isolated utterances. Using minimal pairs seems to be an appropriate tool in such a case. Last but not least, for the sake of the student subjects’ advancement of English pronunciation, the concept of Consonant Zero (abbreviated to CZ) was experimentally employed in the study so as to more clearly describe the hypothesized problems as well as to better facilitate the experimental teaching stage (abbreviated to ET). 0.2. Aims of the study The study was intended to fulfill the following purposes: (1) To find out the problems facing the first-year students at UT-HCMC in recognizing and producing English discrete sounds; (2) To measure the effectiveness of using minimal pairs as a means to teach English discrete sounds to the students; (3) To improve the students’ recognition and production at word level; (4) To investigate the students’ awareness as well as motivation for learning English discrete sounds, employing minimal pairs; (5) To give some recommendations on how to choose minimal pairs and how to design classroom activities employing those minimal pairs as a teaching tool. 2 Expectedly, the teaching strategies reported in this study may provide learners with an enhancement in their pronunciation of English at word level which can serve as an access to further advancement in other aspects of pronunciation such as linking, assimilation or elision. 0.3. Significance of the study Hardly can non-native speakers of English be regarded as “good” if they fail to pronounce English discrete sounds clearly enough to approach the so-called native-like pronunciation. In other words, mastering discrete sounds lays the foundation for the subsequent development of oral skills. This study focuses on the technique of using minimal pairs as a means to facilitate the process of teaching and learning English discrete sounds. Such facilitation seems to be of both an urgent need and great use to, first of all, the teaching and learning of English at UT-HCMC, and furthermore, at other Vietnamese educational institutions facing somewhat similar predicament. What is more, the findings concerning pronunciation problems and its teaching suggestions may serve as a reference document to EFL/ESL teachers who are interested in improving their students’ oral skills in general and precise pronunciation of English discrete sounds in particular. 0.4. Design of the study Apart from its additional attachments namely the acknowledgements, the abstract, the table of contents, the lists of figures, tables, abbreviations, bibliography, and appendices; this M.A. thesis consists of five chapters in addition to its introduction and conclusion. The introduction presents the rationale for choosing the topic; states the study’s aims, significance and design; and identifies its limitation and delimitation. Chapter 1 gives the definitions of basic terms employed in the study; describes some relevant aspects of English sound system; figures out the relationship between minimal pairs and the process of pronunciation acquisition; reviews some relevant theory and research. The mention of some principles and techniques in pronunciation teaching ends this chapter. Chapter 2 describes the methodology employed to conduct the study including research questions and hypotheses, materials and instruments, subjects, and procedures of data collection. 3 Chapter 3 is the presentation of the data analysis attached with the discussion of the outcomes drawn from this analysis. Chapter 4 is generally fulfilled with a number of recommendations, including various activities and exercises designed and adapted by the researcher from various sources which may be used in teaching discrete sounds. Chapter 5 functions as a description of the teaching implications and the study’s contributions. The conclusion produces a summary of the study done for the M.A. thesis. 0.5. Limitation of the study This study with the prominent focus on using minimal pairs to teach discrete sounds was conducted with the participation of the 54 first-year students in class CN07B at UT- HCMC as the student subjects and the twenty teachers of English from the English Department at this university as the teacher subjects. Hence, the data collected from the teacher and student subjects’ responses only reflect their own attitudes towards the suggested teaching technique of the study, and its recommendations are supposed to be most suitable for these subjects. In other words, the limitation of this study lies in these two facts: (1) the recommendations are intended to be applied basically to the situation of the first-year students at UT- HCMC and (2) the study does not deepen further discussion on how to deal with bigger terms of English phonetic system, namely diphthongs, triphthongs and consonant clusters; or some relevant complicated aspects of supra-segmental phonology, such as linking, elision, assimilation, rhythm, intonation, etc. 0.6. Delimitation of the study If properly modified, the study may be of suitable use at other educational institutions in Vietnam where students face pronunciation problems similar to those reported in this M.A. thesis. In addition, the progress in pronunciation at word level which the students can make with the support of minimal pairs can point out their path to approach further aspects of English pronunciation, especially those related to connected speech such as linking, elision and assimilation. 4 Chapter 1 LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter first presents definitions of basic terms employed in the study: (1) minimal pairs, discrete sounds and Consonant Zero; (2) speech sounds including consonants and vowels; and then gives a basic review of the theory and literature including (3) the relationship between minimal pairs and pronunciation acquisition; (4) relevant theory and research; and (5) principles and techniques in pronunciation teaching. 1.1. Basic terms 1.1.1. Minimal pairs Below are some definitions of minimal pairs collected from different sources: (1) Minimal pairs are “pairs of words that differ in meaning on the basic of a change in only one sound.” [Avery and Ehrlich, 1992: 39] (2) “A first rule of thumb to determine the phones of any language is to see whether substituting one sound for other results in a different word. If it does, the two sounds represent different phones. When two different forms are identical in every way except for one sound segment that occurs in the same place in the string, the two words are called a minimal pairs.” [Fromkin and Rodman, 1993: 218] (3) “A minimal pair consists of two words pronounced alike except for a single phonemic difference. A phoneme is the smallest unit of significantly distinctive sound. The phonemic difference is responsible for radical changes in the meaning of the word, as in hat-hit or thing-sing. Consequently, errors in auditory discrimination and/or articulation of these sounds may result in misunderstanding and misinterpretations of the meaning of the word, phrase or sentence.” [Nilsen and Nilsen, 1973: 15] 1.1.2. Discrete sounds According to an article entitled The Sounds of Speech by Morris Halle of Linguistic Society of America, “the words we utter are composed of discrete sounds… In uttering a word we actualize the sequence of discrete sounds stored in memory as a sequence of actions of our articulators.” [Extracted from http://www.lsadc.org/info/ling-fields-sound.cfm, retrieved on May 29th, 2008] Within the scope of this study, the term “English discrete sounds” refers to all English vowels and consonants articulated separately, thus excluding English diphthongs, triphthongs and consonant clusters. 5