1

Pronunciation Workshop Lesson

Rebecca LaPlante

During the needs analysis for the 2014 Osaka English program we were able to have
access and review the 2013 students self-assessments and course evaluations. Most of the
students assessed themselves as having poor pronunciation skills and expressed their desire to
target their pronunciation output. Although the instructors did not deem a specific pronunciation
module necessary the concern of the students has lead to the development of a product that will
meet the student request represented in this lesson. Whether or not the 2014 incoming students
have the same concerns is unknown at this time, it is understood that in general Japanese
students expect a specific class on pronunciation (Dr. Sawin, March 2014, personal
communication).
Our curriculum design is founded primarily on a Sociolinguistic perspective. Therefore
the design of this lesson will also incorporate the same approach in the belief that language is
socially constructed with meaningful face-to-face discourse (Mitchell, Myles, &Marsden, 2013).
This lesson is design with task-based activities that will emphasize communicative language use
and meaning (Nasaji & Fotos, 2011). The students will practice minimal pairs but the activity
will lead them into meaning of phonemes. Cook (2013) explains that phonemes alone cannot
truly teach a complete pronunciation, that the allophones surrounding the phoneme must also be
taught in context. Therefore, by expanding the phonemes to phrases and true discourse, the
students will acquire the sounds more successfully. Also, an interactive activity gives the
students an opportunity to interact in a meaningful way.
The first phase of the activity will focus on specific minimal pairs that Japanese speakers
tend to have challenges with, for example: h/p/v with f, s/ with t; z/d/, z/, /t, s/, n/ and
2

vowels such as <u> as <> pronunciation (Dr. Sawin, March 2014, personal communication). It
is important that the students first are able the notice the contrasting difference between the
minimal pairs. The second or main task of the activity will focus on meaning. A game is devised
where you have a code for numbers, by assigning each number to a phoneme from a minimal
pair: e.g., 1 is , 2 is (see Appendix A). The object is to try to tell your partner your phone
number by saying phonemes, and then they must listen, perceive the differences, and write down
the correct numbers that correspond with the phonemes. As the students work together to
communicate they will be able to help each other as they negotiate meaning. Garcia Mayo (2007)
state that L2 learners scaffold each others language use as they interact and negotiate meaning.
Another goal of this lesson is to help the students become autonomous learners. The
second activity is adapted from Millers (2007) Targeting pronunciation: Communicating clearly
in English textbook (p. 9), which is available at the MIIS library. This activity utilizes a free
downloadable program, PRAAT (2014) that tracks intonation contours. The program allows the
students to record a text and visually see their speech patterns compared with proficient English
speaker. The text used will be from a biomedical TED talk (see Appendix B) which the students
will be able to hear and attempt to imitate with the help of the analytical tool PRAAT. Not only
will the students be able to use this tool during their learning here at MIIS, but they will be able
to take the tool with them for continued studied when they return to Japan. Additionally, the use
of the TED talk video provides the students with an authentic discourse relevant to the
biomedical field. Basing on our curriculum rationale the use of authentic text not only activates
the schemata of learners when using text related to the students prior knowledge, but also
increases the learners motivation (Swaffer, 1985). Motivation and investment in learning are
3

integral components of successful language acquisition. Drnyei (2005) theorizes that when
learners are motivated they are more likely to make an effort.
The activities in these activities are designed to give the students feedback to promote
error correction or repair of errors in their pronunciation. Wong and Waring (2010) state that
repair is an important component of ones interactional competence (p. 211). According to
Longs (1996) Interaction Hypothesis, bringing awareness to the learners errors through repair
practices promotes the learners to notice, thereby leading to the realization of what Wong and
Waring (2010) refer to as the trouble-source for self-repair, which will promote learner
autonomy. The students are only here for one month, so it is our hope that we will equip the
students with tools and skills that enable them to continue their progress when they return to
Japan.


Lesson Outline
Objectives:
Students will be able to
Be aware of their trouble-sources in pronunciation.
Recognize pronunciation errors and practice self-repair.
Utilize tools to continue language development autonomously.

Materials:
Textbook: Targeting pronunciation: Communicating clearly in English 2nd ed. (Miller,
2007.
Software program for intonation patterns: PRAAT http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/
TED talk video:
https://www.ted.com/talks/siddharthan_chandran_can_the_damaged_brain_repair_itself
Transcription of TED talk
Online visual chart of visual mouth/tongue features for pronunciation. Retrieved at:
http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/phonetics/

Prior knowledge: Students who signed up for the workshop were sent a link to PRAAT to have
downloaded and ready for class work.
4





Time and
Objectives
Procedures
5-10 min.
Awareness
raising and
noticing




10-15 min.
Input and output
through pair-
work.

5 min.
Feedback

Break 5 min.

5 min.
Awareness
raising and
noticing

15-20 min.
Pair-work for
output and peer
feedback.

5 min.
Additional
feedback
Pre-task warm-up:
Play computer recordings of words with minimal pairs: E.g.,
rock/lock and pool/poor
Ask students if they were able to hear the difference
Repeat recording and ask students to identify words written on
the board.
Use chart to show students where sounds are made.
Ask for volunteers to pronounce individual phonemes.
Main task:
Activate game: distribute game code chart. Explain to students
that the object is to try to tell your partner your phone number
by using the phonemic codes and then they must listen,
perceive the differences, and write down your number.
Class discussion regarding game.



Pre-task warm-up for activity two:
Introduce TED talk video and play once; explain the object is
to listen to the speakers pronunciation and intonation patterns.
Have students load video on their own computers and record
segment starting at 0:32 into PRAAT.
Main task:
Students practice transcription of TED talk with a partner.
When they feel confident based on peer feedback, instruct
students to record transcription in PRAAT and compare
results.
Post-task:
Class discussion and feedback on results with explanations as
necessary.





5

References

Cook, V. (2013). Second language learning and language teaching. New York, NY: Routledge.
Drnyei, A. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second
language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Garcia Mayo, M. del P. (2007). Task, negotiation and L2 learning in a foreign language context.
In Garcia Mayo, M. (ed.) Investigating Task in Formal Language Learning (pp. 4468).
Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Long, M. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.C.
Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.). Handbook of second language acquisition. San Diego,
CA: Academic Press: 41368.
Miller, S. F. (2007). Targeting pronunciation: Communicating clearly in English (2nd ed.).
Boston, MA: Heinle.
Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2013). Second language learning theories. 3rd ed. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in the second language classrooms:
Integrated form-focused instruction in communicative context. New York, NY:
Routledge.
PRAAT. (2014). Retrieved from: http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/
Swaffer, J. (1958). Reading authentic text in a foreign language: A cognitive model. Modern
Language Journal 69(1534).
TEDGlobal. (2013). Retrieved from:
https://www.ted.com/talks/siddharthan_chandran_can_the_damaged_brain_repair_itself/t
ranscript#t-205654
6

University of Iowa. (2014). Online phonetic tool. Retrieved at:
http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/phonetics/
Wong, J. & Waring, H. Z. (2010). Conversational analysis and second language pedagogy: A
guide for ESL/EFL teachers. New York, NY: Routledge.

7

Appendix A

Game code chart
1 = d
2 =
3 = v
4 = f
5 =
6 = t
7 = z
8 =
9 = n
0 =




8

Appendix B


TED talk transcription: Siddharthan Chandran: Can the damaged brain repair itself?


0:32 So here's the problem. You can see here the picture of somebody's brain with Alzheimer's
disease next to a healthy brain, and what's obvious is, in the Alzheimer's brain, ringed red, there's
obvious damage -- atrophy, scarring. And I could show you equivalent pictures from other
disease: multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, Parkinson's disease, even Huntington's disease,
and they would all tell a similar story. And collectively these brain disorders represent one of the
major public health threats of our time. And the numbers here are really rather staggering. At any
one time, there are 35 million people today living with one of these brain diseases, and the
annual cost globally is 700 billion dollars. I mean, just think about that. That's greater than one
percent of the global GDP. And it gets worse, because all these numbers are rising because these
are by and large age-related diseases, and we're living longer. So the question we really need to
ask ourselves is, why, given the devastating impact of these diseases to the individual, never
mind the scale of the societal problem, why are there no effective treatments?


From TEDGlobal 2013 filmed July 2013. Retrieved from:
https://www.ted.com/talks/siddharthan_chandran_can_the_damaged_brain_repair_itself/transcri
pt#t-205654