The University of San Francisco

USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke

Center

Master's Projects and Capstones Theses, Dissertations, Capstones and Projects

Spring 5-15-2020

How to Correct Fossilized Pronunciation Errors of English

Language Learners
Kathleen Dolan
University of San Francisco, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.usfca.edu/capstone

Recommended Citation
Dolan, Kathleen, "How to Correct Fossilized Pronunciation Errors of English Language Learners" (2020).
Master's Projects and Capstones. 992.
https://repository.usfca.edu/capstone/992

This Project/Capstone is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, Capstones and
Projects at USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Master's Projects and Capstones by an authorized administrator of USF Scholarship: a digital
repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. For more information, please contact [email protected].
 University of San Francisco

How to Correct Fossilized Pronunciation Errors of English

Language Learners

A Field Project Presented to

The Faculty of the School of Education
International and Multicultural Education Department

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts in Teaching English To Speakers of Other Languages

By
Kathleen Dolan
May 2020
 How to Correct Fossilized Pronunciation Errors of English
Language Learners

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

MASTER OF ARTS

in

TEACHING ENGLISH TO SPEAKERS OF OTHER LANGUAGES

by
Kathleen Dolan
May 2020

UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Under the guidance and approval of the committee, and approval by all the members, this field
project has been accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree.

Approved:

______________________ May 7, 2020

____________________
Luz Navarrette García, EdD Date
Chairperson

i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii

ABSTRACT iv

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of the Problem 1
Purpose of the Project 4
Theoretical Framework 6
Significance of the Project 8

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 9
Introduction 9
The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis 11
The Noticing Hypothesis 13
Interlanguage and the Fossilization Hypothesis 15
The Selective Fossilization Hypothesis 18
The Markedness Differential Hypothesis 20
Summary 22

CHAPTER III
THE PROJECT AND ITS DEVELOPMENT 24
Brief Description of the Project 24
Development of the Project 26

CHAPTER IV
CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 29
Conclusion 29
Recommendations 30

REFERENCES 32

APPENDIX 37
How to Defossilize English Language Learners’ Pronunciation Errors 38

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank all the teachers and mentors at USF for their wisdom and

encouragement to help me achieve my goals. Specifically I am grateful for the ongoing advice

and mentorship from Dr. Ekici and Dr. Mahony. I also am very appreciative of my field project

advisor Dr. Garcia for her clear instructions and well-thought out schedule for completing my

masters field project.

I am particularly grateful to Dr. Popal. Not only did I learn a tremendous amount from

him, but through his encouragement and guidance I felt confident to achieve my goals. I was

very fortunate to be able to do my practicum and assist Dr. Popal in his ESL reading and writing

class at the College of Alameda. I only hope I can one day inspire and teach students in the same

way he does.

Lastly, I would like to thank my two sons Kevin and Shane for always asking “how's it

going?” and giving me lots of support these last few years. Most of all I would like to give a

huge thank you to my husband Eamonn. Being the spouse of someone writing their masters field

project would never be easy - but add in a pandemic and legally require someone to shelter in

place with a person writing their field project takes a saint. Eamonn, I thank you for always

being my biggest fan.

iii
 ABSTRACT

Being able to speak English with comprehensible pronunciation is key to communicative

competency, yet pronunciation is one of the most difficult parts of learning English as a second

language. English Language Learners (ELLs) are not receiving enough effective pronunciation

instruction to correct their fossilized pronunciation errors. Currently, ESL teachers often lack

effective tools and training in how to teach pronunciation. The purpose of this project is to give

ESL teachers specific tools to help de-fossilize their ELLs persistent pronunciation errors. This

literature review discusses five different linguistic theories that explore the journey and the

obstacles (fossilization) in second language phonological acquisition: the Contrastive Analysis

Hypothesis, the Noticing Hypothesis, the interlanguage system, the Selective Fossilization

Hypothesis and the Markedness Differential Hypothesis. This paper includes a detailed teachers

handbook that incorporates many key elements from the linguistic theories mentioned. In

addition, this handbook illustrates how to use contextualized authentic material to de-fossilize

common ELL pronunciation errors. Teaching students how to defossilize their English

pronunciation errors requires the right tools, proper teacher training, and consistent practice in

and outside of the classroom. At the end of this paper a number of recommendations are

suggested on how to reinforce the ELL’s pronunciation progress made in the classroom.

iv
 1

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

The number one goal for most English Language Learners (ELLs) is to communicate

successfully with other English speakers. For ELLs, being in a conversation with other speakers

who clearly have perplexed facial expressions and repeatedly say “pardon?”, “what?” or “say

again” can be very demoralizing to the speaker and frustrating to the listener. However, one of

the biggest obstacles for ELLs is being misunderstood due to incorrect pronunciation. While it is

paramount in communicative competency ( Nair, 2017), pronunciation is one of the most

difficult parts of learning English. Most researchers stress the importance of intelligibility and

comprehensibility over degree of second language accent (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010; Scarcella &

Oxford, 1992). Still, the goal of pronunciation should not be for the ELL to sound like a native

speaker but instead to master the pronunciation that facilitates communication (Scarcella &

Oxford, 1992).

Speaking to someone and obviously not being understood can be frustrating, humiliating,

and even sabotaging. This can cause the learner to shut down all communication. Even though

mastering pronunciation is an essential component of an ELL’s competency journey, the feelings

of embarrassment and frustration can result in an ELL being reluctant to work on furthering their

speaking and pronunciation skills, which leads to fossilization, or even abandoning their second

language acquisition journey. (Bernal Castañeda, 2017; Scarcella & Oxford, 1992).
 2

The Unabridged Random House dictionary defines fossilization as:

Ling. (0f a linguistic form, feature, rule, etc.) to become permanently
established in the interlanguage of a second language learner in a form
that is deviant from the target-language norm and that continues to appear
in performance regardless of further exposure to the target language (p. 755).

According to Han (2004:23), most researchers believe that second language fossilization

involves a roadblock or impediment to optimal learning or progress to second language

acquisition. In fact, many researchers believe that the learners’ interlanguage is key to where

fossilization occurs (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010). Selinker’s (1972) seminal study of fossilization

illustrates that interlanguage (the evolving language between learners native language and the

target language) plateaus may occur regardless of the amount of exposure to the target language.

Specifically, linguistic items, rules, and or subsystems of their native language can fossilize in

their interlanguage even when it does not correctly apply in the target language.

Temporary fossilization has been described as language errors/plateaus that are fixed in

the interlanguage at a certain stage and only 5% of ESL learners will gain complete access to the

target language leaving 95% to fall short (Qain & Xiao, 2010). In addition, many second

language acquisition researchers believe fossilization is both an integral part of the interlanguage

system and heavily influenced by the learner’s native language (Han, 2004). Brown (2007) states

that fossilization is a normal stage in a second language learners acquisition journey and should

not be looked upon as terminal or unchangeable, but it still can create personal and professional

challenges.

When ELLs have fossilized pronunciation errors, they may struggle in the workplace due

to the fear of possibly not being understood. A second language learners’ fossilized
 3

pronunciation errors may impede social interactions, slow down academic success, and

negatively affect job attainment and/or job promotion (Hinofotois & Baily, 1980; Varasarin,

2007). Pronunciation errors may also contribute to embarrassing social and transactional

miscommunications and may slow down an ELL’s acculturation process. When ELLs have

fossilized pronunciation errors, they often are reluctant to speak in the workplace for fear of not

being easily understood. Fossilized pronunciation may also hinder an immigrant’s acculturation

process (Han, 2004; Schumann, 1978). This acculturation process is especially important for

adult learners.

Many psycholinguists believe that certain language tools are more effective for younger

ELL students which could explain the increased rate of fossilization in adult ELL learners

(Al-Shormani, 2013). Sociolinguists have argued that adult learners do not have as many social

opportunities to practice their language, which results in a higher rate of incorrectly remembered

language structures and pronunciations (Al-Shormani, 2013). Making the matter of fossilization

more complicated, research shows that fossilization varies from learner to learner based on the

learners’ cognitive abilities, first language, and maturational constraints (Han, 2013).

Most learners want better and more frequent English pronunciation instruction (Pardo,

2004); however, few teachers know how to help these learners push past this stage of fossilized

pronunciation. Although many ESL teachers try to incorporate some pronunciation teaching in

their classrooms, most teachers are not properly trained in teaching English pronunciation

(Couper, 2006). Moreover, teaching materials and texts in the field of SLA speech production

and pronunciation are extremely lacking. The most widely used second language textbooks are

often void in effective pronunciation teaching (Derwing & Munro, 2005). Many second
 4

language acquisition textbooks encourage teachers to look at their students’ native languages

when mapping out how to teach and/or de-fossilize current pronunciation errors (Avery &

Ehrlich, 2012; Celce-Murcia et al., 2010). Pronunciation teaching is often neglected because

many teachers do not feel as confident teaching pronunciation as they do grammar and

vocabulary and they do not know how to incorporate proper pronunciation teaching into their

second language curriculum (Derwing & Munro, 2005). In other words, these teachers lack the

skills to determine the appropriate and most effective ways to improve their specific student’s

pronunciation (Gilbert, 2008).

The goal of pronunciation instruction should be teaching learners how to speak English

so they are easily understood, not to gain a native-like accent (Gilbert, 2008). However, the

problem is that ELLs are not receiving enough effective pronunciation instruction to correct their

fossilized pronunciation errors. This is because ESL teachers often lack the training and tools to

retrain fossilization or pronunciation errors in their students.

Purpose of the Project

​The purpose of this project is to give ESL teachers the tools needed to help de-fossilize

second language students’ persistent pronunciation errors and help the students improve their

pronunciation skills for successful communication. The focus of this handbook is for students to

produce accurate English pronunciation in a spontaneous setting, not just from reading a

dialogue or doing focused pronunciation exercises. The tools in this comprehensive handbook

are designed specifically for ESL teachers in community colleges or adult non-credit classes who

are teaching intermediate and higher level students from all nationalities. This handbook includes
 5

detailed lesson plans illustrating how teachers can successfully utilize the most current

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) pronunciation teaching techniques (Celce-Murcia et

al., 2010) and integrate prosody into their lesson plans (Gilbert, 2008).

To reiterate, the ability for ESL students to pronounce English words correctly is key to

their success in achieving communicative competency. Many researchers describe three key

factors to successful ESL communication (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010; Derwing & Munro, 2005;

Field, 2005).

1. Intelligibility – the extent to which the listener understands what is spoken.

2. Comprehensibility – the listener’s perception of how difficult it is to

comprehend what is spoken.

3. Accentedness – the listener’s perception of how much of what is spoken is

different from the speaker’s L1.

In terms of successful communication, most researchers stress the importance of intelligibility

and comprehensibility over accentedness (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010). According to Derwing &

Munro (2005), it would be disheartening to English language learners to strive for a native

accent; rather it is better for ESL teachers to help their students set realistic pronunciation goals.

As such, the lessons in this handbook focus mainly on intelligibility and comprehensibility in

pronunciation rather than attempting to have students strive for a native accent.

This handbook also gives ESL teachers, those experienced and inexperienced in teaching

pronunciation, the tools they need to successfully help ELLs de-fossilize their pronunciation

errors. Each lesson plan in the handbook focuses on some of the most common ELL

pronunciation errors; /t/ vs. /th/ as in ‘ tank’ and ‘thank’, /v/ vs. /w/ as in ‘vine’ and ‘wine’, and
 6

/iy/ vs. /I/ as in ‘beans’ and ‘bins’. These three minimal pairs, two consonant pairs, and one

vowel pair, were chosen because they represent common pronunciation errors for learners from

many different countries. Furthermore, the lesson plans incorporate the following teaching

methods:

●​ C
​ ontrastive examples

●​ I​ nductive generalization

●​ R
​ ecognition exercises

●​ P
​ roduction exercises

In addition, the handbook includes “listen and imitate” exercises, phonetic instructional

videos, contextualized minimal-pair drills using authentic materials and developmental

approximation drills. The handbook demonstrates innovative ways to encourage learners’

accurate perception and production of English language sounds.

Theoretical Framework

This field project is supported by the framework of Communicative Language Teaching.

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is an approach to second language teaching that

focuses on learners using the target language with the number one goal of communicative

competency (Celce-Murcia et al., 2014; Savignon, 2017). CLT embraces the interactive nature of

using the target language in all forms of communication, whether it is reading, writing, speaking

or listening (​Savignon, 1987).

Before CLT became the new and innovative way to teach a second language, the

grammar translation and audio lingual methods were the way most people learned English as a
 7

second language. The biggest problems with these methods was that although students could use

English appropriately in class, once they were outside of class, they were not able to use English

effectively or confidently (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2013). In response to the shortcomings

of the audiolingual and grammar translation methods, the CLT became increasingly popular in

Europe and the United States during the 1970s and to this day. Unlike the grammar translation

and audio lingual methods, CLT puts grammar rules in the background and active second

language communication learning in the foreground (Savignon, 1987).

Some of the key components to CLT are grammatical competence, sociolinguistic

competence, discourse competence and strategic competence (Canale & Swain, 1980).

According to Brown (2007) the following four characteristics best describe CLT:

1.​ T
​ he main goal of the classroom is communicative fluency, not grammatical or

linguistic competence.

2.​ A
​ uthentic contextualized materials are used for real life needs of the students,

often in pairs or small groups.

3.​ F
​ luency and accuracy take a backseat to communicative competency.

4.​ E
​ LLs use the target language productively and receptively without prior

rehearsal.

Learners may benefit greatly and improve their speaking comprehensibility if they are

taught pronunciation using the CLT method, especially if the errors are framed as unintelligible

rather than not having a native accent (Ivanović, 2019). In addition, using CLT to teach

pronunciation (and correct fossilized errors) can be very effective especially if it is combined
 8

with other repetitive, pronunciation drills (Isaacs, 2009). CLT encourages ELLs to be an active

and communicative part of their second language acquisition journey.

Significance of the Project

Being understood by native speakers is essential to English language learners (ELLs). For

most ELLs, proper and intelligible pronunciation is one of the most difficult parts of second

language acquisition (Ivanović, 2019). While comprehensible pronunciation is key to

communicative fluency, it is often the most overlooked area of teaching a second language

(Derwing & Munro, 2005). Moreover, most English as a Second Language classes do not

provide enough effective pronunciation teaching. Consequently, many ELLs have an ongoing

struggle with fossilizing pronunciation errors.

The significance of this project is that ESL teachers will be provided an innovative

handbook which includes contextualized authentic material on how to de-fossilize common ELL

pronunciation errors. This handbook gives ESL teachers the tools they need to teach their

students how to relearn words that were previously fossilized. Having a state-of-the-art

handbook may give ESL teachers the confidence to teach pronunciation on a more frequent and

regular basis.

This is significant to the TESOL community since teaching pronunciation has often been

the neglected step-child of ESL teaching. Most second language learners have difficulty with

English pronunciation, and this improper pronunciation often impairs the communication

process. Effective teacher handbooks are significant because nothing is more important to the

English learner than being understood in a conversation.

 9

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

Many English language learners (ELLs), research shows, find speaking English with

comprehensible pronunciation challenging and often frustrating (Bernal Castañeda, 2017;

Scarcella & Oxford, 1992). If the necessary teaching interventions are not made, pronunciation

errors can escalate from being challenging to fossilized. This ultimately undermines effective

communication. Even though fossilization is a common occurrence in second language

acquisition, the problem is that ELLs are not receiving enough effective pronunciation

instruction to correct these fossilized pronunciation errors. To facilitate defossilizing

pronunciation errors (Derwing & Munro, 2005; Gilbert, 2008) and to help ELLs become more

confident English speakers, English as a second language teachers need more training and better

tools.

To elucidate the kind of training needed, this literature review discusses five different

linguistic theories that explore the journey and the obstacles (fossilization) in second language

phonological acquisition: the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, the Noticing Hypothesis, the

interlanguage system, the Selective Fossilization Hypothesis and the Markedness Differential

Hypothesis. These theories support the choice and creation of the teaching tools and instructions

outlined in this field project handbook.

 10

The first theory, Contrastive Analysis, asserts that a learner’s native language is the

biggest obstacle and creates the most interference to second language acquisition (Brown, 2007;

Celce-Murcia et al., 2010; ​Khalifa, 2018​). Contrastive Analysis compares the learner’s native

language and the learner’s target language with the purpose of isolating and discovering potential

errors during second language acquisition (Gass, 2013).

The second theory reviewed concerning second language acquisition is Schmidt’s (1990)

Noticing Hypothesis. ​Schmidt claims that lack of attention to erroneous grammatical, lexical

and/or phonological forms can lead to stabilization in the learner’s interlanguage (​Celce-Murcia

et al., 2010; Tajeddin & Tabatabaeian, 2017).

The third important theory discussed is interlanguage. In 1972, Selinker defined and

expanded the concept of the interlanguage system as a language that is neither an ELL’s native

language nor the target language but a unique language system somewhere in between the L1

and the target language. Most second language acquisition researchers agree that fossilized errors

occur in an ELL’s interlanguage system (Han, 2004).

The fourth theory, the Selective Fossilization Hypothesis, builds on the concept of

interlanguage and claims that fossilization is highly selective and there is an interrelationship

between an ELL’s native language, the target language input and the target language production

(Han, 2009).

The last theory discussed is Eckman’s (1977) Markedness Differential Hypothesis

(MCH), which is arguably the premier theory on markedness (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010;
 11

Colantoni & Steele, 2008). MCH takes key concepts of the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis and

integrates the theory of typological markedness (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010; Khalifa, 2018). The

MCH will be the foundation for much of the field project handbook.

The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis

One of the most enduring theories of second language pronunciation acquisition is the

Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010). In Robert Lado’s (1957) seminal

work on Contrastive Analysis (CA), he claimed that the biggest obstacle to second

language acquisition is the interference of the learner’s native language systems (sound,

morphological, syntactic and cultural) on the target language systems (Brown 2007,

Celce-Murcia et al., 2010; Gass 2013, ​Khalifa 2018​). In addition, proponents of CA assert that

linguists can predict and describe what difficulties an ELL will have, like the cause of producing

erroneous utterances, based on comparing their native language to their target language (Brown,

2007; Celce-Murcia et al., 2010).

Three key concepts of CA (Gass 2013, ​Khalifa 2018) are​:

1. An ELL’s errors in production and reception of the target language (TL) are

mostly due to interference from their native language (NL).

2. The greater the differences in an ELL’s NL compared to the TL, the more errors

the ELL will commit in the TL.

3. How much difficulty or ease an ELL will have in acquiring a second language is

determined by the similarities and differences between the NL and the TL.
 12

Although linguists initially embraced the concepts of CA, many researchers later criticized the

theory for being:

1. Oversimplified and blaming most ELL’s L2 errors on the learner’s NL.

2. Concluded the learner’s differences equals learner’s difficulties.

3. Lacked empirical evidence that the learner’s NL is the greatest

influencer/inhibitor of second language acquisition (Brown, 2007; Gass, 2013;

Han, 2004).

Ronald Wardhaugh (1972) was one of the most prominent opponents of the original

theory of CA (referred to as the strong version). Wardhaugh asserted that using CA to accurately

predict what second language learners’ errors would be was neither practical nor achievable

(Al-Sobhi, 2019). Instead, Wardhaugh (1972) claimed that contrastive analysis of a learner’s L1

(the target language and the possible interference of the L1), was best used to observe errors

already made rather than to predict future errors (Brown, 2007). Wardhaugh coined this modified

interpretation of contrastive analysis as the ‘weak version’ of contrastive analysis.

Although today many linguistic researchers de-emphasize the impact that NL interference

plays in second language acquisition, most agree analyzing the interference from a learner’s NL

is justifiable and may be helpful in second language pronunciation acquisition (Celce-Murcia et

al., 2010; Celce-Murcia et al.,​ 2014).

 13

The Noticing Hypothesis

An important factor to fossilization is whether the learner’s process of acquiring these

fossilized errors takes place on a conscious level with the ELL or on an unconscious level

without the learner realizing. This leads us to the highly debated Noticing Hypothesis.

After the Contrastive Analysis period in the mid-century, many second language

acquisition (SLA) researchers started focusing on learner’s awareness and consciousness of

acquiring a second language. Schmidt’s (1990) seminal psychological research and theory on

how consciousness and input processing relates to second language acquisition is known as the

Noticing Hypothesis (1990). Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis addresses three second language

acquisition (SLA) questions (Schmidt 1990):

1.​ I​ s conscious awareness at the noticing level necessary for SLA?

2.​ I​ s it required to pay attention in order to learn a second language?

3.​ I​ s the learner hypothesis based on conscious input or an unconscious process?

The Noticing Hypothesis claims awareness through attention is required for noticing and

is essential for learning a second language (Gass, 2013). Furthermore, the Noticing Hypothesis

stresses the importance of the subjective experience of a second language learner taking target

language input and converting it into meaningful target language intake (Han, 2004). Schmidt

theorized in his Noticing Hypothesis that lack of attention to erroneous grammatical, lexical

and/or phonological forms can lead to stabilization in the learner’s interlanguage (Celce-Murcia

et al., 2010; Tajeddin & Tabatabaeian, 2017).

 14

ELLs often have trouble hearing the English sounds correctly because they are hearing it

through their L1 sound system (Avery & Ehrlich, 2012). Noticing in second language acquisition

refers to when a second language learner is aware of the difference between the learner’s

interlanguage and the target language (Gass, 2013). An ELL’s ability to notice the difference

between their own L2 pronunciation versus those proficient English speakers will allow greater

success in English pronunciation acquisition (Derwing & Munro, 2005). In other words, correct

perception of the sound is essential before correct production can occur. The production of a

learner’s output is in direct response to the input and when learners notice the difference of their

output (after receiving feedback) and reformulate their initial utterances. This promotes language

development and is in the forefront of the learner’s interlanguage (Swain & Lapkin, 1995).

The concept of learners being able to notice the gap between their interlanguage and the

target language is key to defossilization (Tajeddin & Tabatabaeian, 2017). In one study done by

Tajeddin & Tabatabaeian (2017), they had advanced second language learners’ focus on the

fossilized forms they tended to produce. When the written and spoken productions of the learners

were analyzed, 3,796 erroneous forms were observed. When making a conscious effort, ELLs

could notice 37.4% of the 3,796 fossilized forms they had produced. The results showed that

noticing affected the number of fossilized forms the learners produce. The more errors they

noticed, the fewer errors they tended to produce. Tajeddin & Tabatabaeian (2017) asserted that

having students notice their errors can result in fewer fossilized forms. Moreover, the better a

learner notices forms, the fewer fossilized forms they will produce. They concluded that if
 15

fossilized features go unnoticed, learners could possibly not recognize the teachers recasts and

this would inhibit the defossilization process. This study emphasized how critical noticing and

paying attention to errors is in the second language acquisition process and the process of

defossilizing errors.

Research shows that assisting the learner to notice the incorrect utterance is key to

repairing and defossilizing the error (Brown & Lee, 2015). It is through interactions with

the instructor (e.g. recasts, negotiations, and prompts) that a learner is able to focus on the error

and initiate repair (Brown & Lee, 2015; Gass, 2013).

Interlanguage and the Fossilization Hypothesis

As stated in Chapter I, currently ELLs are not receiving enough effective pronunciation

instruction to correct their fossilized pronunciation errors. An important question to ask is this:

“Where do these fossilized pronunciation errors start in an ELL’s journey to English fluency?”

Most second language acquisition researchers agree that fossilized errors occur in an ELL’s

interlanguage system (Han, 2004). In 1972, Selinker brought to the forefront of the linguistic

world the concept of learners’ interlanguage system, which is a language that is neither an ELL’s

native language nor the target language. Selinker asserted that the ELL’s interlanguage is a

unique, active language system that lies in between the ELL’s first language and the target

language (Selinker, 1972).

According to Selinker, the interlanguage system contains an internal construction of

grammar rules, structures and pronunciation rules that may or may not be the correct rules of the
 16

target language. Selinker’s​ ​description of interlanguage maintains that it includes the following

characteristics:

1.​ S
​ ystematic – at every stage in the ELL’s language development the learner

continually processes input by using their own interlanguage governed rules.

2.​ D
​ ynamic - the unique and mercurial nature of the interim phonology and grammar

rules.

3.​ V
​ ariable – the rules in the learners’ IL are not fixed at any stage, rather they are

open to change.

4.​ R
​ educed system – the grammatical structures are less complex than either the L1

or the TL.

A key claim to Selinker’s Interlanguage Hypothesis is that when ELLs attempt

meaningful communication (spontaneously), this interlanguage communication is systematic in

all aspects of language; phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics.

The Fossilizati​o​n Hypothesis addresses the cognitive and the behavioral reasons why so

many ELLs never reach native-like fluency. Selinker’s seminal Fossilization Hypothesis claims

that regardless of the amount of ESL instruction and exposure to the target language, the

majority of ELLs will fall short of native-like fluency. He maintains that 95% of ELLs,

regardless of their age or motivation, will not attain native fluency. He asserts that the 5% of

ELLs who do achieve native fluency have reactivated their cognitive latent language structure.

The latent language structure is a biological, already formulated arrangement in the brain

(Lenneberg, 1967). According to Selinker (1972), the fossilization mechanism exists in the brain
 17

in a latent psychological structure (as cited in Han, 2013). Selinker asserts that most second

language learners—the 95%—use a more general cognitive process called the latent

psychological structure (LPS). He defines LPS as an ‘already formulating arrangement in the

brain’. The LPS contains five central processes which are key to understanding fossilization and

second language learning (Selinker, 1972). These processes are the following:

1. Native Language transfer​ – is the propensity to transfer the language rules and
​

phonology from the native language to the TL.

2. T
​ ransfer-of-training​ – occurs when an ELL is taught by teachers and or

textbooks to use only one form of an aspect of English even though the learner

was exposed to multiple forms. For example, an ELL who learns the he/she

distinction but in all the textbooks and teaching materials only the “he” pronoun

was used. The learner concludes in his or her interlanguage that using “he”

(instead of the appropriate he or she) all of the time is acceptable.

​ trategies of second-language learning ​- a conscious attempt for an ELL to learn

3.​ S

the TL. This can be memorizing verb conjugations, textbook dialogues or other

second language acquisition tools. Although often successful, ELLs can use these

strategies incorrectly repeatedly.

​ trategies of second-language communication – ​in an attempt to speak the TL

4.​ S

without hesitation and keep a conversation flowing, a learner will avoid articles,

plural forms and past forms in the TL.

5.​ O
​ vergeneralization of TL rules​ – is a common phenomenon where an ELL takes

the application of a TL rule to items that are excluded from the rule. For example,
 18

overgeneralizing the past tense -ed “What did he wanted to say?”

Moreover, in Selinker’s (1972) groundbreaking work, he suggests second language

acquisition researchers should focus on ELLs attempts to produce the target language. He points

out that there are three types of ELL utterances that will fall into one of the five central processes

mentioned above. The ELL will produce an utterance in:

1) the ELL’s native language

2) the ELL’s interlanguage, or

3) correctly in the target language.

From these utterances Selinker suggests that ELLs’ interlanguages and fossilizations are

directly connected to the ELLs’ latent psychological structure (LPS). The LPS is an important

element in the fossilization process because Selinker claimed most ELLs use these general

cognitive processes in the LPS to: transfer native language to target language,

transfer-of-training, strategies of second language learning, strategies of second language

communication and over generalization of target language rules when acquiring a second

language. Thus, the interlanguage system that ELLs develop may lead to the fossilization of

pronunciation errors.

The Selective Fossilization Hypothesis

In the last 40 years, many researchers have looked for more answers to how SLA

fossilization works and the linguistic characteristics of fossilization. Since fossilization can be

extremely selective and vary greatly from one learner to another, most recent research has
 19

focused on the selectivity of fossilization and how fossilization in meaning and usage is a greater

challenge for ELLs than a simple fossilized unit or decontextualized utterance (Han, 2004; Han

& Lew, 2012). Han’s Selective Fossilization Hypothesis (2009) is widely regarded as the most

current and comprehensive analysis of second language acquisition fossilization.

The Selective Fossilization Hypothesis asserts that there is an interconnection and

interactivity between the target language construction, the target language input, and the native

language influence (Han, 2009). According to Han, the Selective Fossilization Hypothesis (SPH)

recognizes the mixtures of the L1 markedness and the target language robustness as catalysts to

second language acquisition and fossilization.

The key characteristics of the SPH are:

1.​ ​Fossilization is selective.

2.​ ​Fossilization affects the learning systems, meanings and functions in the

interlanguage.

3.​ ​Fossilization is stimulated by the L1 and created or fortified by target language input

traits.

4. ​Fossilization is most prolific when an ELL attempts his own meaning during

spontaneous production.
 20

The Selective Fossilization Hypothesis allows beneficial insight into how fossilization

affects second language acquisition and how fossilization is influenced by a learner’s native

language and created or strengthened by the target language input.

The Markedness Differential Hypothesis

​T​he modern idea of markedness started in the Prague School by Trubetzkoy (1939),

Jakobson​ (1941) and other linguists as a way of identifying binary oppositions (Celce-Murcia et

al., 2010). The concept of markedness suggests a ranking for phonological oppositions between

certain phonological sounds such as; voiced and voiceless, nasalized and oral vowels, and open

and closed syllables (Khalifa, 2018). Arguably, the premier theory on markedness in terms of

second language phonological acquisition is Eckman’s (1987) markedness differential

hypothesis (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010; Colantoni & Steele, 2008).

The Markedness Differential Hypothesis is a direct response to the Contrastive Analysis

Hypothesis and builds on the concepts of Contrastive Analysis (CA) by integrating the theory of

typological markedness (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010; Khalifa, 2018). Eckman’s Markedness

Differential Hypothesis (MDH) proposes that the more marked a structure, the more difficult it is

to learn and conversely the more unmarked a structure the easier it is to learn.

Eckman (1977, p.321) asserts these following key MDH properties will predict second language

acquisition difficulties.

1.​ T
​ hose parts of the target language that vary from the learners L1 and are more

marked than the L1 will be difficult.

2.​ T
​ he areas and degree of difficulty in the target language that are more marked than

the L1 will directly relate to the degree of markedness.

 21

3.​ T
​ hose areas of the target language that are different than the L, yet are not more

marked than the L1, will not be difficult.

In addition, according to Eckman MDH asserts that the degree of difficulty directly

corresponds to the concept of typological markedness. Edkman (1985, p. 290) defines

typological markedness this way:

A phenomenon or structure X in some language is relatively more marked

than some other phenomenon or structure Y if cross-linguistically the presence

of X in a language implies the presence of Y, but the presence of Y does not imply

the presence of X.

Eckman (1985) cites several studies that show the markedness relations and typologies

which include Dinnsen & Eckman (1978), Greenberg (1978) and Keenan & Comrie (1977) to

name a few. These studies exemplified phonological structures that are “more marked” and “less

marked,” which according to the MDH, translates into which phonological sounds will be easier

or more difficult for an ELL to produce. For instance, the study by Dow (1972), used the MDH

to predict that native speakers of Mandarin (who have no voice contrast in any position) will

have the most trouble learning this contrast in the final position (the more marked) and less

difficulty with the medial voice and even less difficulty with the initial voice position (the less

marked) (Eckman, 1985).

More Marked​ ​Less Marked

Final voice contrast medial voice contrast initial voice contrast

 22

The Dow study is an excellent example of where the markedness theory builds upon the

Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. The MDH proposes not only will voice contrasts in English be

difficult for native Mandarin speakers but the markedness shows the degree of difficulty a

Mandarin speaker will have. This is important for second language phonological teaching

because the MDH distinguishes between beginner, intermediate and advanced levels of

phonological difficulties (Eckman, 1985).

Eckman’s MDH gives valuable insight into discovering what sounds will be more

difficult for the ELL and the degree of difficulty the ELL will face (Celce-Murcia et al., 2010).

This is important because this knowledge allows second language acquisition teachers the ability

to plan and teach pronunciation (and defossilize students errors) where it is most needed.

Summary

​All these theories - the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, the Noticing Hypothesis, the

interlanguage system, the Selective Fossilization Hypothesis and the Markedness Differential

Hypothesis—offer insight on how fossilized errors occur and how best to teach the defossilizing

process of these errors in the ESL classroom. The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis shows how a

learner’s L1 can cause interference in learning the target language. The Noticing Hypothesis

illustrates how accurate perception (consciously noticing) is a prerequisite to correct production

and defossilization of learner’s errors. The interlanguage theory asserts every second language

learner has a unique, developing, target language system where errors can stabilize and/or
 23

fossilize. In addition, the Selective Fossilization Hypothesis gives valuable insight to the

selectivity and the interconnectedness of a learner’s native language and the target language

input.

The last, and arguably the most important theory in second language phonological

acquisition, is the Markedness Differential Hypothesis. MDH claims that not only does a

learner’s L1 cause interference in learning a second language but also that the L1 can predict the

relative degree of difficulty a learner will face when learning the new target language structures

(Colantoni & Steele, 2008). All of these theories together built the foundation for the handbook

by recognizing L1 interference, using creative tools for learners to hone their noticing skills, and

finally utilizing proven minimal pairs, contrastive examples, inductive generalizations and

recognition/production exercises to defossilize the errors in the learner’s interlanguage system.

 24

CHAPTER III
THE PROJECT AND ITS DEVELOPMENT

Brief Description of the Project

This field project is based on students I have taught, pronunciation teachers I have

watched in action and extensive research I have done in the field of second language

fossilization, particularly in terms of English pronunciation. The three lessons are designed to

provide ESL teachers a template with concrete drills, activities and pointers on how to facilitate

defossilzation of ELL’s pronunciation errors.

This field project is in the form of a handbook which consists of three units on how to

defossilize common ELL pronunciation errors. These units are based on the following minimal

pairs: (1) /th/ vs. /t/ as in math and mat, (2) /w/ vs. /v/ as in wine and vine, and (3) /iy/ vs. /I/ as in

beans and bins. I selected these errors because they represent a variety of habitual pronunciation

errors made by ELLs from all parts of the globe; native speakers from Asia, South America,

Africa and Europe. In addition, I designated one unit for each of the three pronunciation

positions: in the initial position, consonant sounds (/w/ vs. /v/), in the medial position, vowel

sounds (/iy/ vs. /I/), and in the final position, consonant sounds (/θ/ vs. /t/).

Each of the three units is designed to be taught to intermediate/advanced intermediate

ESL students for approximately a 60-minute class. Each lesson narrowly focuses on English

sounds that have been proven to be very challenging for many ELL students (Celce-Murcia et
 25

al., 2010). A key component to each unit is teaching the ELL to become more aware of the

sound, how it is made, and notice the differences between the two similar English sounds.

Each lesson gives a song suggestion to start a few minutes before class starts and plays

while students are settling into their desks. For instance, ‘Thank You for Being a Friend” would

be played for the unit on /th/ vs. /t/, ‘Red, Red, Wine’ for the unit on /w/ vs. /v/ and ‘Pork and

Beans’ for the unit on (/iy/ vs. /I/). I have observed in other ESL classes how music subtly

exposes the students to the sounds they will study and lowers their affective filter which is

always good when teaching English as a second language.

The main focal point of each lesson is two vivid pictures showing contrastive examples

of two similar sounds. After introducing these two strong visuals, the teacher follows with repeat

after me choral work. Since these lessons are for intermediate students, most should be familiar

with these words. Starting with focused listening is important since you need to hear the sound

before you can correctly produce it ​(Gass, 2013)​.

The next step is critical in defossilizing students’ pronunciation errors. Each unit contains

two videos (one for each sound) with an ESL teacher showing the students exactly where their

tongue should be (using a mouth model) and how their lips should be formed to make the proper

sound. This is key for students who never learned how to make the sound correctly the first time.

Furthermore, this detailed instruction and practice of the target sound is designed to improve

their ‘noticing’ skills which is essential for defossilizing pronunciation errors ​(​Celce-Murcia et

al., 2010; Tajeddin & Tabatabaeian 2017).

 26

Each of the lessons have three key parts: (1) inductive generalization exercises,

(2) recognition exercises, and (3) production exercises. The lessons start with inductive ‘yes or

no’ generalization exercises that will help the students solidify what mouth and tongue positions

are needed for the different sounds. After the inductive exercises, each unit contains recognition

exercises; same vs. different exercises, identification exercises and structured communication

drills. Next comes the production exercises. Each lesson contains repetition of minimal pairs,

opposite drills, mixed recognition/production drills and contextualization drills. This last part is

especially important since proper production and repetition will help cement the newly retrained

pronunciation skills.

The objective of each unit is for the students to be able to pronounce the target sounds

correctly at least 80% of the time, in structured practice and then ultimately consistently in

spontaneous speech.

Development of the Project

I was inspired to do this field project for several reasons. First, focused pronunciation

teaching is often the most neglected area of ESL teaching even though most ELLs desire to have

greater command over their English pronunciation (Couper, 2006; Pardo, 2004). Secondly, I

wanted to do a field project that was needed in the ESL world and I was intrigued by professor

Dr. Popal reporting that not enough field projects addressed the fossilization phenomenon in

acquiring a second language. Thirdly, as part of an extra-credit paper in my Teaching

Pronunciation class at UC Berkeley Extension, I sat in on a pronunciation class at San Francisco

 27

City College. I was extremely impressed on how much the students wanted to speak intelligible

English and how impactful a talented teacher can be to her students. Lastly, I know from

personal tutoring experience that ELLs often struggle with habitual pronunciation errors and

these errors can greatly inhibit their ability to find better jobs (Hinofotois & Baily, 1980). During

the last several years of studying teaching English as a second language and tutoring/teaching

ESL, I have come to realize that habitual pronunciation errors can be a huge impediment to being

understood by other English speakers and a roadblock to further economic success and

acculturation in the United States (Han, 2004).

In December, 2017 I observed an amazing ESL pronunciation class at City College in

San Francisco. The teacher was Ms. Tomi Cunningham and the class focused on systematic

practice in American English sounds, speech segmentals, suprasegmentals, all for improving

reading and oral communication – especially listening and pronunciation. I believe the key to

Ms. Cunningham having a packed and attentive class was her ability to have her students ‘notice’

correctly what was being said and then the students were given ample opportunities to make

these correct sounds in a variety of activities.

For instance, the students were learning how to correctly say /θ/ in the word thanks. Ms.

Cunningham had given them homework to construct four complimentary sentences ‘thanking’

someone. First she had them all say the word ‘thanks’ and then they did choral work. Next, she

dramatically showed how she made the /θ/ sound with her mouth and then referred to a diagram

on the white board to illustrate where the tongue should be when making the /θ/ sound. Next, she
 28

had the students get up out of their desks and go to four other students and thank them. (This was

also good practice on how to respond to a compliment). It was inspiring to watch her slowly,

deliberately and patiently demonstrate how to make one of the more difficult English sounds to

her students. In addition to the giving compliments (thanks) activity, she used the minimal pairs

of ​th​ank and ​t​ank in opposition drills and correcting sentences practice. Although her class had a

broader range of pronunciation objectives, including speech segmentals and suprasegmentals, I

noticed a marked improvement in over 80% of the students’ abilities to say the word ‘thanks’

correctly.

In addition to Ms. Cunningham’s class, in March of this year I observed Dr. Popal’s

lecture on how to teach ESL pronunciation. Dr. Popal’s class gave me invaluable teaching ideas

and exercises that are perfectly suited for retraining/defossilizing pronunciation errors. I was

especially inspired by Dr. Popal’s straight-forward approach and the many ways he showed how

to activate a student’s noticing abilities and pronunciation production abilities. I have adapted

many of the units’ exercises from his excellent lecture.

I started to conceptualize this project in late January and fully developed it between

February 4​th​ and April 30​th​, 2020.

The Project

The project in its entirety can be found in the appendix.

 29

CHAPTER IV

CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusion

When I first started working on this field project, How to Defossilize ELL’s

Pronunciation Errors, I found a plethora of articles on how a significant number of ESL teachers

do not spend enough time on teaching pronunciation (Derwing & Munro, 2005). Now I

understand why teaching pronunciation is not easy. Unlike teaching vocabulary where students

see almost immediate benefits to learning new words, teaching and learning pronunciation can be

very frustrating. Learning, teaching and re-teaching English sounds takes time, patience and

consistent practice. There is definitely a great need and demand for trained pronunciation

teachers (Couper, 2006; Gilbert, 2008; Pardo, 2004).

This handbook narrowly focuses on taking common ELL pronunciation errors and

methodically retraining the student. Each unit begins with having the students accurately hear the

sound, then learn how to recognize the correct sound and distinguish it from similar sounds. The

last step is for the ELL to pronounce the new sounds alone and in context correctly. Although in

theory this sounds logical and straightforward, the reality is that for many ESL teachers and

ELLs this is a big challenge.

This handbook is not a broad and general pronunciation tool. Unlike many pronunciation

textbooks that give broad general and technical teaching tools, this handbook pinpoints persistent
 30

and common pronunciation errors in a simple and straight-forward approach inspired by

watching experienced and successful ESL teachers.

Through my research I gained a great deal of knowledge about how these incorrect

sounds become fossilized in a second language learner’s interlanguage. The mercurial nature of

interlanguage is a fascinating part of the learner’s brain where much research is still needed. For

instance, when does the pronunciation error become fossilized in a learner’s interlanguage?

Furthermore, is there a way for ESL teachers to help students catch these errors and correct them

before they become stabilized/fossilized?

Recommendations

In addition to defossilizing pronunciation errors, ESL teachers could do the following to

increase their learners success:

1.​ C
​ onduct a needs analysis of the student’s pronunciation errors.

2.​ C
​ hart the students progress on correcting their pronunciation errors.

3.​ I​ mplement a student’s self-learning program.

This handbook addresses three of the most common ELL pronunciation errors and is designed to

be used in an ESL classroom with students from a variety of countries. Often ESL classrooms

can be predominately from one region of the world and doing a student’s needs analysis surveys

and informal interviews could be very helpful in deciding which pronunciation errors to address.

Evaluating pronunciation is a complex endeavor but could be very useful to both the

teacher and the student. First you would need to document their errors and then if they are having
 31

success with correcting these errors, is it just when they are in a controlled environment? I

believe charting a student’s progress would give students encouragement when they look back

and see how much their pronunciation has improved. Conversely, this could also be a bit tricky if

they are having little to no success.

One way to help reinforce what they have practiced and learned in class is for the

students to become independent learners. Having students record their own voices and practice

with a friend and/or video-tape conversations for as little as ten minutes a day could be hugely

significant to long term pronunciation success.

The need has never been greater for ESL teachers to teach more pronunciation and to

learn how to teach it more effectively. Overcoming big obstacles like fossilized pronunciation

errors could give ELL learners the confidence to converse with native speakers more and the

courage to become more acculturated in American society.

 32

REFERENCES

Al-Shormani, M. Q. (2013). Fossilization and plateau effect in second language acquisition.

​Language in India,​ ​13(​ 2), 763 - 784.

Al-Sobhi, B. M. S. (2019). The nitty-gritty of language learners’ errors - contrasrive

analysis, error analysis and interlanguage. ​International Journal of Education and

Literacy Studies, 7(​ 3), 49-60.

Avery, P., & Ehrlich, S. (2012). ​Teaching American English pronunciation.​ Oxford, England:

Oxford University Press.

Bernal Castañeda, S. (2017). Affective limitations in second language acquisition by Spanish

adult learners in vocational training programs. ​Latin American Journal of Content and

Language Integrated Learning, 10​(1), 133-160.

Brown, H.D., (2007). ​Principles of language learning and teaching.​ 5th Edition. White Plains:

NY, Pearson-Education.

Brown, H. D., & Lee, H. (2015). ​Teaching Principles.​ New Jersey: P. Ed Australia.

Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D., & Goodwin, J. M. (2010). ​Teaching pronunciation: A course

book and reference guide.​ (2nd ed.) Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D., & Snow, M. A. (2014). ​Teaching English as a second or foreign

language (​ 4th ed., pp. 136-152). Boston, National Geographic Learning.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second
 33

language teaching and testing.​ Applied Linguistics, 1,​ 1-47.

Colantoni, L., & Steele, J. (2008). Integrating articulatory constraints into models of second

language phonological acquisition. ​Applied Psycholinguistics, 3, 489.

Couper, G. (2006).​ ​The short- and long-term effects of pronunciation instruction.​ Prospect, 21,

46-66.

Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: A

research-based approach. ​TESOL Quarterly,​ (3), 379.

Dow, F. D. M. (1972) ​An outline of Mandarin phonetics.​ Canberra: Australian National

University Press.

Eckman, F. R. (1977). Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. ​Language

Learning,​ ​27(​ 2), 315–330.

Eckman, F. R. (1985). Some theoretical and pedagogical implications of the markedness

differential hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7(3), 289-307.

Field, J. (2005). Intelligibility and the listener: The role of lexical stress. ​TESOL Quarterly,

39​(3), 399-423

Gass, S. M. (2013). ​Second language acquisition: an introductory course.​ New York: Routledge.

Gilbert, J. B. (2008). ​Teaching pronunciation: Using the prosody pyramid​. ​Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

 34

Han, Z. (2004). ​Fossilization in adult second language acquisition​. Clevedon: Multilingual

Matters.

Han, Z. (2009) Interlanguage and fossilization: Towards an analytic model. In Cook, V., &

Wei, L. (eds.), ​Contemporary Applied Linguistics Volume 1: Volume One Language

​ ondon: Continuum, 137-162.

Teaching and Learning. L

Han, Z.-H. & W. M. Lew (2012). Acquisitional complexity: What defies complete acquisition

in SLA. In B. Szmrecsanyi & B. Kortmann (eds.), ​Linguistic complexity in interlanguage

varieties, L2 varieties, and contact languages​. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 192–217.

Hinofotis, F & Baily, K. (1980). American undergraduate reaction to the communication skills of

foreign teaching assistants, ​TESOL “​ ​80: Building Bridges: Research and Practice in

​ lexandria, V.A.
TESL”, A

Isaacs, T. (2009). Integrating form and meaning in L2 pronunciation instruction. ​TESL Canada

Journal, 27, ​1-12.

Ivanović, I. (2019). Pronunciation Obstacle Course. ​Theory and Practice in Language Studies,​

9​(4), 382-389.

Khalifa, M. F. (2018). Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis, Markedness Theory, Universal

Grammar and Monitor Theory and their Contributions to Second Language Learning.

​International Journal of Linguistics​, ​10​(1), 12.

 35

Lado, R. (1957). ​Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers.​ Ann

Arbor:University of Michigan Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2018). ​Techniques & principles in language teaching.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.​.

Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). The biological foundations of language. ​Hospital Practice​, ​2​(12),

59–67.

Nair, R., Krishnasamy, R., & Mello, G. de. (2017). Rethinking the teaching of pronunciation in

the ESL classroom. ​The English Teacher​, ​XXXV(​ 27).

Pardo, D.B. (2004). Can pronunciation be taught?: A review of research and implications for

teaching. ​Revista alicantina de estudios ingleses: RAEI, 17, 6​ -38.

Savignon, S. J. (1987). Communicative language teaching. ​Theory into practice​, ​26​(4), 235-242.

Savignon, S.J. (2017). ​Communicative competence.​ In the TESOL Encyclopedia of English

Language Teaching (eds J.I. Liontas, T. International Association and M. DelliCarpini).

Scarcella, R.C., & Oxford, R. L. (1992). ​The tapestry of language learning: The individual in

the communicative classroom.​ Boston, Mass: Heinle & Heinle.

Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning1. ​Applied

linguistics,​ ​11(​ 2), 129-158.

 36

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. ​IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in

Language Teaching,​ ​10(​ 1-4).

Selinker, L., & Lamendella J. T. (1979). The role of extrinsic feedback in interlanguage

fossilization: A discussion of rule fossilization: A tentative model, ​Language Learning

29/2:​ 363–75.

Selinker, L. (1993). Fossilization as simplification? In M. L. Tickoo (Ed.), ​Simplification:

Theory and application​ (pp. 14-28). Singapore: Southeast Asian Ministers of Education

Organization.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A

step towards second language learning. ​Applied linguistics​, ​16​(3), 371-391.

Tajeddin, Z., & Tabatabaeian, M. S. (2017). Interface between Linguistic Noticing and

Fossilization of Grammatical, Lexical, and Cohesive Features among Advanced EFL

Learners. ​Applied Research on English Language​, ​6​(1), 23-42.

Varasarin, P. (2007). ​An action research study of pronunciation training, language learning

strategies and speaking confidence​ (Doctoral dissertation, Victoria University).

Wardhaugh, R. (1972). The contrastive analysis hypothesis. ​TESOL Quarterly, 4, 123-130.

 37

APPENDIX

How to Defossilize English Language Learners’ Pronunciation Errors

Defossilizing English Language Learners’

Pronunciation Errors Handbook

Kate Dolan
 Table of Contents

Table of Contents 2

Letter to Teachers 3

How to Use this Handbook 4

Unit 1 Defossilizing /θ/ vs. /t/ errors 5 – 18

Unit 2 Defossilizing /w/ vs. /v/ errors 19 – 32

Unit 3 Defossilizing /iy/ vs. /I/ errors 33 - 46

2
 April 2, 2020

Dear ESL teachers,

This pronunciation handbook is a comprehensive tool for you to use

in defossilizing your students’ persistent pronunciation errors.

For the purpose of this project I have focused on 3 common ELL

speaking errors: (1) /θ/ vs. /t/ as in math and mat, (2) /w/ vs. /v/ as in

wine and vine, and (3) /iy/ vs. /I/ as in beans and bins. I selected these

errors because they represent a variety of habitual pronunciation errors

made by ELLs from around the world; native speakers from Asia, South

America, Africa and Europe. In addition, I designated one unit for each

pronunciation position to address these errors: in the initial position,

consonants (/w/ vs. /v/), in the medial position, vowel sounds (/iy/ vs.

/I/), and in the final position, consonants (/θ/ vs. /t/).

I hope you find this handbook useful and effective in defossilizing

your students’ pronunciation errors. Remember, “fossilization” in a

student’s English language journey is really just prolonged stabilization –

and with effective tools (like this handbook) and patient, dedicated

teaching, your students’ pronunciation errors will soon be a thing of the

past.

Happy teaching!

Kate Dolan

3
 How to Use this Handbook
Each of the three units in this handbook is a teacher’s guide on

how to correct persistent pronunciation errors. The cornerstone to being

able to pronounce a sound correctly is first to be able to hear the

sound accurately. Many of these exercises and teaching techniques

focus on the student’s ability to hear and decipher subtle differences in

similar sounds.

All of the teacher’s specific instructions are in green italics. The

vowel or consonant focal point in the pictured minimal pairs are

highlighted in red. Each of the minimal sounds has a video showing how

to say the sound with a mouth model. Just click on the Youtube url to

start the video. If you are able to obtain a mouth model it can be very

useful in your pronunciation instructions.

In addition, each unit has two student pair exercises to reinforce

what they learned as a whole class. Included at the end of each unit

are the exercise worksheets without the teacher’s instructions for you

use as handouts in your lessons.

4
 Unit 1
/th/ vs. /t/

math

mat

5
 Introduction
/th/

math
T-repeat after me
1. tooth

2. bath

3. path

4. both

5. truth

6
 Making the /th/ sound

The tongue goes between the front

and bottom teeth and protrudes
slightly.

https://youtu.be/4qaqFMvq4K8

7
 /t/

mat
T-repeat after me
1. toot

2. bat

3. pat

4. hot

5. strut

8
 Making the /t/ sound

The tip of the tongue touches the

front part of the roof of the mouth.

https://youtu.be/OIBjvFJwlf0

9
 Inductive Instruction

1. T - Does the tip of your tongue touch your gum ridge when
you pronounce /th/ in “math”?
SS: NO

2. T - Does the tip of your tongue touch the back of your

front teeth when you pronounce /th/ in “math”?
SS: NO

3. T - Does the tip of your tongue touch your gum ridge when
you pronounce /t/ in “mat”?
SS: YES

4. T - Do you put the tip of your tongue between your front

teeth when you /th/ in “math”?
SS: YES

Conclusions:
1. T - When we pronounce /th/, we place the tip of our tongue
between our ________________ (front teeth).
Try to elicit the correct answer from SS, if no one has the correct
answer – tell them ‘front teeth’.

2. T – When we pronounce /t/, we touch the tip of our tongue

against our _________________ (gum ridge).
Try to elicit the correct answer from SS, if no one has the correct
answer – tell them ‘gum ridge’.

10
 Recognition Practice

T – SS Tell me if the sounds you hear are the same

or different (say the following pairs of words)

math – mat (point to the pictures) SS: different

math – math (point to the picture) SS: same

thin – tin (move around the room) S1:

theme – theme S2:

booth – boot S3:

thank – tank S4:

bath – bat S5:

faith – faith S6:

mat – mat S7:

thank – thank S8:

both – boat S9:

math – mat S10:

11
 Sentence Practice Pair work
T – instruct students to work in pairs and take turns being
student 1 and student 2
Student 1 Student 2
(chooses one)
1. I think she’s thin. She’s not thick.
I think it’s tin. It’s not glass.

2. He needs his math book. It protects the floor.

He needs a mat by the sink. He has homework.

3. She said “thanks”. She is polite.

She said tanks are used in She’s in the military.
the military.

4. You are tenth. You are nervous.

You are tense. Nine people are
before you.

5. She taught him English. She thought he was

from England.
She thought he was English. She showed him
English verbs.

6. He is the fifth person. He exercises a lot.

He is a fit person. Four people are
before him.

7. What is a sheep? It is a large boat.

What is a ship? It is a wooly animal.

12
 Opposite Drills
T – When I say “math”, you say “mat”,
If I say “mat” you say “math”

1. math SS – (mat)

2. mat SS – (math)

3. thin SS – (tin)

4. taught SS – (thought)

5. theme SS – (team)

6. wit SS – (with)

7. faith SS – (fate)

8. fort SS – (fourth)

9. booth SS – (boot)

13
 Repetition drills of sentences and
phrases

T – Repeat after me

1. I thought I taught you math.

2. Thank you for the theater tickets.

3. I have faith in you.

4. South and north are opposites.

5. I think I will go with him.

6. I thought you were on my team.

7. I think I need a pair of boots.

8. Three plus three equals six.

14
 Correcting Sentences Practice

T - I am going to say some sentences, if you hear a

mistake say the correct word or phrase.

1. I taught he loved me. SS – thought

2. Tank you for helping me. SS – thank

3. Which theme do you play on? SS – (team)

4. She eats very little. She is tin. SS – (thin)

5. I put the math down by the shower SS – (mat)

6. She prays every day. She has fate. SS - (faith)

7. He has lots of mat homework. SS – (math)

15
 Practice in Dialogue Pair work
T – instruct students to work in pairs and take turns being
each person.

Thelma: Do you think it’s going to rain?

Tony: I don’t know. The weather app on my

phone is always wrong.

Thelma: I have no faith in weather forecasts too.

Tony: Are you ready for the math test?

Thelma: No, I have both math and English tests

tomorrow.

Tony: Poor you! Can I help you study?

Kate: Yes, thanks Tony!

16
 Sentence Practice
Student 1 Student 2
(chooses one)
1. I think she’s thin. She’s not thick.
I think it’s tin. It’s not glass.

2. He needs his math book. It protects the floor.

He needs a mat by the sink. He has homework.

3. She said “thanks”. She is polite.

She said tanks are used in She’s in the military.
the military.

4. You are tenth. You are nervous.

You are tense. Nine people are
before you.

5. She taught him English. She thought he was

from England.
She thought he was English. She showed him
English verbs.

6. He is the fifth person. He exercises a lot.

He is a fit person. Four people are
before him.

7. What is a sheep? It is a large boat.

What is a ship? It is a wooly animal.

17
 Practice in Dialogue
Thelma: Do you think it’s going to rain?

Tony: I don’t know. The weather app on my

phone is always wrong.

Thelma: I have no faith in weather forecasts too.

Tony: Are you ready for the math test?

Thelma: No, I have both math and English tests

tomorrow.

Tony: Poor you! Can I help you study?

Kate: Yes, thanks Tony!

18
 Unit 2
/w/ vs. /v/

wine

vine

19
 /w/

wine
T-repeat after me
1. wow

2. wife

3. wary

4. west

5. worse

20
 Making the /w/ sound

Begin with your lips rounded, then

un-round them.

https://youtu.be/Dm09WeYJjxM

21
 /v/

vine
T-repeat after me
1. vote

2. vacation

3. view

4. visit

5. vital

22
 Making the /v/ sound

Touch your top teeth against the

middle of your lower lip.

https://youtu.be/1c5uCQz--yA

23
 Inductive Instruction
1. T – Are your lips rounded when you when you pronounce
the /v/ in “vine”?
SS: NO

2. T – Do your front teeth rest on your bottom lip when you

pronounce /w/ in “wine”?
SS: NO

3. T - Are your lips rounded when you when you pronounce /w/
in “wine”?
SS: YES

4. T - Do your front teeth rest on your bottom lip when you

pronounce /v/ in “vine”?
SS: YES

Conclusions:
5. T - When you pronounce /w/ in ‘wine’, you round your lips
_______________. (together)
Try to elicit the correct answer from SS, if no one has the correct
answer – tell them ‘together’.

6. T – When you pronounce /v/ in ‘vine’, it is with your front

teeth resting on your __________ (bottom) lip.

Try to elicit the correct answer from SS, if no one has the correct
answer – tell them ‘bottom lip’.

24
 Recognition Practice

T – SS Tell me if the sounds you hear are the same

or different (say the following pairs of words)

wine – vine (point to the pictures) SS: different

vine – vine (point to the picture) SS: same

very – wary (move around the room) S1:

verse - verse S2:

vow – wow S3:

vivid – vivid S4:

vest – west S5:

voice – voice S6:

wary – wary S7:

wine – wine S8:

vase – vase S9:

wow – vow S10:

25
 Sentence Practice Pair work
T – instruct students to work in pairs and take turns being
student 1 and student 2

Student 1 Student 2
(chooses one)
1. We went to the movies. The movie was long.
She’s very pretty. She is attractive.

2. His vest matches his suit. It protects the floor.

He needs a mat by the sink. He has homework.

3. She is weary. She is Joe’s wife.

She is married to Joe. She is tired.

4. California is on the west coast. Wings help birds fly.

Birds have wings. Where is California?

5. He went on vacation. He needed a break

from work.
She loved the beautiful view. She was on top of
the mountain.

6. He voted for the first time. It was election day.

The nurse took his vitals. He went to the
hospital.

26
 Opposite Drills
T – When I say “vine”, you say “wine”,
If I say “wine” you say “vine”

1. wine SS – (vine)

2. vine SS – (wine)

3. wow SS – (vow)

4. verse SS – (worse)

5. west SS – (vest)

6. wane SS – (vane)

7. vary SS – (wary)

8. vow SS – (wow)

9. worse SS – (verse)

10. vane SS – (wane)

27
 Repetition drills of sentences and
phrases

T – Repeat after me

1. Your wife is very vital to our organization.

2. I voted for the first time yesterday.

3. The weather is worse in the west.

4. Wow, I need a vacation.

5. I am wary of big dogs.

6. My cold is much worse.

7. Yosemite has beautiful views.

8. I want to visit my very sick grandmother.

28
 Correcting Sentences Practice
T - I am going to say some sentences, if you hear a
mistake say the correct word or phrase.

1. Grapes grow on wines. SS – vines

2. He woted for Obama. SS – voted

3. I am wary hungry. SS – (very)

4. Blood flows in our wanes SS – (veins)

5. I took a wow when I married him. SS – (vow)

6. She prays every day. She has fate. SS - (faith)

7. California is on vest coast. SS – (west)

8. He drinks red vine every night. SS – (wine)

29
 Practice in Dialogue Pair work
T – instruct students to work in pairs and take turns being
each person.

Wally: Are you going to the wine and cheese

party tonight?

Vicki: I don’t know. When are you leaving?

Wally: My wife and I are leaving around 6.

Vicki: Oh, that’s too soon. I’m not sure I’m

going.

Wally: Why not?

Vicki: My cold is worse. I feel terrible.

Wally: I’m sorry to hear that. My mother says

a little wine can help a sore throat.

Vicki: Wow! Thanks for the very good advice.

30
 Sentence Practice
Student 1 Student 2
(chooses one)
1. We went to the movies. The movie was long.
She’s very pretty. She is attractive.

2. His vest matches his suit. It protects the floor.

He needs a mat by the sink. He has homework.

3. She is weary. She is tired.

She is married to Joe. She is Joe’s wife.

4. California is on the west coast. Where is California?

Birds have wings. Wings help birds fly.

5. He went on vacation. He needed a break

from work.
She loved the beautiful view. She was on top of
the mountain.

6. He voted for the first time. It was election day.

The nurse took his vitals. He went to the
hospital.

31
 Practice in Dialogue

Wally: Are you going to the wine and cheese

party tonight?

Vicki: I don’t know. When are you leaving?

Wally: My wife and I are leaving around 6.

Vicki: Oh, that’s too soon. I’m not sure I’m

going.

Wally: Why not?

Vicki: My cold is worse. I feel terrible.

Wally: I’m sorry to hear that. My mother says

a little wine can help a sore throat.

Vicki: Wow! Thanks for the very good advice.

32
 Unit 3
/iy/ vs. /I/

beans

bins

33
 Introduction
/iy/

beans
T-repeat after me
1. leave
2. mean
3. green
4. eat
5. team

34
 Making the /iy/ sound

Your lips are wide

https://youtu.be/sTeVQNHYnwE

35
 /I/

bins
T-repeat after me
1. wins
2. ship
3. thin
4. minute
5. chin
6. live
7. middle

36
 Making the /I/ sound

Smaller mouth, relaxed lips.

https://youtu.be/EaGqov3_aZI

37
 Inductive Instruction
1. T – Are your lips rounded when you when you
pronounce /iy/ in “beans”?
SS: NO

2. T – Do you make your mouth wide when you

pronounce /I/ in “bins”?
SS: NO

3. T - Are your lips wide when you when you pronounce

/iy/ in “beans”?
SS: YES

4. T – Is your mouth small and lips relaxed when you

pronounce /I/ in “bins”?
SS: YES

Conclusions:
5. T - When you pronounce /iy/ in ‘beans’, your lips
are_______________. (wide)
Try to elicit the correct answer from SS, if no one has the correct
answer – tell them ‘wide’.

6. T – When you pronounce /I/ in ‘bins’ your mouth is

small and your lips are __________ (relaxed).

Try to elicit the correct answer from SS, if no one has the correct
answer – tell them ‘relaxed’.

38
 Recognition Practice

T – SS Tell me if the sounds you hear are the same

or different ( T - says the following pairs of words)

beans – bins (points to the pictures) SS: different

bin – bin (points to the picture) SS: same

feet – fit (moves around the room) S1:

heel - hill S2:

grin – green S3:

leave – live S4:

ship – sheep S5:

eat – it S6:

seen – seen S7:

heal – heel S8:

green – green S9:

sin – seen S10:

39
 Sentence Practice Pair work
T – instruct students to work in pairs and take turns being
student 1 and student 2

Student 1 Student 2
(chooses one)

1. I hurt my heel. It’s a big boat.

Describe a ship. I am injured.

2. I put the garbage in the bin. Where’s the trash?

What’s your favorite color? I love the color green.

3. Lying is a sin. She is happy.

She grins a lot. Lying is bad.

4. Where does wool come from? Wool comes from

sheep.
I like to eat it. Rice and beans.

5. He didn’t want to be here. He wanted to leave.

Where does she live? She lives in the green
house.

40
 Opposite Drills
T – When I say “beans”, you say “bins”,
If I say “bins” you say “beans”

grin SS – (green)

bins SS – (beans)

leave SS – (live)

sin SS – (seen)

eat SS – (it)

heel SS – (hill)

sheep SS – (ship)

fit SS – (feet)

it SS – (eat)

hill SS – (heal)

ship SS – (sheep)

live SS – (leave)

41
 Repetition drills of sentences and
phrases

T – Repeat after me

1. Green is our team’s color.

2. We have three different garbage bins.

3. She isn’t nice, she is mean.

4. I hurt my heel while I was dancing.

5. He runs every day. He is fit.

6. I eat green vegetables at dinner.

7. She grins when she wins.

8. I live in the green house.

42
 Correcting Sentences Practice

T : I am going to say some sentences, if you hear a

mistake say the correct word or phrase.

1. I sailed on a sheep last year. SS – ship

2. He eats very little, he is tin. SS – thin

3. My favorite color is grin? SS – (green)

4. She was last sin at the market SS – (seen)

5. I leave in an apartment. SS – (live)

6. Wool comes from ships. SS - (sheep)

7. He put the garbage in the beans. SS – (bins)

43
 Practice in Dialogue Pair work
T – instruct students to work in pairs and take turns being
each person.

Kate: Hi Dean! What are you cooking?

Dean: Rice and beans. Do you want eat some

with me?

Kate: I don’t know. I see green things in the pot.

Dean: No, you’re being mean. It’s just cilantro.

Kate: Sorry. Sure, I will have some before I

leave for my tennis match.

Dean: Great. These rice and beans will give you

the strength to win!

Kate: Thanks. I hope I win too.

44
 Sentence Practice
Student 1 Student 2
(chooses one)

1. I hurt my heel. It’s a big boat.

Describe a ship. I am injured.

2. I put the garbage in the bin. Where’s the trash?

What’s your favorite color? I love the color green.

3. Lying is a sin. She is happy.

She grins a lot. Lying is bad.

4. Where does wool come from? Wool comes from

sheep.
I like to eat it. Rice and beans.

5. He didn’t want to be here. He wanted to leave.

Where does she live? She lives in the green
house.

45
 Practice in Dialogue

Kate: Hi Dean! What are you cooking?

Dean: Rice and beans. Do you want eat some

with me?

Kate: I don’t know. I see green things in the pot.

Dean: No, you’re being mean. It’s just cilantro.

Kate: Sorry. Sure, I will have some before I

leave for my tennis match.

Dean: Great. These rice and beans will give you

the strength to win!

Kate: Thanks. I hope I win too.

46