UNIVERSITY OF GHANA COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES ACQUISITION OF ENGLISH SYLLABLE STRUCTURE THROUGH EXPLICIT TEACHING AMONG HAUSA SPEAKERS BY MOHAMMED SADAT (10328156) THIS THESIS IS SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE AWARD OF DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN TEACHING ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS MARCH 2019 i DECLARATION I hereby declare that apart from the quotation and the references to other works which have been duly acknowledged, this dissertation is the result of my own research, and that it has neither in whole nor in part been presented for any degree elsewhere. Mohammed Sadat (Candidate) Sign;…………………………… Date: 1st October, 2020 Dr. George Akanlig-Pare (Supervisor) Sign…………………………… Date: 6th October, 20220 Professor. Thomas J. Conners (Supervisor) Sign:…………………………… Date: 2nd October, 2020 Dr. John T. Agor (Supervisor) Sign:……………………… Date: 2nd October, 2020 ii ABSTRACT The debate between the effectiveness of explicit and implicit teaching has taken a center stage in the second language acquisition literature over a long period of time. Most of such debates center on grammar teaching and very few discuss suprasegmental features especially, syllable structure. All languages have some sort of syllabicity; however, the phonetic characteristics of syllables differ across languages. The difference can be seen in the types of sounds that can cluster together around a single syllabic nucleus. The current work examines the effects of explicit instruction on the acquisition of English syllable structure among native Hausa speakers. The work investigates the efficiency of interventions through explicit teaching on the English syllable structure in a classroom setting. English syllables have some structures that are absent in Hausa and these structures pose some difficulties for Hausa speakers who learn English. This work explores the structures and adopts explicit instruction as an intervention to remedy the difficulties through explicit teaching. The investigation was done on participants who are Ghanaian Hausa speakers learning English. Generally, the work adds to the literature on the efficacy of explicit teaching, and specifically on the teaching of English syllable structure among Hausa speakers. Finally, the work investigates some of the constraints that learners and teachers are faced with in Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL) and offers suggestions for improving the teaching of English pronunciation to Hausa learners. The study discovers that in disyllabic word, there is preference of trochaic syllable over iambic syllable, acquisition of onsets is easier than acquisition of codas and finally, explicit teaching is very effective in classroom. iii DEDICATION To my family, for patiently enduring and persevering during my long absence from home in my quest for knowledge and wisdom. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Glory and praise to Almighty God for His mercy, blessing, protection, sustenance, and guidance during the graduate program and always. My sincere thanks go to my supervisors: Dr. George Akanlig-Pare, Professor. Thomas J. Conners and Dr. John T. Agor for their great assistance. This work would not have come to completion without your ardent scholastic advice. I enjoyed working with you and may God richly bless you and your families. I also give special thanks to my wonderful parents for their support and advice. My profound appreciation goes to my siblings for their support and encouragement. Very unique thanks to my wife for her moral and psychological support. I express a very unique appreciation to US Navy for partly sponsoring this work under Nicop Lorelei Project. I also thank BANGA-Africa Project for their financial support at the final stage. I am equally thankful to all whose names have not been mentioned especially, my course mates who have been helpful in diverse ways to make this difficult task a success. v TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION ................................................................................................ i ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................... ii DEDICATION ................................................................................................. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................ iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................... v LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................. x LIST OF GRAPHS ........................................................................................... xi LIST OF RESPONSES .................................................................................... xii LIST OF DIAGRAMS ................................................................................... xiii CHAPTER ONE ................................................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 1.0 Background ......................................................................................... 1 1.1 Ghanaian English ................................................................................ 6 1.2. Phonology of Ghanaian English .......................................................... 8 1.2.1 Vowels of Ghanaian English ....................................................... 9 1.2.2. Consonants ................................................................................. 11 1.3. The morphological and the syntactic level. ....................................... 12 1.4. Lexico-semantic feature .................................................................... 13 1.4.1 Semantic extension .................................................................... 14 1.4.2. Semantic shift ............................................................................. 15 1.4.3 Semantic restriction ................................................................... 15 1.4.4 Coinage ...................................................................................... 16 1.5. Ghanaian Hausa ................................................................................. 17 1.6 Statement of the Problem .................................................................. 19 1.7 Objectives .............................................................................................. 20 1.8 Contribution to Knowledge .................................................................... 21 1.9 Structure of the thesis ............................................................................. 21 CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................. 23 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................ 23 2.0 Introduction ....................................................................................... 23 2.1 An Overview of Teaching Models .................................................... 23 2.1.1 English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) ............................................. 23 2.1.2 Lingua Franca Core (LFC) .............................................................. 26 2.2 Why teachers neglect the teaching of pronunciation. ............................ 31 2.3 Reasons for Teaching Pronunciation ..................................................... 34 vi 2.4 Factors influencing acquisition of pronunciation .................................. 36 2.4.1. Motivation ...................................................................................... 37 2.4.2 Age ............................................................................................. 39 2.4.3 Exposure .................................................................................... 42 2.4.4. Affect ......................................................................................... 44 2.5 Special time for teaching pronunciation ................................................ 45 2.5.1. Aspect of pronunciation needed ................................................. 46 2.6. Syllable .............................................................................................. 49 2.7. Stress. ................................................................................................ 55 2.8. Teaching pronunciation to adult English language learner. .......... 58 2.9. Pronunciation difficulties of Ghanaian Hausa Speakers ................... 62 2.10. Conclusion .......................................................................................... 66 CHAPTER THREE ......................................................................................... 67 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY ......................... 67 3.0. Introduction ........................................................................................... 67 3.1 Contrastive Analysis ......................................................................... 67 3.1.1 Structuralist. ............................................................................... 69 3.1.2. Behaviourist ................................................................................... 70 3.1.3 Pedagogical implication of Contrastive Analysis. ..................... 72 3.2 Teachability Theory .......................................................................... 73 3.2.1. Teachability of pronunciation. ................................................... 78 3.3. Noticing Hypothesis .............................................................................. 80 3.3.1 Challenges of Noticing Hypothesis ................................................ 83 3.3.2 Learner characteristics and the role of individual in noticing ......... 83 3.4 Explicit teaching. ................................................................................... 88 3.5 Methodology .......................................................................................... 90 3.5.1. Participants ..................................................................................... 91 3.5.2. Procedure ....................................................................................... 93 3.5.3 Observation ..................................................................................... 95 3.5.4. Pre-intervention .......................................................................... 95 3.5.5. Intervention .................................................................................... 96 3.5.6. Post Intervention ............................................................................ 96 3.6. The approach ..................................................................................... 97 3.6.1. Things I considered ........................................................................ 99 3.6.2. Perception training ....................................................................... 100 3.6.3. Production training ....................................................................... 102 3.7. Conclusion .......................................................................................... 104 vii CHAPTER FOUR .......................................................................................... 105 SEGMENTAL ANALYSIS........................................................................... 105 4.0 Introduction ..................................................................................... 105 4.1 Vowel quality. ................................................................................. 108 4.1.1 Treatment: vowel quality /ɪ/ and /i:/ .............................................. 109 4.1.2. Treatment: vowel quality /æ/ and /ɑː/ .......................................... 111 4.1.3 Treatment: vowel quality /ɒ/ and /ɔː/ ....................................... 112 4.1.4 Treatment: vowels quality /ʊ/ and / u:/ .................................... 113 4.1.5 Treatment: vowel quality /e/ and 3:/ ........................................ 114 4.1.6 Treatment: Schwa vowel / ǝ / ................................................... 115 4.1.7 Treatment: diphthongs .................................................................. 116 4.2 Discrimination Training .................................................................. 118 4.2.1. Activity: Contrasting two sounds that are similar ........................ 118 4.2.2 Sound Identification ................................................................. 119 4.2.3 Identification of epenthetic vowels .......................................... 120 4.3. Consonants .......................................................................................... 123 4.3.1 Treatment of dental sounds /θ and ð/ ............................................ 124 4.3.2 Treatment of silent sounds ............................................................ 128 4.4 Conclusion ....................................................................................... 132 CHAPTER FIVE ........................................................................................... 134 SUPRASEGMENTAL ANALYSIS .............................................................. 134 5.0 Introduction .......................................................................................... 134 5.1 Dealing with complexity of English syllables. ................................ 134 5.1.1 The complexity of English syllables faced by the participants 135 5.2 Syllabification. ..................................................................................... 137 5.2.1. Activity on syllabification ............................................................ 138 5.2.2 Word stress .................................................................................... 140 5.2.3. Monosyllabic words ..................................................................... 146 5.2.4 Disyllabic words ........................................................................... 149 5.3. Investigating the sound of an unstressed syllable. .............................. 152 5.3.1. Treatment ..................................................................................... 153 5.4. Stress Matters ...................................................................................... 153 5.4.1. Free style Activity ........................................................................ 154 5.5. Distinguishing between trochaic and iambic ...................................... 155 5.5.1. Activities ...................................................................................... 155 5.5.2. Measurement. ............................................................................... 156 5.6 Intervention: polysyllabic words. ......................................................... 156 5.6.1. Unguided activity: stress pattern .................................................. 158 viii 5.6.2 Measurement ................................................................................. 159 5.7 Derivational prefix ............................................................................... 159 5.7.1. Activity ........................................................................................ 160 5.7.2 Measurement ................................................................................. 160 5.8 Dealing with the dropping of consonant phoneme in a cluster ............ 161 5.9 Conclusion ........................................................................................... 162 CHAPTER SIX .............................................................................................. 164 ACQUISITION OF SYLLABLE BOUNDARIES ....................................... 164 6.0 Introduction ..................................................................................... 164 6.1 Arguments on acquisition of syllable boundaries ................................ 165 6.2 Resolving difficulties in syllable margin constraint ............................ 166 6.2.1 Activity 1: Identification of syllable boundaries using dot ........... 167 6.2.2 Activity 2: Identification of syllable boundaries using C & V ..... 169 6.2.3 Activity 3: Naming the parts of syllable ....................................... 171 6.2.4Activity: hierarchical analysis ........................................................ 173 6.3 Syllable margins controversy ............................................................... 175 6.3.1 Activity 5: pronunciation of ‘extra” .............................................. 176 6.4 Activity: Treating interdentals in syllable margins .............................. 177 6.5 Activities: 6 Margin categories ............................................................ 179 6.6. Conclusion .......................................................................................... 181 CHAPTER SEVEN ....................................................................................... 183 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 183 7.0 Introduction .......................................................................................... 183 7.1 Summary of the major findings ........................................................... 189 7.2. Contribution to knowledge ................................................................. 191 7.3. Conclusion .......................................................................................... 191 7.4. Recommendation ................................................................................ 194 REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 197 APPENDIX .................................................................................................... 213 Lesson Plan 1 ............................................................................................. 213 Lesson Plan 2: ............................................................................................ 215 Lesson Plan 3 ............................................................................................. 216 Lesson Plan 4: ............................................................................................ 217 Lesson Plan 5: ............................................................................................ 218 Lesson Plan 6: ............................................................................................ 219 ix Lesson Plan 7 ............................................................................................. 220 Lesson Plan 8 ............................................................................................. 221 Lesson Plan 9 ............................................................................................. 222 Lesson Plan 10 ........................................................................................... 223 Lesson Plan 11 ........................................................................................... 224 Lesson Plan 12 ........................................................................................... 226 Lesson Plan 13 ........................................................................................... 227 Lesson Plan 14 ........................................................................................... 228 Lesson Plan 15 ........................................................................................... 229 Lesson Plan 16 ........................................................................................... 230 Lesson Plan 17 ........................................................................................... 231 Lesson Plan 18 ........................................................................................... 232 Lesson plan 19 ........................................................................................... 233 Lesson plan 20 ........................................................................................... 234 Lesson plan 21 ........................................................................................... 235 Lesson plan 22 ........................................................................................... 236 Lesson plan 23 ........................................................................................... 237 Lesson plan 24 ........................................................................................... 238 Lesson plan 25 ........................................................................................... 239 Lesson plan 26 ........................................................................................... 240 Lesson plan 27 ........................................................................................... 241 Lesson plan 28 ........................................................................................... 242 Lesson plan 30 ........................................................................................... 244 Lesson plan 31 ........................................................................................... 245 Lesson plan 32: .......................................................................................... 246 Lesson plan: 33 .......................................................................................... 248 Lesson Plan: 34 .......................................................................................... 249 Responses ................................................................................................... 252 x LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1: Semantic extension ......................................................................... 14 Table 1.2: Semantic shift ................................................................................. 15 Table 1.3: Semantic restriction ........................................................................ 15 Table 1.4: Coinage ........................................................................................... 16 Table 2. 1: Syllable structure of other languages ............................................. 53 Table 4.1. performance on diphthongs .......................................................... 117 Table 4.2: performance of participants 2 on epenthetic vowel ...................... 121 Table 4. 3: Consonant chart .......................................................................... 124 Table 4.4: Interdentals ................................................................................... 126 Table 4.5silent sounds Results: ...................................................................... 130 Table 4.6: Minimal pair ................................................................................. 131 Table 5.1: Syllabification work sheet ............................................................ 138 Table 5.2: Guide exercise on Sentence stress ................................................ 144 Table 5. 3: words in isolation and words in sentence .................................... 145 Table 5. 4: Self-practice Results .................................................................... 149 Table 5.5: Disyllabic words. .......................................................................... 152 Table 5.6: Free style ....................................................................................... 154 Table 5.7: Unguided activity .......................................................................... 158 Table 5.8: stress pattern ................................................................................. 159 Table 5. 9: Derivational prefix ....................................................................... 160 Table 5.10: dropping of consonant phoneme ................................................. 161 Table 6. 1: Syllable boundaries using dot before intervention ..................... 169 Table 6.2: Syllable boundaries using dot after intervention .......................... 169 Table 6.3: Syllable boundaries using C and V ............................................... 171 Table 6.4: Pronunciation of ‘extra ................................................................. 176 Table 6.5: Results of performance ................................................................. 177 Table 6.6: Interdental fricatives in syllable margins for P5 ......................... 178 Table 6.7: Margin categories ........................................................................ 181 xi LIST OF GRAPHS Graph 4.1: Performance on /ɪ/ and /i:/ ........................................................... 110 Graph 4. 2: æ and ɑː ....................................................................................... 111 Graph 4.3 : /ɒ/ and /ɔː/ ................................................................................... 112 Graph 4.4: / ʊ/ and / u:/ .................................................................................. 113 Graph 4.5: /e and 3ː/ ....................................................................................... 114 Graph 4.6. schwa vowel / ǝ / .......................................................................... 115 Graph 4. 7: Sounds Discrimination ................................................................ 119 Graph 4. 8: sound identification. .................................................................... 119 Graph 4. 9: epenthetic vowel in words ......................................................... 122 Graph 4. 10: epenthetic vowel in sentences .................................................. 122 Graph 4.11: Interdentals (cardinal and ordinal numbers) .............................. 127 Graph 4. 12: Dentals (words). ........................................................................ 128 Graph 4.13: Silent sounds .............................................................................. 130 Graph 4.14: Minimal pairs ............................................................................. 132 Graph 5.1: syllabification. .............................................................................. 139 Graph 5.2: Stress shift (words in isolation) ................................................... 142 Graph 5.3: syllable shift in sentences. ........................................................... 145 Graph 5.4: Contrastive stress ......................................................................... 147 Graph 5. 5: Self-practice ................................................................................ 149 Graph 5.6: disyllabic words ........................................................................... 152 Graph 5.7: trochaic and iambic ...................................................................... 156 Graph 5.8: Polysyllabic words ....................................................................... 158 Graph 5.9: Consonant dropping ..................................................................... 162 Graph 6.1: syllable boundaries (C &V) ......................................................... 171 Graph 6.2: Naming the parts of syllable ........................................................ 172 Graph 6.3. hierarchical analysis ..................................................................... 174 xii LIST OF RESPONSES Exercise 1: pre, post and delayed performances of participant 3: ................. 110 Exercise 2: Pre, post and delayed performances of participant 2. ................. 112 Exercise 3: pre, post and delayed performances of participant 10: ............... 113 Exercise 4: pre, post and delayed performances of participant 10: ............... 114 Exercise 5: pre, post and delayed performance of participant 9 .................... 139 Exercise 6: pre, post and the delayed performance of participant 5 ............. 143 Exercise 7: performance of participant 5 on sentence stre ............................ 144 Exercise 8: Performance of Participant 5 on contrastive stress ..................... 147 Exercise 9: responses of P.5 on strong and week syllables ......................... 156 Exercise 10: response of P.5 on Polysyllabic words. ..................................... 157 Exercise 11: response of P.5 on stress pattern ............................................... 159 Exercise 12: Response of P.5 on stress derivational prefix. ......................... 160 Exercise 13: response of P.5 Consonant dropping ......................................... 162 Exercise 14: response of P.5 on syllable boundaries using dot……………168 Exercise 15: response of P.5 on syllable boundaries using C and V. ........... 170 Exercise 16: response of P.5 on Naming of syllable constituents. ................ 172 Exercise 17: response of P.5 on hierarchical analysis ................................... 174 Exercise 18: response of P.5 on margin category .......................................... 181 xiii LIST OF DIAGRAMS Diagram 1: Syllabus structure .......................................................................... 51 Diagram 2: vowel chart .................................................................................. 107 Diagram 3: position of diphthongs ................................................................ 116 Diagram 4: speech organs .............................................................................. 125 Diagram 5: The complexity syllable structure .............................................. 135 1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.0 Background Languages have a number of prosodic features such as syllable, stress, intonation, and pitch. In all these prosodic features, the syllable is one of the most obvious prosodic features in a language. A syllable is a unit that can be found in all languages and both first and second language speakers can access it. It is obvious that all languages have some kind of syllabicity but the features differ from one language to another. The features largely depend on the sound type that can cluster around a single sonorant peak. The cluster of sounds around a single sonorant peak are the consonants. A syllable in every language has definite rules about the specific onset and coda. Some languages operate open syllables in their sound systems. The syllables in these languages always end in a vowel but not a consonant. On the other hand, other languages operate closed syllables where a syllable must end in a consonant. Interestingly, in the mix of all these preferences, some languages allow a variety of syllabic structures. English is an example: a syllable may contain only a vowel, or consonant cluster + vowel + consonant cluster. The most extreme examples are fourths, fifths, strengths, streams, glimpsed. The structure of the syllable in Hausa is different from that of English. For example, Hausa does not operate consonant clusters but English does. Also, open syllable is permissible by the phonological rules of Hausa. (Sadat, 2016). 2 English is used by a number of countries as a second language for many years. It is the official language of many countries in the world, including Ghana. English as a Second Language (ESL) exhibits some levels of innovations by the second language speakers which may not be known to the native English speakers. In Ghana, since the main source of acquisition is through the formal school system through teachers who are non-native speakers, the acquisition of target pronunciation is far from reached. A number of factors are identified as having different effects on the perceived status of pronunciation: language learning purpose, language context, learners’ age, and first language (L1). Geographically, English has always had its regional pronunciations. It is therefore to be expected in Ghana that English speakers would have peculiar pronunciations depending on their language background. This is because we have many languages spoken by the people. In Ghana, the RP does not matter for Ghanaian English speakers. Ofori (2012) is of the view that Ghanaian English speakers do not give attention to the RP; the RP is only used as a reference point for measuring the pronunciation of Ghanaian English. Huber (2008:90) confirms that “an accent that sounds too British is usually frowned upon or even ridiculed”. The issue of nativization in relation to English has been given much attention in the literature. Nativization is considered as the modification of a language in relation to a socio-cultural context. Nativization occurs through language contact and language acquisition. Language contact has to do with the contact 3 of two or more languages as a result of their setting whereas language acquisition means the learning of a language in addition to the first language. In Ghanaian English, one can observe the local culture of Ghanaianism being reflected in the English, especially in pronunciation. This phenomenon of innovations in Ghanaian English is found at various levels of linguistic construction, namely: phonology, morphology, syntax, and lexicosemantic. Sey (1973) made mention of some words used in Ghanaian English to justify his position for nativization. His argument is that once the words used in Ghanaian English are English words, and yet their meaning are not known to the native speakers, that is enough to confirm the existence of non-native variety of English. For instance, Sey (1973:80) claims in the northern part of Ghana, traditional rulers sit on a skins of animals, so the use of the word ‘enskin’ to mean ‘installation of a chief’ is in order. Again, among the Akans, words like ‘enstool’ and ‘destool’ are used for both enthrone and dethrone a traditional ruler respectively. Sey (1973) added that coinages such as ‘bush meat’ (game), ‘gate fee’ (entrance fee), ‘stinking fish’ etc. are all words peculiar to speakers of non-native varieties, specifically Ghanaian English and are borne out of nativization. These words are clearly not found in the repertoire of the native speakers and there would not be any appropriate words that will fit exactly the concepts Ghanaians want to express. Dako (2001:107) describes Ghanaian English as “a mode of speaking English that is recognized by the geographic territory Ghana and can therefore be 4 identified as Ghanaian”. Adika (2012) mentions that English in Ghana, as an outer circle phenomenon, has gone through the level of adaptation and innovation over the years at all the linguistic levels, including vocabulary, idiomatic usage, and pronunciation. English in Ghana is considered as a second language and it is very clear that most Ghanaians who use English use it as their second language. Since these people are from different ethnic backgrounds, it is expected that their English will display some levels of innovation, deviation or interference based on their ethnic background. These interferences are bound to occur at all levels. Generally, in these kinds of situations, the second language acquisition may be characterized by simplification, overgeneralization and transfer which may not be known to a native speaker. Gӧrlach (1988) argues that that the most effective test to identify a speaker is pronunciation. Dolphyne (1995:31) has this say on recognition of Ghanaian English; “When one considers the spoken language, it is clear that there is a distinct accent that can be identified as Ghanaian English, one can tell, from their spoken English on radio without knowing who the speakers are, that one of them must be Ghanaian”. The unique feature about Ghanaian English is seen more in the spoken English. Huber (2008:90) concludes that “Ghanaianness is expressed in spoken English more than any other area of English use”. My considerable experience as a trained teacher reveals that some teachers ignore teaching pronunciation, especially at the primary and junior high levels in Ghana because they have never had any training in pronunciation and secondly, pronunciation is not examinable at those levels. 5 Studies evaluating phonological interference usually investigate the interferences in terms of phonological features of languages that are closely related. Even with those studies that investigated language specific interferences, just a few have looked at the impact of the phonological differences on instruction in an explicit classroom setting. Again, with works that have studied phonological differences in a classroom setting, none have considered English and Ghanaian Hausa. Therefore, this current study is unique because it discusses the influence of Ghanaian Hausa on Ghanaian English pronunciation in a classroom setting. More importantly, the study will add to the literature on the linguistic interferences of Hausa on English in Ghana. Again, the study discusses the difficulties in the pronunciation of English syllable structure among Hausa speakers and identifies those suprasegmental features that can be remedied through explicit teaching. Hausa learners display a set of unique characteristics in pronunciation of English syllables, and the aim of this study is to see which of these can be remedied through explicit teaching. Cunningham (2013) establishes that if we are aware of what kinds of phonetic features are learnable and teachable, these features can then be targeted and that will lead to efficient teaching. Finally, the work will investigate some of the constraints that the learners and teachers are faced with in Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL) and to make some suggestions for ways of improving the teaching of English pronunciation to Hausa students. 6 1.1 Ghanaian English Since Ghanaians are from different ethnic backgrounds, it is expected that their English will display some level of innovations, deviations or interferences based on their ethnic backgrounds. These interferences are bound to occur at levels of language. Generally, in these kinds of situations, the second language acquisition may be characterized by simplification, overgeneralization and transfer which may not be known by a native speaker. In other words, there may be traces of LI transfer in the second language acquisition. Crystal (2008) explains transfer as the influence of a person’s first language on the second language. In Ghanaian English, the transfer that is conspicuous in relation to the sound system is the substitution of both voiceless and voiced alveolar stop /t/ and /d/ for the dental fricatives / θ/ and /ð/ respectively. This occurs in the pronunciation of the ‘th’ sound in words like ‘thank’, ‘think’, ‘this’ etc. The transfer occurs because the local languages do not have the dental sounds in their consonant inventories. The speakers therefore fall on the nearest available sound which are the voiced and voiceless alveolar stops /t/ and /d/. In speech therefore, it is very difficult for a listener to differentiate between the initial sounds in these morphemes: ‘tin’- ‘thing’, ‘tank’ – ‘thank’, ‘dose’- ‘those’, ‘dis’ – ‘this’. Ghanaian English has a unique pronunciation that is peculiar to Ghanaians. A Ghanaian can therefore be identified through pronunciation even when speaking on phone. As we are trying to make a case for Ghanaian English, we should 7 also recognize the fact that RP still stands out in terms of recognition among the world Englishes. Gimson (2001:8) opines that “Despite the discrepancy in numbers, RP continues for historical reasons to serve as a model in many parts of the world; if a model is used at all, the choice is still effectively between RP and General American. Most teaching textbooks describe one of these two types and, of the two, RP seems to be the more widely acceptable; certainly some form of British English is more generally referred to in Europe, in Africa, in the Indian Subcontinent, and increasingly in other parts of Asia and in South America”. Ghanaians are not particularly focusing on the RP because it is not heard on local television or radios. Secondly, the RP is hardly used in English examinations in schools. More importantly, people frown on others who deliberately sound foreign, since speaking like British is not the aim of the educated Ghanaian (Sey 1973; Saah 1986; and Dako, 2001). Huber (2008:90) also says “an accent that sounds too British is usually frowned upon or even ridiculed”. Quartey (2009: 5) confirmed that the RP is not the choice in Ghana “where RP cannot be effectively taught or examined because there are only a handful of people, if any at all, in the whole country, who can be said to use this accent. The teachers in the schools most definitely do not”. Ofori (2012: 10) added “RP does not play any major role now in Ghana except when used as a reference point for measuring the pronunciation of Ghanaian speakers of English”. 8 1.2. Phonology of Ghanaian English It is important to note that there are so many languages in Ghana, but these individual languages have a very minute individual effect on the generality of sound system of Ghanaian English. In a related development, Dako (2001) examines the speech of respondents from different ethnic backgrounds: Akan (Akuapem and Asante Twi), Ga, Ewe and Dagare. She finds out that there are features which are common to all Ghanaians irrespective of their native languages. The sound system of Ghanaian English exhibits forms that are uniquely different from the target language and these forms have been extensively dealt with in the literature (Sey 1973; Dako1991; Ahulu 1994; Asante 1996; Dako 2001; Koranteng 2006; Okyere 2013; Ofori 2012; Huber, 2008; etc.). For instance, Asante (1996) discusses features such as spelling pronunciation, syllable-timed rhythm, and substitution of alveolar stops for dental fricatives. The spelling is not much of a problem in Ghanaian English, only that some students mix the British spellings with that of American spellings. In the past, the West African Examination Council (WAEC), the body that is mandated to conduct examinations at the junior and senior high levels for all the Anglophone Countries in the West Africa, accepted only the British spellings, therefore, the body expected students to go strictly by the British spellings. However, the body has now accepted the American spellings as part of its requirements. Eventually, what WAEC does not want is the mixture of the two in an easy. Candidates are therefore advised to stick to one in writing their essays. 9 1.2.1 Vowels of Ghanaian English Koranteng (2006) describes the sound system and phonological features of Ghanaian English and, in her work, she tries to find the standard of English pronunciation in Ghana which can serve as a reference point for teachers and examiners. She wanted the speakers of Ghanaian English to have a standard which will be distinctly Ghanaian and acceptable to the Ghanaian as well as to other users of English elsewhere. Koranteng (2006:323- 326) describes the pure vowels of Ghanaian English into details by providing the environment in which the vowels occur. Below is the description: / i / as in ‘sit’ / e / as in ‘day¢ / ԑ / as in ‘pen, nurse, care, problem¢ / a / as in ‘cat, cart, about, one¢ / ɔ / as in ‘lot, more, result¢ / o / as in ‘go¢ / u / as in school, good, during.¢ Koranteng (2006: 327) added that while some consider / i: / and / ɪ / or / ʊ / and / u: / as free variants, others see them as separate phonemes. Huber (2008) also identifies 5 vowels [i,ɛ,a,ᴐ,u] in Ghanaian English . He added that “the half close /e/ and /o/ which results from the monophthongization of the British diphthong /eɪ/ and /ou/ are added, making it seven Ghanaian English monophthongs. Quartey (2009:51) also identified 5 pure vowels in Ghanaian English: /ᴐ:/ - / / --- as /ᴐ/ /u:/ and /ʊ/ --- as /u/ /ɑ: / and /ӕ/, /ʌ/ and /ǝ/ --- as /a/ 10 /ɜ:/ --- as /ɛ/ /i:/ and /ɪ/ realized as /i/ In the related study of the segmental features of spoken English in Ghana, Ofori (2012) suggests that the high front vowels / i / and / ɪ / should not be treated as one vowel as Koranteng (2006) suggests but they should rather be considered as two distinctive phonemes in Ghanaian English. He based his argument on the works of Dako (2001) and Adjaye (2005) who have the two vowels as separate phonemes in the vowel inventory. Again, Ofori (2012) argues that the high back vowels / u: / and / ʊ / should also be separated as two distinctive phonemes and not as free variants as discussed by the Koranteng (2006). Ofori (2012) argues that the long central vowel /ɜ:/ is part of the vowel inventory so it should not be left out in the discussions of the sound system of Ghanaian English as other researchers have done. I, however, do not agree with Ofori (2012) when he mentions that the way forward is for speakers to be educated on these vowel sounds, once a vowel exists in a language, speakers will produce it. It is up to researchers to identify the sounds and describe them for people to know that the sound actually exists in the language. According to Ofori (2012), the following 10 vowels are in the inventory of Ghanaian English: / i / ɪ / e / ԑ / a / ɔ / o / u / ʊ / ɜ/ Koranteng (2006) identifies six diphthongs in Ghanaian English: /aɪ ~ ai / as in find¢ /aʊ ~ au / as in now¢ /ɔɪ ~ ɔi / as in joy¢ 11 /ɪԑ ~ iԑ / as in year¢ / uə ~ ua / as in actual¢ / ɪɔ / as in sure.¢ Huber (2008:81) however argues that the diphthongs of Ghanaian English are not categorical because the same person may vary between monophthongs, slight diphthong or may retain the RP diphthong. Quartey (2009:51) agreed with Huber (2008) in relation to the diphthongs, Ghanaians vary in pronunciation of diphthongs. 1.2.2. Consonants Koranteng (2006) identifies twenty two consonants in Ghanaian English and says all the twenty two consonants in Ghanaian English are found in the target English except velar nasal /ŋ/ and voice postalveolar fricative /ʒ /. According to Koranteng (2006:332), the dentals (θ and ð) are phonemic in Ghanaian English but there is an alternation in their use as individuals switch to / t / and / d / in their place of articulation and this often happens unconsciously in rapid speech. Huber (2008:85) confirms that / θ / and /ð/ are often replaced by the alveolar plosives / t/ and /d/ or they are dropped all together in a word final position. Ofori (2012) did a good work by recognizing the existence of the voiced postalveolar fricative /ʒ/ which the other researchers failed to notice. He said even though, the sound may not be heard in words such as television or confusion, it exists in words like treasure, measure and pleasure. This is a sound that is missing in the consonant inventory of Koranteng (2006). Ofori (2012) confirmed that the preferred substitute for the voiceless dental fricative / θ / is the voiceless alveolar plosive /t/ while that of voiced dental fricative /ð/ is the voiced alveolar plosive /d/. 12 In relation to spelling pronunciation, Asante (1996) discusses that in Ghanaian English the final letters in the following words are pronounced in the speech: ‘tomb’, ‘comb’ and ‘sing’. She added that the glottal sound /h/ is heard in words such as ‘what’ and ‘when’. Again, Okyere (2013) identifies that consonantal variations in the realization of the affricates and the fricatives contribute to the unique pronunciations of Ghanaians. He said there is the tendency for Ghanaians to approximate the sounds and choose the one nearest to them, which happens to be /d/ for /ð/ and /t/ (or sometimes /f/) for /θ/. For instance, ‘thick’ [θɪk], ‘path’ [pӕθ], ‘they’ [ðeɪ] etc are usually realized as [tik], [pat] or [paf], and [dei] respectively. 1.3. The morphological and the syntactic level. Few works have been done on the structure of words in Ghanaian English (Sey, 1973; Asante, 1995). In these works, a distinction is made between inflectional and derivational affixes in Ghanaian English. With regard to derivational processes, a few observations have been made by Sey(1973). Sey makes mention of ‘enstool’ and ‘enskin’. These are terms commonly used in Ghanaian English to refer to the installation and dethronement of a traditional ruler from the Akan ethnic group and that of the Dagombas from the northern part of Ghana. The root of the words are nouns and a derivational morpheme en- has been added to it to form a verb. The reason for this transfer of culture in the adoption of these words indicates that the target English words cannot decode the meaning of kinship in Ghana with the use of such words as ‘enthrone’/’dethrone’. 13 Asante (1995) discusses the inflectional morpheme used in plural formation and argues that there seems to be overgeneralization of the plural morpheme in non- count contexts. Forms such as the following have been observed to occur in the written productions of educated Ghanaians as observed by (Asante 1995; Bokamba1982; Sey 1973, etc); ‘Equipments’, ‘luggages’, ‘machineries’, and ‘jewelleries’. A lot has been said at the level of syntax (Anderson, 2009; Sey 1973; Ahulu, 1994; Gyasi, 1990). Anderson (2009) identifies deviant usages such as: articles, relative pronoun, deviant adjectival use of the present participle, idioms and idiomatic expressions etc. For instance, it is observed the divergence in the use of articles, like ‘the’ and ‘a’. These articles are being interchanged in both speech and writings of some Ghanaians. According to Platt et al (1984), the interchanging of articles can be a phenomenon of transfer. Tingley (1981) confirmed the deviances concerning the use of articles, prepositions, phrasal verbs, mass nouns, concord and modal auxiliaries. 1.4. Lexico-semantic feature Language contact situation is one of the common linguistic phenomena that are responsible for the adaptation of vocabulary to new socio-cultural settings. Some of these devices are semantic restriction, coinages and borrowing, semantic extension, and semantic shift. Adika (2012:157) confirms that “Ghanaianisms have arisen mainly through coinages, and semantic processes involving semantic extension or restriction, or a combination of both, semantic transfer and semantic shift. In the related work, Quarcoo (1994) added that these 14 linguistic devices are new expressions created to convey indigenous ideas or experiences. These devices have great influence in the languages of the world and Ghanaian English is no exception. They help expand the number of words found in a language and this can be seen in the repertoire of the speakers in their interactions. In Ghanaian English, nativization of the lexicon has been discussed in a number of studies. (see Bokamba 1991; Kachru 1982; Sey 1973; etc). In the ensuing sub-sections, I provide a list of such cases and their sources. 1.4.1 Semantic extension According to Crystal (2008), extension is used in the classification of types of semantic change that refers to a widening of meaning in a lexical item as opposed to narrowing. He gave the example of ‘virtue’ in Latin which was a male quality which today applies to both sexes. Ghanaian English has many words whose meanings have been extended to cover additional events or phenomenon. These words have acquired semantic extensions and these extensions of meaning are not known in the target English. Some of the words are illustrated in the table 1.1 below: Table 1.1: Semantic extension Word Semantic extension in Ghanaian English Linguist spokesman for a chief. Artificial women’s wig”. Balance change (money) Colonial /Colo old fashion “herbalist” one with supernatural powers 15 1.4.2. Semantic shift Semantic shift happens when a lexical item gradually or suddenly moved from the use of one meaning to another. This process also increases the stock of vocabulary items in a language and the process renders the central meaning marginal. Table 1.2: Semantic shift Word Semantic shift in Ghanaian English Family a group of people descended from a common ancestor, kindred or lineage. Park a football field Mate a bus conductor 1.4.3 Semantic restriction According to Adika (2012), semantic restriction is a situation where the meaning of a word is constrained to a restricted environment within Target English semantic field. Table 1.3: Semantic restriction Word Semantic restriction in Ghanaian English Smock a tunic of coarse cotton traditionally worn by people from the northern part of Ghana Fitter restricted to a motor mechanic Guys for only men 16 1.4.4 Coinage Coinage, as a word-formation device, occurs when a new word is created either deliberately or accidentally to serve a purpose. Most of the coinages in Ghanaian English are compound words. Table 1. 4: Coinage Word Target meaning Sources bush meat Game Sey (1973) chewing stick/sponge a kind of twig used for cleaning the teeth Sey (1973) gate fee entrance fee Sey (1973) coal pot a kind of brazier, with an upper and lower chamber separated by a grate, in which charcoal is lighted for cooking Sey (1973) stinking fish fish specially treated in brine and used for seasoning soups and stew Sey (1973) chop bar Restaurant Dako (2003) chop box A wooden box for students in the bearding house Dako (2003) Outdooring Christening Dako (2003) Small room Toilet Adika (2012) enstool/destool Enthrone Dako (2003) Enskin Enthrone Dako (2003) 17 It is very clear at this stage that English spoken in Ghana is somehow distinct from the Target English. This difference is largely seen in spoken than in written English. Nevertheless, it is intelligible to a native speaker and it hardly affects comprehension and meaning. 1.5. Ghanaian Hausa According to Dakubu (1996), there are 50 indigenous languages in Ghana. Apart from English as the official language, she considered the following languages as the major ones: Ga, Dagaare, Akan, Dagbani and Ewe. Yankah (2006) added that a language like Hausa, even though considered as non- Ghanaian, it is the lingua franca among the zongo habitants, and in northern Ghana. Also, Arabic, which is learnt in Islamic schools across Ghana but mainly used for religious purposes. The Hausa community in Accra dates from the middle of the nineteenth century, (Dakubu 1997). Dakubu (1997:14) also attributes the use of Hausa as a lingua franca in Ghana to partly the extensive trading activities by the Hausa and partly to the British in colonial times. Sadat (2011) confirms that Hausa came into Ghana via trade and military activities during the colonial era and it has still remained one of the major lingua francas in the trading sector. Huber (1999:137) established the fact that Hausa is widely spoken as a second language in Ghana, but it is hard to estimate the number of its first and second language speakers. According to Huber (1999), in the immigrant quarters of the urban centres, up to 70-80% have some level of proficiency in the language. 18 There is not much documentation on Ghanaian Hausa especially, on the sound system. Tijani (2008) attributes this to the fact that the language is not identifiable with a particular geographical location as do the other native language. The first major work on Ghanaian Hausa was done by Dakubu (1977) where she discussed some peculiarities of Ghanaian Hausa as against Nigerian Hausa. Sadat (2011) also identifies some phonological and morphological features of Ghanaian Hausa. He identifies 7 vowels, 3 diphthongs and 20 consonants in Ghanaian Hausa. Since this current work discusses the sound system of both Ghanaian English and Hausa, it is prudent the sound systems are put together for easy clarification. The table below contains the sounds of Ghanaian English and Ghanaian Hausa. Table 1. 5: IPA, Ghanaian English and Ghanaian Hausa. IPA Gh.E Gh.H IPA GhE GhH IPA GhE GhH /p/ /p/ /p/ /θ/ /t/ /t/ /a/ /a/ /a/ /b/ /b/ /b/ /ð/ /d/ /d/ / ɑ/ /ᴐ/ /o/ /t/ /t/ /t/ /ʃ/ /ʃ/ /ʃ/ /ӕ/ /a/ /a/ /d/ /d/ /d/ /ʒ/ /-/ /-/ /ʌ/ /a/ /a/ /k/ /k/ /k/ /r/ /r/ /r/ /ǝ/ /a/ /a/ /g/ /g/ /g/ /l/ /l/ /l/ /e/ /e/ /e/ /f/ /f/ /f/ /w/ /w/ /w/ /ᴐ/ /ᴐ/ /o/ /v/ /v/ /-/ /ɾ/ /-/ /-/ /ɜ/ /ɜ/ /e/ /s/ /s/ /s/ /j/ /j/ /j/ /u/ /u/ /u/ /z/ /z/ /z/ /ɸ/ /f/ /-/ /u/ /u/ /u/ /m/ /m/ /m/ /β/ /v/ /-/ /i/ /i/ /i/ /n/ /n/ /n/ /tʃ/ /tʃ/ /tʃ/ /ɪ/ /i/ /ɪ/ /ŋ/ /-/ /ŋ/ /dʒ/ /dʒ/ /dʒ/ /h/ /h/ /h/ Cross-linguistically, the unmarked sounds are usually more common in a language than the marked ones. Therefore, it is expected that the sounds that are common in one’s first language would be easier to produce in a second 19 language. According to Eckman (1977), the Markedness Differential Hypothesis explains how the unmarked forms are common in languages of the world. Gass and Selinker (2008:180) predict that “a speaker of a language with more marked forms in the NL structure than that which occurs in the TL structure will have easier time learning the TL structure than a speaker whose NL is less marked than the TL”. It is therefore important to acknowledge the role played by transfer in the SLA, because our L1 forms the basis of our thought. It is in this direction that Gass and Selinker (2008) mention the importance of Contrastive Analysis and that it could not be abandoned in phonological analysis. 1.6 Statement of the Problem Segmental and suprasemental dissimilarities between English and Hausa are enormous. These differences pose challenges for Ghanaian Hausa speakers learning English as well as teachers who teach English to native Hausa speakers. A comparison of the phonology of Ghanaian English and Ghanaian Hausa shows that each of them has unique features of pronunciation. The English sound inventory has sounds that are absent in Hausa. Some of these sounds are the dental fricatives /θ and ð/, the central vowels /3:, ʌ, ǝ/, the voiced labiodental fricative /v/ and the voiced palato-alveolar fricative /Ʒ/. As a result of this, Ghanaian Hausa learners find it challenging to pronounce these sounds. It is therefore normal for speakers to substitute those sounds with similar ones in their L1. The challenges may arise because of the L1 interference. Again, Ghanaian Hausa operates an open syllable and speakers normally add an 20 epenthetic vowel to English syllables that end with a consonant. Also, Hausa does not accept consonant clusters. Ghanaian Hausa does not have ‘silent letters’. The speakers pronounce every letter in a word. Unlike English where we have some letters (eg. bomb, dumb, muscle, Wednesday, vegetable, honest, calm, listen) in a word but we do not pronounce them, Ghanaian Hausa speakers pronounce every letter of a word. Again, stress plays a very significant role in English. Unlike Hausa, English allows that one syllable is stressed more than others in each word. Wrong use of stress will therefore lead to unintelligibility. In other words, a change in the stress pattern of a word may change some of its sounds and eventually its word class and meaning. For instance, the word ‘import’ has the stress on the first syllable when it is a noun, and on the second when it is a verb. These and many more features will be examined and explicit teaching will be applied in order to remedy the challenges they pose to the Hausa learner. 1.7 Objectives The main objective of this work is to investigate the acquisition of English syllable structure through explicit teaching. To achieve this objective, this study aims to answer the following research questions: 1. What are the English syllable structure types that pose difficulties to a Hausa learner of English? 21 2. Can a Hausa learner acquire all the English syllable structure types in a classroom? 3. Is explicit teaching effective in the acquisition of the syllable structure of a second language? 4. Can intervention help solve the pronunciation difficulties that Hausa learners encounter in the learning of the syllable structure of English? 1.8 Contribution to Knowledge The study identifies the features of English syllables that pose difficulties to a Hausa learner of English and identify those that are learnable and teachable to Hausa learners of English. It is also hoped that the study will help teachers to take note of the teaching methods they should employ to meet the interest of the pupils in the learning of pronunciation. Furthermore, it will assist teachers to understand the aspects of the pronunciation that are learnable and teachable in order to make the teaching process beneficial to their pupils. More importantly, it will test the efficacy of the explicit teaching on suprasegmentals and this will contribute greatly to the insight of theories used in TESL. 1.9 Structure of the thesis The thesis contains seven chapters. Chapter 1 comprises the following: background to the study, objective, research questions, contribution to knowledge, and the structure of the research. Chapter 2 reviews the relevant literature. This comprises an overview of teaching pronunciation, why teach pronunciation, factors influencing pronunciation in the classroom, the problem of syllable definition syllable perception and syllable production. Chapter 3 22 discusses the theoretical framework; contrastive analysis, teachability, Noticing hypothesis and Explicit teaching. It also explains the methodology which contains the steps by which the data was gathered, the participants involved in the process and the materials used. Chapter 4 presents the analysis: the results and the discussions of the segmental pronunciation. Chapter 5 talks about the results and the discussions of the suprasegmental pronunciation. Chapter 6 discusses the effectiveness of explicit instruction on the acquisition of syllable margin in the class room. Lastly, chapter 7 presents the recommendations and conclusion of the research. It also suggests the further research on related the topics such as the effect of motivation on, classroom atmosphere, teachers experience etc. on language acquisition in the classroom. 23 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 2.0 Introduction There are lots of teaching models for pronunciation in Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL). These models are intended to increase the intelligibility among various English speakers especially, the second language speakers. A lot of discussions has taken place as to which pronunciation model to use in classrooms. These sections discuss works on some of the models used in teaching pronunciation. 2.1 An Overview of Teaching Models 2.1.1 English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) is an approach proposed by Jenkins (2000) to teaching English pronunciation to second language learners. The core mandate of ELF is to focus on phonological features that are central to intelligibility. Dauer (2005) argues that the status of ELF has become a known area of study in Applied Linguistics. It is always important to consider what students need most from their language class because in doing so, it will affect how teaching could be carried out. In teaching pronunciation for instance, a teacher must encourage his students to interact with other speakers, non-natives. In this regard, English becomes a Lingua Franca (ELF). Davies and Patsko (2013) consider ELF as an approach that will lead to usage of a language by individuals who have different native languages. They added that such students’ demands are not the same as students who visit England 24 because those who study in England may want to integrate within the culture. However, this is not the case in most of the ESL countries where the focus is intelligibility. It is therefore important to consider the priority of the learners of ELF which is the intelligibility. They just want to be understood whenever they communicate. Therefore, the teachers should focus more on the core features that can distort communication rather the non-core features which do not have any effect on communication, (Jenkins 2000). The ELF students just want to sound intelligible in order to be understood. This does not necessarily mean sounding like a native speaker. In relation to intelligibility, Jenkins (2000) lists four major areas considered to be fundamental for learners focus in order to sound intelligible. These are: 1. Most consonant sounds 2. Appropriate consonant cluster simplification 3. Vowel length distinctions 4. Nuclear stress In the ELF approach, English is considered as an international language than a language of a country. “It is generally acknowledged that English occupies the role of lingua franca in a globalized world and the goal of language learners is more often nowadays to be able to use English in communication with other ‘non-native’ speakers (NNSs) as an international language than as a foreign language in communication with its ‘native speakers’ (NSs)” (Spicer 2011:1) 25 Walker (2010: 71) added “Teaching pronunciation for ELF is primarily about re-thinking goals and redefining error as opposed to modifying classroom practice”. Those who have reservation for EFL, ask the question that need to be answered: ‘Can we have teaching materials designed for ELF? This question has arisen because almost all the pronunciation materials for teaching contain the voice of a native speaker. Again, almost all the major English examinations that we take are foreign which contain the accent of a native speaker. Therefore, in trying to sound intelligible, we should not bother about some of the sounds that do not affect intelligibility in teaching pronunciation. In this regard, a respondent wrote “As a Cambridge oral examiner and trainer I have always been dismayed by the amount of value attached to native-speaker-like production of certain sound values e.g. voiced/voiceless ‘th‘. Not only do context and co-text disambiguate the majority of ‘problematic’ pronunciations but the crucial issue of functional load is rarely addressed.” (Spicer, 2011:4). In other words, contextual meaning helps in intelligibility. Again, Jenkins (2000) encourages that the new approach to pronunciation teaching should focus on intelligibility among non-native speakers, rather than copying native speakers. In relations to intelligibility, Tennant (2007) encourages the adoption proposal of a model that would serve as lingua franca and guidelines for helping learners towards intelligibility. The model should aim at making teaching of pronunciation easier and increase intelligibility among various speakers of different backgrounds. In view of this, Jenkins 26 (2000) proposes a lingua franca core (LFC) model which seeks to expound pronunciation error (see below for more of LFC). In teaching English, it is very important to raise the awareness of learners on the widespread use of English because this helps in the acquisition. Davies and Patsko (2013) explain some of the appropriate ways to raise awareness of English as a lingua franca (ELF) to learners. According to Davies and Patsko (2013), this can be done by introducing the concept of ELF by the use of statistics. Some of the statistics are: 1. English has official or special status in at least 75 countries, with a total population of more than two billion 2. One out of four of the world's population speak English to some level of competence; 3. More than two thirds of the world's scientists read in English 4. Three quarters of the world's mail is written in English 5. 80 per cent of the world's electronically stored information is in English. (Davies and Patsko, 2013:1). 2.1.2 Lingua Franca Core (LFC) Lingua Franca Core model takes into account the sociolinguistic information of speakers based on regional variation. The LFC recognises the fact that non- native speakers have the right to their accent and language practitioners should see it as such. Again, non-native accents should not be considered as deviation from native speakers’ pronunciation norms but rather accent on its own. There is no doubt that some aspects of pronunciation are more difficult than others and 27 the aim of LFC is to unravel aspects of pronunciation considered to be troublemakers from the view of language intelligibility (Jenkins 2000). Spicer (2011) conducted a study among teacher trainers and educators to investigate the impact of LFC on the teaching of pronunciation on Cambridge CELTA and DELTA courses. Spicer’s study was against the backdrop that the most appropriate model for English pronunciation comes from its native speakers (British or American). Spicer engages his participants with elements of Jenkins’ LFC. Participants were made to select from a 16 item inventory those features which they thought will likely impede mutual intelligibility for native speakers (NS) and non-native speakers (NNS). In his findings, Spicer (2011:2) concedes that “familiarity with the LFC was limited and its impact on pronunciation teaching negligible”. In other words, LFC was not popular among the participants. However, Spicer finds out that participants were interested in the LFC proposal because it stimulated critical thinking amongst trainers about their own settled beliefs and assumptions in respect of pronunciation teaching. Spicer (2011:3) therefore suggested that the LFC should be promoted as a model for students to imitate. Again, teachers must consider the rationale of LFC by highlighting “the phonological features that are central to intelligibility and the non-LFC items with the reasons underlying their non-core status”. As stated earlier, the key factor of LFC is to identify features of pronunciation that might affect intelligibility between NNS and NS. Spicer (2011) therefore 28 distinguishes between the core features and non-core features. The core features are those features whose mispronunciations might affect intelligibility in an interaction between NNS and NS. On the other hand, the mispronunciation of non-core features has very little impact on intelligibility. 2.1.2.1 The core features According to Spicer (2011), the core features that affect intelligibility that language teachers should focus on in teaching language are: 1. Aspiration after word-initial /p/, /t/ and /k/ e.g. ‘pen’ /pʰen/ not /ben/ 2. Vowel length distinctions e.g. ‘beans’ /bi:nz/ not /bɪnz/ 3. RP (not GA) pronunciation of the intervocalic ‘-nt-’ when it occurs before an unstressed syllable e.g. ‘winter’ /wɪntə (r)/ not /wɪnə (r)/ 4. Full articulation of consonants in word initial clusters e.g. ‘strong’ /strɒŋ / not /srɒŋ/ 5. Epenthesis (i.e. insertion of a sound into a word in consonant clusters) is preferable to consonant deletion e.g. ‘street’ / sətə ‘ri: t / not / ‘sri: t / 6. Nuclear (tonic) stress production and placement within tone units 7. Adoption of the rhotic variant /r/ e.g. ‘here’ pronounced /hi: r/ not / hɪə / (Spicer, 2011:2). 2.1.2.2 The non-core features: The non-core features do not affect intelligibility and therefore need little attention during teaching. They are : 1. Substitutions of ‘th’ e.g. ‘think’ / θɪŋk / resulting in ‘tink’, ‘sink’ or ‘fink’, and ‘this’ /ðɪ s/ resulting in ‘dis’, ‘zis’ or ‘vis’ 29 2. Pitch movement on the nuclear syllable 3. Weak forms e.g. ‘to’ pronounced / tu: / not / tə / 4. Vowel quality e.g. ‘cake’ / keɪk / pronounced / kaɪk / 5. Word stress e.g. ‘perfectionist’ per FEC tionist pronounced PER fectionist 6. Features of connected speech such as elision e.g. ‘facts’ /fæks / pronounced /fækts/, and assimilation e.g. ‘good girl’ /gʊg gɜ:l/ pronounced /gʊd gɜ:l/ . (Spicer, 2011:2). The LFC as a method will help make teaching pronunciation easy in classroom because the core features will be targeted and this will lead to intelligibility which is the key in second language acquisition. Mikulastikova (2012:2) asserts that in terms of pronunciation teaching the activities for word stress, sentence stress, rhythm and intonation does not matter and what really matters is “quality of vowel length, well pronounced consonant sounds clusters and good tonic stress”. All these are part of LFC. In the same vein, Walker (2001) added that using LFC in a classroom reduces the number of pronunciation exercises and it focuses on vowel quality. Walker (2010) identifies the following pronunciation features that teachers focus on in the traditional syllable but which are not part of the LFC because they have no effect on ELF intelligibility: 1. / ð / as in the ‘th’ in ‘mother’, / θ / as in the ‘th’ in ‘thumb’, and dark ‘l’ as in the end of ‘little’ in most British accents. 2. Word stress . 30 3. Stress-timing. 4. Exact vowel quality (as opposed to vowel length, which is a core item). 5. Pitch movement (tone). The reason why the features mentioned above have no effect on intelligibility is that most of them can be identified based on the context. We should remember that conversation takes place with the use of sentences but not sounds in isolation. On the other hand, Walker (2010) classifies another pronunciation feature that teachers usually teach but which are not included in the LFC. According to her, these features negatively affect ELF intelligibility. The features are: 1. vowel reduction, schwa and weak forms 2. certain features of connected speech – linking, assimilation, coalescence. Despite all the positives of LFC, some teachers are still reluctant to use it in their teaching. Jenkins (2007) admits the fact that many teachers remain skeptical about the teachability of the LFC. However, in trying to debunk the skepticism, Zoghbor (2011) introduces the concept of the LFC and its benefits in classroom and outside classroom. In this regard, Zoghbor (2011) identifies three main dimensions of LFC. The first has to do with the identification of the inventory of the core phonemes. This is very crucial because it has the capacity to influence intelligibility. The second centered on the classroom 31 practice which focuses on learners’ errors and in reference to the LFC. The third dimension touches on the LFC outside classroom environment. The third dimension discusses the second language acquisition studies in relation to intelligibility and sociolinguistics. 2.2 Why teachers neglect the teaching of pronunciation. It is an undeniable fact that English is one of the most used global languages in the world. This height could not be achieved without the use of proper pronunciation of the English words by both first and second languages speakers. Unfortunately, some instructors do not see the need to teach pronunciation in their lessons and this unfortunate situation is attributable to so many factors including lack of final examinations on pronunciation at the various levels of education. In Ghana, pronunciation is not examinable at the Basic Examination Certificate Examination (Junior High School) and in the universities. This makes the teachers ignore the teaching of pronunciation at that level. Cunningham (2009) attests that acquisition of pronunciation is more difficult for Vietnamese learners of English than the acquisition of acquisitions of grammar. She attributes it to the fact that pronunciation test is not included in the national university entrance examinations therefore, the teachers do not teach pronunciation in schools. Again, practising pronunciation activities are not found in some of the English course books. According to Harmer (2005), many EFL teachers concentrate on teaching of grammar and vocabulary but abandon teaching of pronunciation. 32 Tenant (2007:1) has this to say on the neglect of pronunciation: Pronunciation is one area of teaching which is often neglected. This is evident in the way that pronunciation is treated in most course books. Flicking through half a dozen books on my desk, I found only one which has regular pronunciation activities in the units! I also notice that when I talk to teachers, there are a few who say they try and do some pronunciation in most lessons, but the majority either do very little or none at all! Why is this? In answering the question, Tenant (2007) enumerated three reasons: the first is that teachers claim that many aspects of pronunciation are difficult to teach. Secondly, building a lesson around pronunciation is quite difficult unlike the other aspects of language such as the grammar. This is because pronunciations are considered as add-ons to a unit in a textbook. The third reason is that some teachers themselves struggle with the phonemic alphabet let alone teaching it. They eventually do not prepare well during pronunciation lessons. Upon all the importance attached to pronunciation, some classrooms’ timetable sees a little or no slot for pronunciation. According to Kelly (2007, 13) teachers obviously neglect pronunciation when planning a timetable of English lessons. He added that their focus is on organization of grammatical structures and lexical syllabus. In addition, Baker (1990:1) confirmed that majority of lesson planning is devoted to vocabulary and grammar lessons and very little or no time is allocated to teaching pronunciation. This is a global phenomenon. In Ghana, especially at the basic level, there is no time for teaching pronunciation. The argument that they normally make is that pronunciation is not examinable. 33 Their concentration has always been on vocabulary development and grammar usage. In order to develop learners’ interest in pronunciation, more pronunciation activities must be given to them. The activities can be designed in a way that students will see it as fun and this may arouse their interest in learning pronunciation. Laroy (1995: 5) is of the view that the pronunciation activities that help learners to acquire the right pronunciation skills should involve fun activities. Teachers of second language need not teach learners with the mind that they will be native speakers but they should rather focus on intelligibility. Tennant (2007:2) claims that intelligibility is the key element teachers must look at in teaching. In other words, learners’ speech must sound intelligible and that should be the ultimate aim. Pronunciation is integral part of communication and learners needs to understand it. There is the need therefore to teach pronunciation because a lot of people use English as a second language. It means there will be variations in the pronunciation of these people. Lichtkoppler (2008) confirms that the users of English as their second language are more than the number of first language speakers. The international character of English has made it develop different kinds of pronunciation based on the speakers’ background. However, one needs to sound intelligible in order to fit properly in the international communication circle. In doing so, lots of second language learners are still prone to mispronouncing 34 sounds, misplacing stress and misusing intonation patterns. Another point is that most of the materials used in the second language classroom are foreign materials written mostly from the UK or USA. This makes learning process difficulty. In this regard, Sadat and Kuwornu (2016) encourage the use of local materials in the classroom. According to them, this will make the learners see themselves as part of the teaching and learning process and that enhances understanding of the item thought in class. In this direction, Crystal (2010) advocates that the foreign materials need to be complemented with other varieties that will expose learners to other various English varieties. This will make the learners aware of the existence of other varieties other than the variety in their text books. Even though, Crystal (2010) admits that students cannot be shown all the varieties that exist but they should be exposed to the variety around them and this should be a variety they hear on the streets. In fact, this will ease and facilitate intelligibility among learners because they would be familiar with those ones because of their intelligibility. 2.3 Reasons for Teaching Pronunciation It is quite clear that the role played by pronunciation in language acquisition cannot be underestimated. Pronunciation forms the basis upon which other aspects such as vocabulary and grammar rely on for intelligibility. Therefore, there is the need to pay particular attention to pronunciation. Tenant (2007) is of the view that teachers should first of all think about the main aim of pronunciation; received pronunciation or intelligibility. The former is not achievable for many students but the later can be achieved. Therefore, the main aim of pronunciation should be intelligibility. 35 Pronunciation increases confidence level of a speaker. According to Gilakjani (2012), there is no doubt that pronunciation teaching is an essential part in language acquisition. He added that pronunciation does not only increase the confidence level of speakers but also it improves their spoken ability therefore it needs to be considered as an essential part of communication. Knowledge of pronunciation will definitely increase the confidence level of a speaker in a conversation especially, public speaking. Crystal (2010) argues that confidence encourages a learner to speak and this will prepare the learner to face the English speaking world. Teaching pronunciation increases the receptive skills of learners. Tenant (2007) encourages that pronunciation teaching should not only target speaking, but also listening skills. This will definitely increase the listening ability of students. In that case they can understand any communication well and this will bring about effective communication. Pronunciation is an integral part of communication. There will not be intelligibility without a good pronunciation. There is a misconception that pronunciation cannot be effectively taught in the classroom. This is because some teachers do not include it in their lesson plan at all, let alone teach it. However, research has proven that pronunciation can be taught in the classroom and leaners can understand and gradually improve upon their pronunciation difficulties. 36 In this regard, Derwing, Munro & Wiebe (1998) conducted a pronunciation training over several weeks for L2 speakers. They divided the participants into three groups: segmental, suprasegmental, control group. The first two groups received instructions on both segmental and suprasegmental elements. The control group did not receive any instruction on pronunciation. The activities they measured before and after were sentence reading and extemporaneous picture description. The listeners rated sentences for comprehensibility on a 9 point scale: (1 = very easy to understand; 9 = extremely difficult to understand). On the picture narrative task, the L2 speakers use their own lexicon and grammar. Here too, the same scalar ratings were applied. The outcomes on reading aloud indicate a massive improvement for both suprasegmental and segmental groups, with no improvement on the control group. However, the outcome on extemporaneous speech indicates an improvement on the suprasegmental group with no improvement on both the improved segmental group and control group. Derwing, Munro, & Wiebe (1998) therefore confirmed that pronunciation can be improved through instruction. 2.4 Factors influencing acquisition of pronunciation It is obvious that some leaners do better than others in learning a second language. Gass and Selinker (2009:395) confirm this by saying “One of the most widely recognized facts about second language learning is that some individuals are more successful in learning a second language than other individuals.” They 37 added that this difference can be attributed to some factors, such as age, aptitude, motivation, attitude, and socio-psychological influences. Once the same student will be taught by the same teacher and one will acquire the expected pronunciation while the other will not, that is a clear indication that there are some factors playing a role in acquisition. Human beings may have control over some of these factors while others are beyond their control. Mikulastikova (2012) also divides the factors affecting pronunciation into internal and external. According to him, the internal factors are integrated into learner's individual language and they are: age, personality, motivation, experience, cognition and native language. On the other hand, the external factors are factors that characterize the particular language learning situation. Examples are motivation, curriculum, instruction, culture and status, access to native speaker. 2.4.1. Motivation The role played by motivation in language learning is enormous and this is not only in language acquisition but also in other areas of endeavor. Gass and Selinker (2009:520) describe motivation as “the characteristics that provide the incentives for learning”. Motivation is an internal process that stimulates and maintains human behavior over time and offers direction to individuals. Motivation is therefore not a static phenomenon. Dornyei (2000 and 2001) projected a motivation model that recognizes changes over time. The model contains three temporal steps with three components. According to Gass and Selinker (2009:429) the model explains “how initial wishes are transformed into 38 goals, how intentions are operationalized, then how they are enacted, and finally how a goal is accomplished and evaluated.” The three phases are: 1. Preactional stage. This is the stage during which motivation is generated. This leads to the selection of the goal that will be pursued; 2. Actional stage. This is referred to as executive motivation and it relates to the sustaining of the activity even with distracting influences; 3. Postactional stage. The third phase follows the completion of the action. This refers to as motivational retrospection. This is the stage that evaluates how the activity goes and feeds into future activities that might be pursued in the future. (Gass and Selinker, 2009:429). Motivation pushes individuals to do great things. Csizer & Magid (2014) are of the view that the way people envisage themselves in the future plays a significant role in motivating their learning behavior in the present. According to Gass and Selinker (2009:426), motivation is “a social-psychological factor frequently used to account for differential success in learning a second language”. From the above, it is obvious that a motivated individual is likely to be successful in second language acquisition than unmotivated individual. Motivation is therefore a key factor in acquisition (Gardner, 2001; Maclntyre, 2002; Ushioda, 2003). Gardener (2001) argues that in language achievement, both motivation and aptitude play a very significant role. That is why Skehan (1989) claims that in terms of success, the only predicator that is ahead of motivation is aptitude. 39 Again, Marinova-Todd et al. (2000) argue that in the development of native- like pronunciation, there are other factors that need to be considered more than the age of acquisition. These factors are the environment and motivation. There is enough evidence to indicate that a learner with a target goal in learning a language do well in the acquisition, (Marinova-Todd et al. 2000). Marinova- Todd et al. (2000) added that through motivation adults may acquire proficiency in second languages and they can even speak like native speakers if they receive the right motivation. 2.4.2 Age In language acquisition, age is one of the key factors to be considered. There has been a debate between child acquisition and adult acquisition. Comparatively, adults may have an initial advantage in acquisition particularly with grammar. With time however, children are likely to overtake adults due to enough exposure to the L2. Therefore, adults’ advantages over children in acquisitions seem ephemeral. Evidently, Snow and Hoefnagle-Hohle (1978) researched on naturalistic acquisition of Dutch by English speakers in the Netherlands. They categorized their participants in three groups of (children, adolescents, and adults). After three months, the participants were tested and the results showed that adolescents and adults did better than children. However, after 10 months the children did extremely well in the acquisitions in most areas. The results confirmed that children can be slow-starters but eventually win the race. 40 Gass and Selinker (2009) added that at the early stages of acquisition, adults are likely to do better on most tests of second language learning hurriedly than children. DeKeyser and Larson-Hall (2005) argue that adults have the tendency to exhibit an early improvement because of the shortcuts embedded in the explicit structure, therefore when it comes explicit learning adults perform well. On the other hand, Children do not use shortcuts methods in their learning but will progressively acquire all the needed competence through long-term implicit learning when they are given more and appropriate input. Although, it is possible for children to receive enough and appropriate input and still do not attain a native-like accent. Gass and Selinker (2009:405) confirmed that “It is commonly believed that children are better language learners than adults in the sense that young children typically can gain mastery of a second language, whereas adults cannot”. This brings the issue of Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH). According to Crystal (2008:123), the CPH refers to “a particular time span during which a first language can be most easily acquired.” Crystal argues that the critical period for language expires at puberty. This is because by puberty, our brain has become focused in its functions, the brain at this stage is not flexibility as it used to be before adolescent period. Birdsong (1999:1) added that "the CPH is a limited developmental period during which it is possible to acquire a language be it LI or L2, to normal, nativelike levels. Once this window of opportunity is passed, however, the ability to learn language declines". 41 There are many works (O’Connor, 1980 Schaetzel and Low, 2009; Gass and Selinker, 2009; Mikulastikova, 2012) on the role played by age in second language acquisition. O’Connor (1980) argues that our first language really influences the way we acquire second language and this has to do with age of acquisition. He is of the view that as we grow, our capacity to acquire a language declines. It is with this reason that children of ten years or less can acquire native-like pronunciation but very difficult for an adult to acquire a native –like pronunciation. In a study conducted on learners of Spanish, Shively (2008) found that age played a very significant role in their production accuracy. This is due to the fact that the participants started learning before the critical period so their age helps a lot in the acquisition. Again, Moyer (1999) investigated graduate students in the U.S. who were highly proficient NNSs of German. These students possessed both in-country experience and classroom instruction in German. According to the research, the students were very motivated and they did not have any major preadolescent acquaintance to German. The findings indicate that they could not achieve native-like accents. Mayer (1999:82) therefore claimed that "late learners may face neurological or motor skill constraints, such as entrenched articulatory habits or restricted perceptual targets for phonetic categories, that render the possibility of nativelike attainment highly unlikely or impossible" (p. 82). In other words, their non-native like accent was caused by age-factor. However, some researchers have argued against the CPH. According to Crystal (2008:123) “The hypothesis has proved to be extremely difficult to test, and 42 remains controversial”. Crystal added that “Adults moreover have certain cognitive abilities which facilitate language acquisition, such as increased motivation and greater metalinguistic awareness” (Crystal, 2008:123). Despite the fact that many researchers are familiar with the term CPH, Gass and Selinker (2009) are of the view that CPH is ‘somewhat misnomer’. They added that the problem with the CPH is that it predicts certain amount of discontinuity. In other words, there will be a time where there will be “dramatic drop-off’ in language learning. According to Long (1990), another term used is sensitive period which is slower in its end point and permits variation in achievement. Gass and Selinker (2009) argues that the Sensitive Period Hypothesis is more critical and that language learning decline might be gradual. 2.4.3 Exposure The amount of input one is exposed to facilitates the acquisition rate. Hewings (1993) established that if learners are exposed to many pronunciation exercises as possible, the exposure will translate into a very effective acquisition. O’Connor and Fletcher (1989:6) added that practice is very crucial in learning English because the sounds that are not found in the learners’ native language must be carefully repeated several times in order to stick in the minds of the learners. They added that the production of unfamiliar sounds in the target language has to do with the brain and movements of the muscles. Tennant (2007) argues that similar features in both first language and second language helps in the acquisition. In other words, when learners first language has to some extent similarities of the target language it eases the acquisition 43 process. He added that if a learner’s native language is a syllable-timed language, it will be difficult for that learner to adopt the English stress-time patterns. According to O’Connor and Fletcher (1989), the learner must first of all focus on words that have different sounds which will be easier for the learner to produce. They, however, admitted that learners may not sound like native speakers but there will be intelligibility among the first and second language speakers. Therefore, there is a need for teachers to encourage their students to speak outside the classroom. Pitt (2009) also supports the role played by exposure by saying that learners should be given the chance to hear conversation and in the process, they will be exposed to variation in pronunciation. In addition, Schaetzel and Low (2009:3) have this to say “in addition to focusing on pronunciation and accent in class, teachers will want to encourage learners to speak English outside the classroom and provide them with assignments that structure those interactions”. It is important to know that the more input a learner is exposed to the greater the acquisition. We should not forget that repeated exposure is a significant factor in language learning. According to Saragi et al. (1978), repeated exposure eases learning process because learners are made to meet new forms in a number of contexts. 44 2.4.4. Affect Some individuals may have a very unique attitude towards a language and its speakers. The attitude towards a language may positively or negatively affect the rate of acquisition. Crystal (2008:15) sees affect as “the expression of attitude”. Gass and Selinker (2009:398) describe affect as “feelings or emotional reactions about the language, about the people who speak that language, or about the culture where that language is spoken.” It is obvious that if an individual has a positive attitude towards a particular language or its people, the individual will draw closer to them and that may result in acquisition. However, if the attitude of an individual is negative towards a language community, the individual will distance himself from the people that may negatively affect the rate of acquisition. This leads to a concept of ‘social distance’. Gass and Selinker (2009) describe social distance as a situation where an individual may not feel attracted to the target language environment and this may largely affect the amount of input an individual may acquire. According to Gass and Selinker (2009) the realization of social distance and psychological distance formed the basis of Schumann's (1978a, 1978b) acculturation