筑波学院大学紀要第15集

53 〜 67 ページ

2020年

A Study of English Phonetic Characteristics Utteredby Japanese Learners of English in Considerationof Their School Education Background
Tomoko Nariai ＊Abstract
In an increasingly globalized world, English is growing in importance as an international language, with English education in Japan being reformed to keep up with the trend of allowing students to learn English at a younger age. This study compared the English phonetic characteristics
uttered by native speakers of English and Japanese. In the recordings, Japanese subjects said English sentences after listening to the same sentences read by native speakers of English. The results
showed that the speech of the Japanese subjects was different from that of the English subjects inall points of the following, intonation, mouth and tongue movement, and duration. The researchalso suggested that the problem may be caused by a lack of sufficient attention on English pronunciation in schools. Findings indicate that the key for English education reform in Japan is not
to reform the guidelines regarding English education in early childhood but to review the recent
environment for school education.
Key words: speech analysis, fundamental frequency, power spectrum, second language learning,
school education

1. Introduction
Exposing younger students to more English is seen to help foster internationally competitive
talents. Indeed, this belief seems to have driven the Ministr y of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology in Japan (MEXT) to make an amendment to the fundamental guidelines of
education to let students learn English at a younger age. In the 2020 fiscal year, therefore, English
is to become a foreign language class activity for middle elementary grades and will be compulsory
1)

for upper elementary grades . The content of the earlier learning would focus on speaking andlistening to English rather than writing and reading English.
GMO Internet Corporation also created a questionnaire survey on attitudes towards English
2)

language and distributed it to 10,000 Japanese people . The results indicated that nine tenths of theJapanese participants consider themselves not to have a good command of English. It can be said
that most Japanese people have a feeling of being not proficient in English, which could be a reason＊

筑波学院大学経営情報学部、Tsukuba Gakuin University

─ 53 ─

筑波学院大学紀要152020that has driven MEXT to make amendments to the guidelines for education.
The problems of Japanese speakers have been discussed, and this has led to increased
3-9)knowledge. In a study by Kashiwagi and Snyder

3), 40 short sentences uttered by 19 Japaneselearners of English were evaluated by three native speakers of English and three native speakers ofChinese. The results suggested that prosody errors of speech did not affect intelligibility for native
speakers of English and Chinese. On the other hand, pronunciation errors, especially errors invowel usage, significantly reduced intelligibility for both groups.
Isida

4)

differentiated between two types of artificial English speech: speech with a consonant

error and speech with a word accent error. Two speeches were evaluated by 26 native speakers
of English and 27 native speakers of Japanese. The speech with the prosodic error influenced
intelligibility for the native speakers of English, whereas the speech with the consonant error did
not. Conversely, the speech with the consonant error influenced intelligibility for the native speakers
of Japanese, whereas the speech with the prosodic error did not.
Sugito5)suggested that speech with correct intonation sounds more like natural English

compared with speech with correct segment.
6)

Derwing, Munro, and Wiebe

divided English learners into three groups for a 12-week English

program. The first group was educated on pronouncing English segments. The second group
was educated on pronouncing English prosody. The third group was educated on the whole ofEnglish pronunciation, as is the norm. After the program, a native speaker of English evaluated the
proficiency of the learnersʼ English. The results showed that the second groupʼs pronunciation of
spontaneous speech improved the most, suggesting that education focused on prosody had a strong
influence on pronunciation.
Experts in the field offered a variety of views. Roach7)suggested that Japanese speakers ofEnglish were not good at schwas and vowels, replacing every schwa with a Japanese vowel in theirutterances. That turned the English voiced by Japanese speakers into “katakana English,” which
8)

sounds unnatural to native speakers of English. Yabuuchi and Satoi

suggested that the Japanese

would sound more natural when speaking English if they spoke it with a dynamic pitch range.
9)

Yamanesuggested that English speech in which Japanese speakers made word accent errors

reduced intelligibility by native speakers of English to a level of 47.5%. Much knowledge has beengarnered regarding the characteristics of Japanese speakers of English, and three key problems
have consequently been highlighted.
One problem is that most of the studies only investigated English proficiency, meaning thatphonetic realizations have not yet been examined sufficiently. Another problem is that most studies
aimed to pass on the knowledge they obtained on English education, yet they only investigated theEnglish skills of Japanese subjects by referring to the grade of English proficiency tests or scoreson the Test of English for International Communication. This approach failed to take into accountthat a personʼs English skills depend on what kind of education they receive. The final problem isthat most studies did not make it clear that the irregularities in English pronunciation occurredbecause the subjects did not know how to pronounce English or could not pronounce English.
This study investigated the phonetic characteristics uttered by Japanese learners of English,

─ 54 ─

Tomoko Nariai：A Study of English Phonetic Characteristics Uttered by Japanese Learners of English in Consideration of Their School Education Backgroundconsidering the relation between the subjectʼs educational background and their English proficiency.
In order to clarify why the irregularities in English pronunciation occur, subjects were presented
with the relevant English sentences prior to recording and were asked to practice uttering them.
In the recording, Japanese subjects read the English sentences orally after listening to the samesentences read by native speakers of English.
Section 2 describes the material used in the study, while section 3 shows the results. Discussion
on relevant issues and conclusions comprise sections 4 and 5, respectively.

2. Materials
2.1. Speech materials
The subjects consisted of six male participants. Three were native speakers of Japanese, aged
10)

20 to 21. There were six sentences that were chosen from MOCHA-TIMIT. Those were timit070,

200, 221, 228, 268, 392, and 460. The readings of the Japanese subjects were recorded on Mondays
in November, 2018.
Another three subjects were native speakers of English whose speeches were collected in aprevious research project11). These were labeled with the sentence numbers English subject1,

English subject2, and English subject3, respectively.
2.2. Recording conditions
The Japanese subjects were asked to practice reading the English sentences prior to recording.
The recording was done in the computer exercise room at Tsukuba Gakuin University. The
recording device was a Sony linear PCM recorder, PCM-D100. The speeches were recorded
through 2 channels at sampling of 16 bit and 48,000 Hz.
The recording procedures were as follows.
1.

the subject sat in a designated seat2.

instructions were provided regarding the recording devices3.

the subject was instructed to maintain distance between his mouth and the recorder on the
table

4.

the subject was instructed on how to listen to the sentences read by the native speakers ofEnglish5.

finally, the subject was instructed on how to record using the given recording devices.
Subjects were required to utter each sentence repeatedly until the speech sample was recorded

properly.
In the order they finished, speeches were labeled with the sentence numbers Japanese subject1,
Japanese subject2, Japanese subject3, respectively.
For analysis, the speeches were edited using the speech editing software, Audacity
to cut the abundant sound and change 1 channel.

─ 55 ─

12), in order筑波学院大学紀要152020

2.3. Speech analysis
Using a tool for sound visualization and manipulation, Wavesurfer

13), each speech was analyzed

to extract the spectrogram, with the first three vowel formant track superimposed with a window
length of 25 ms and a frame shift of 5 ms.
For the three formants, the fundamental frequency (F0, henceforth) is related to vowel height.
F1 is related to the degree of backness of tongue, where, the higher the F1, the more frontal thevowel. F2 is related to the degree of lip-rounding, where, the lower the F2, the rounder the shape ofthe lip. The formant sequence was then manually segmented into a word sequence.
The power pattern was also extracted from the speech wave with a Hamming window of length
20 ms at a frame interval of 10 ms and converted into dB. The maximum power value was 80 dB,
and the minimum was 0 dB. The power value sequence was also manually segmented into a word
sequence.
For each word of the speech, the following six parameters were extracted.
・F0 peak (Hz) : the peak value of F0 for the word
・Power peak (dB) : the peak value of power for the word
・F1 range (Hz) : the peak F1 value minus the lowest F1 value for the word
・F2 range (Hz) : the peak F2 value minus the lowest F2 value for the word・Duration (sec) : the duration of the word

3. Result
In this section, the speech of the English subjects and the Japanese subjects was compared. In
advance, the Japanese were asked to answer questions about their English learning backgrounds.
3.1. Results from the inter view with Japanese subjects
Research was undertaken using a questionnaire survey on the English learning background ofeach Japanese subject. The four questions that the subjects were asked to answer are listed below.
14)

The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR, henceforth)

was used

to assess English skill by self-reported number. The CEFR English language level description
ranges from A1, beginner, to C2, proficient English user. The handouts of CEFR were distributed tothe subjects.
14)

Q1. What is your CEFR English level?

Q2. How long have you been studying English at school or college?
Q3. Have you been taught how to intonate English when you pronounce a sentence in school?
Q4. Have you been taught how to move your mouth and tongue to pronounce a word in school?
The answers to the questions are shown in Table 1.

─ 56 ─

Tomoko Nariai：A Study of English Phonetic Characteristics Uttered by Japanese Learners of English in Consideration of Their School Education Background

Table 1. Results of the questions asked to the Japanese subjects
Q1
A1
A1
A1

Japanese subject1
Japanese subject2
Japanese subject3

Q2
11 years
11 years
9 years

Q3
No
No
No

Q4
No
No
No

3.2. Results of speech analysis
Table 2-1 shows the results of English subject1 in sentence 026, “Most young rabbits rise early
every morning.” The column indicates each word. The row indicates the F0 peak for word, power
peak for word, F1 range, F2 range, and duration, respectively.
In English subject1, the F0 peak in “most” continuously declines to “rise” and then rises in “early,”then continuously declines to “morning.” The power peak in “most” continuously rises in “rabbits”
and then continuously declines to “early,” then rises to “every morning.”
Table 2-2 shows the results of Japanese subject1 in sentence 026. The F0 peak in “most”
continuously declines to “rabbits” and then rises in “rise,” then continuously declines to “every,”then rises in “morning.” The power peak in “most” continuously declines to “young” and rises in“rabbits,” then continuously declines to “morning.”
In Table 2-1, the F1 range is large in “most” and “rabbits” but short in “early” and “every.” The
F2 range is large in “most,” “rabbits,” and “morning” but short in “rise” and “early.” The duration islong in “rabbits” and “every” but short in “young” and “early.”
In Table 2-2, the F1 range is large in “early” and “morning” but short in “young” and “every.”
The F2 range is large in “early,” “ever y,” and “morning” but short in “young” and “rise.” Theduration is long in “rise” and “rabbits” but short in “young” and “most.”
Table 2-1. Results of English subject1 in TIMIT 026
F0 peak(Hz)Power peak(dB)
F1 range(Hz)F2 range(Hz)Duration(sec)

Most
168.7660.63
1158.34
1775.53
0.40

young
124.6262.14
333.77876.830.20

rabbits
105.5863.30
1119.50
1429.23
0.53

rise
99.19
62.85
394.66575.130.33

early
108.2858.77
117.10663.100.32

ever y98.36
59.18
262.241170.100.41

morning
93.82
59.18
324.091520.67
0.36

Table 2-2. Results of Japanese subject1 in TIMIT 026
F0 peak(Hz)Power peak(dB)
F1 range(Hz)F2 range(Hz)Duration(sec)Most
178.0060.32
750.031526.120.35

young
149.0057.56
351.50481.21
0.33

rabbits
126.0058.99
525.091265.300.63

rise
138.0058.64
809.05956.080.67

early
130.0054.07
1373.26
2174.60
0.38

ever y118.0054.07
446.84
1896.970.37

morning
130.0051.35
1231.60
1747.00
0.56

Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2 show the results of English subject1 and Japanese subject1,

─ 57 ─

筑波学院大学紀要152020

respectively. The x-axis shows each word for sentence 026. The y-axis 1 indicates the F0 peak andpower peak, and the y-axis 2 indicates F1 range and F2 range.
In F0 peak, the figures show that English subject1 and Japanese subject1 differ in a verb “rise.”English subject1 declines, while Japanese subject1 rises.
There are also differences in F1 range and F2 range between English subject1 and Japanese
subject1. English subject1ʼs mouth and tongue moved in “most” and “rabbits” but did not move in“early.” Meanwhile, Japanese subject1ʼs mouth and tongue moved in “early” and “morning.”

Figure 1-1.

Results of English subject1 in TIMIT 026

Figure 1-2

Results of Japanese subject1 in TIMIT 026

Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 show the results of English subject1 and Japanese subject1 in sentence
109, “Birthday parties have cup cakes and ice cream.”─ 58 ─

Tomoko Nariai：A Study of English Phonetic Characteristics Uttered by Japanese Learners of English in Consideration of Their School Education Background

Table 3-1.
F0 peak(Hz)Power peak(dB)
F1 range(Hz)F2 range(Hz)Duration(sec)Birthday
147.8358.80
370.81997.32
0.58

parties
111.1
54.82
420.7
965.8
0.41

Table 3-2.
F0 peak(Hz)Power peak(dB)
F1 range(Hz)F2 range(Hz)Duration(sec)Birthday
175.6455.50
490.491266.32
0.56

Results of English subject1 in TIMIT 109
have
106.0
52.18
720.9
497.2
0.19

cup
153.9
57.50
789.1
943.2
0.2

cakes
146.1
55.26
1123.6
949.3
0.44

and
110.6248.76
378.11
652.5
0.17

ice
120.3
62.31
559.4
466.6
0.27

cream
110.0843.86
1299.91036.8
0.33

ice
118.9
61.40
1100.9
1597
0.37

cream
143.9
46.76
777.7
949.1
0.32

Results of Japanese subject1 in TIMIT 109

parties
160.7
57.68
461.8
595.1
0.49

have
110.21
49.27
634.7
427.9
0.35

cup
108.5
62.6
810.6
1387
0.25

cakes
163.5
56.17
270.0
331.9
0.26

and
109
52.6
530
707
0.32

Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2 show the results of English subject1 and Japanese subject1,
respectively.
In terms of F0 peak, English subject1 and Japanese subject1 differ in “cup,” “cakes,” “ice,” and“cream.” In “cup,” English subject1 rises, while Japanese subject1 declines. In “cakes,” English
subject1 declines, while Japanese subject1 rises. In “ice,” English subject1 rises, while Japanese
subject1 declines. In “cream,” English subject1 declines, while Japanese subject1 rises.
In the F1 range and the F2 range, English subject1ʼs mouth and tongue moved in “cakes” and“cream.” By contrast, Japanese subject1ʼs mouth and tongue moved in “cup” and “ice.”

Figure 2-1.

Results of English subject1 in TIMIT 109

─ 59 ─

筑波学院大学紀要152020

Figure 2-2.

Results of Japanese subject1 in TIMIT 109

Table 4-1 and Table 4-2 show the results of English subject2 and Japanese subject2 in sentence
119, “The mango and the papaya are in a bowl.”
Table 4-1.
F0 peak(Hz)Power peak(dB)
F1 range(Hz)F2 range(Hz)Duration(sec)

The
112
50
282
475
0.11

Results of English subject2 in TIMIT 119

mango
163
63
440
1316
0.53

and
109
53
412
254
0.13

the
106
47
567
573
0.17

papaya
160
62
1027
1756
0.52

are
107
51
268
653
0.15

in
109
50
141
897
0.14

a
103
47
341
263
0.6

bowl
146
54
874
1691
0.48

a
124
50
154
325
0.2

bowl
181
46
291
865
0.44

Table 4-2. Results of Japanese subject2 in TIMIT 119
F0 peak(Hz)Power peak(dB)
F1 range(Hz)F2 range(Hz)Duration(sec)

The
150
53
1314
1248
0.42

mango
185
51
785
668
0.7

and
139
51
1073
1231
0.45

the
141
48
975
764
0.41

papaya
153
52
717
1259
0.63

are
134
52
346
341
0.37

in
138
45
346
1501
0.3

Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2 show the results of English subject2 and Japanese subject2.
In terms of F0 peak and power peak, the figures differ in nouns. English subject2 rises in“mango,” “papaya,” and “bowl,” equally. For Japanese subject2, F0 peak rises in “mango” and “bowl”
but declines in “papaya,” and power peak falls on “bowl.”
In the F1 range and the F2 range, English subject2ʼs mouth and tongue moved in “mango,”“papaya,” and “bowl,” while Japanese subject2ʼs mouth and tongue moved in “The” and “and.”─ 60 ─

Tomoko Nariai：A Study of English Phonetic Characteristics Uttered by Japanese Learners of English in Consideration of Their School Education BackgroundFigure 3-1.

Results of English subject2 in TIMIT 119

Figure 3-2.

Results of Japanese subject2 in TIMIT 119

Table 5-1 and Table 5-2 show the results of English subject2 and Japanese subject2 in sentence
268, “How oily do you like your salad dressing?”
Table 5-1.
F0 peak(Hz)Power peak(dB)
F1 range(Hz)F2 range(Hz)Duration(sec)

How
186
63
625
978
0.19

Results of English subject2 in TIMIT 268

oily
204
59
266
1535
0.35

do
132
60
114
284
0.09

you
135
55
61
690
0.07

─ 61 ─

like
127
60
420
1209
0.29

your
123
66
218
285
0.1

salad
136
66
796
755
0.33

dressing
106
65
477
527
0.42

筑波学院大学紀要15

2020

Table 5-2.
F0 peak(Hz)Power peak(dB)
F1 range(Hz)F2 range(Hz)Duration(sec)

How
164
55
693
1007
0.56

Results of Japanese subject2 in TIMIT 268
oily
195
54
212
1513
0.73

do
146
48
417
727
0.3

you
152
49
114
618
0.25

like
140
53
395
772
0.36

your
137
54
561
1178
0.49

salad
155
58
876
485
0.57

dressing
188
61
882
1182
0.65

Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2 show the results of English subject2 and Japanese subject2.
In terms of F0 peak, the figures differ in “salad” and “dressing.” English subject2 rises in noun,“salad,” and declines in “dressing,” while Japanese subject2 continuously rises in “salad dressing.”
In the F1 range and the F2 range, English subject2ʼs mouth moved in “How oily,” “like,” and“salad,” while Japanese subject2ʼs mouth moved in “How oily,” “your,” and “dressing.”

Figure 4-1.

Figure 4-2.

Results of English subject2 in TIMIT 268

F0 and power of English group in sentence of 268s

Table 6-1 and Table 6-2 show the results of English subject3 and Japanese subject3 in sentence
215, “Only the best players enjoy popularity.”─ 62 ─

Tomoko Nariai：A Study of English Phonetic Characteristics Uttered by Japanese Learners of English in Consideration of Their School Education Background

Table 6-1. Results of English subject3 in TIMIT 215
F0 peak(Hz)Power peak(dB)
F1 range(Hz)F2 range(Hz)Duration(sec)Only
157.6168.68
1066.85
1337.690.24

the106.0952.11
192.741402.240.13

best
130.7264.45
1406.92974.920.23

players134.2765.56
782.441255.47
0.44

enjoy
94.40
58.54
337.691237.00
0.32

popularity
100.4057.68
505.491101.58
0.7

Table 6-2. Results of Japanese subject3 in TIMIT 215
F0 peak(Hz)Power peak(dB)
F1 range(Hz)F2 range(Hz)Duration(sec)Only
157.6168.68
1349.421431.520.55

the134.2764.45
1406.921501.810.41

best
106.1665.56
387.46
1237.00
0.64

players
100.4057.68
1386.61
1175.190.79

enjoy
125.0050.46
165.00484.950.27

popularity
166.0044.01
952.71
1598.12
1.01

Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2 show the results of English subject3 and Japanese subject3.
In terms of F0 peak, the figures differ in “the best players” and “enjoy popularity.” English
subject3 continuously rises in noun, “the best players,” then declines in “enjoy” and rises in“popularity,” while Japanese subject3 continuously declines in “the best players” and continuously
rises in “enjoy popularity.”In the F1 range and the F2 range, English subject3ʼs mouth moved in “only” and “best,” while
Japanese subject3ʼs mouth moved in “The” and “players.”

Figure 5-2

Results of English subject3 in TIMIT 215

─ 63 ─

筑波学院大学紀要152020

Figure 5-2

Results of Japanese subject3 in TIMIT 215

Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 show the results of English subject3 and Japanese subject3 in sentence
221, “How permanent are their records?”
Table 7-1.
F0 peak(Hz)Power peak(dB)
F1 range(Hz)F2 range(Hz)Duration(sec)How
161.8063.38
864.81807.66
0.27

Results of English subject3 in TIMIT 221
permanent
164.8659.79
1031.84855.030.44

are
114.1063.40
421.94445.470.26

their
112.8656.71
276.30608.960.21

records
118.9562.44
1281.59
1627.44
0.65

Table 7-2. Results of Japanese subject3 in TIMIT 221
F0 peak(Hz)Power peak(dB)
F1 range(Hz)F2 range(Hz)Duration(sec)How
155.0054.64
567.59493.950.25

permanent
140.0063.04
893.76
1288.78
0.63

are
124.0050.43
573.19807.790.23

their
124.0053.12
461.24657.380.31

records
134.0054.78
777.691022.18
0.75

Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2 show the results of English subject3 and Japanese subject3.
In terms of F0 peak, the figures differ in “permanent.” English subject3 continuously rises in“How permanent” and declines in “are,” while Japanese subject3 continuously declines in “Howpermanent are.”In the F1 range and the F2 range, English subject3ʼs mouth and tongue moved in “record,”
while Japanese subject3ʼs mouth and tongue moved in “permanent.”

─ 64 ─

Tomoko Nariai：A Study of English Phonetic Characteristics Uttered by Japanese Learners of English in Consideration of Their School Education BackgroundFigure 6-1

Results of English subject3 in TIMIT 221

Figure 6-2

Results of Japanese subject3 in TIMIT 221

3.3. Discussions
In subsection 2.1, the English education background of the Japanese subjects was investigated.
The subjectsʼ English language level was beginner according to self-assessment. Their periodsof English learning ranged from 9 to 11 years, which suggested that all the subjects had studied
English at elementary school or junior high school in Japan. They had not, however, been educatedon how to pronounce and intonate English in detail during their school days.
In subsection 2.2, the characteristics of English subjects and Japanese subjects were compared.
The two groups differ in the following two points.
First, English subjects declined F0 peaks in a verb, auxiliary verb, or postpositional particle,
while Japanese subjects did not. For sentence 026, English subject phrased at “Most young rabbitsrise” and “early every morning,” while Japanese subject did not. For sentence 109, English subjectphrased at “Birthday parties have,” “cup cakes and,” and “ice cream,” while Japanese subject did
not. For sentence 119, English subject declined at “The mango and the,” “papaya are in a,” and “bowl.”
For sentence 268, English subject phrased at “How oily do,” “you like your,” and “salad dressing,”
while Japanese subject did not. For sentence 215, English subject phrased at “Only the,” “bestplayers enjoy,” and “popularity,” while Japanese subject did not. For sentence 221, English subjectphrased in “How permanent are their” and “record,” while Japanese subject did not.

─ 65 ─

筑波学院大学紀要152020

Second, English subjects moved their mouth and tongue for some words, while Japanese
subjects did so for other words. Mouth and tongue movement is complicated and related to theother parameters. Such details will consequently be discussed in future research.

4. Discussions
In subsection 3.2, the English of the Japanese subjects was compared to that of the English
subjects. The results suggest that the Japanese subjects differed from the English subjects in all
points: intonation, mouth and tongue movement, and duration.
In subsection 3.1, research using a questionnaire survey on the English learning backgroundsof the Japanese subjects was presented. All the Japanese subjects had studied English at elementaryor junior high school. They had not, however, been educated on how to pronounce and intonate
English in detail in their school days. This knowledge confirms Tejimaʼs comment

15)

that, inEnglish education at junior high school, vowel and consonant pronunciation guidance has rarely
been provided.
Such condition do not appear to uphold the guidelines regarding English education in juniorhigh schools and high schools issued by MEXT

16, 17). In the revision made in 1998, at whichtime the Japanese subjects were of school age, the aims of English education were for students tobecome accustomed to the basic characteristics of English, and to say English words and sentences
properly. This included pronunciation, linking, accent, intonation, and pauses. In the education
guidelines for high schools, the aims of English education have been expanded to include the ability
to pronounce English in detail with appropriate rhythm, intonation, loudness, and speed. Thisapproach therefore suggests that the educational aims for English education determined by MEXT
were intended to cover the whole spectrum of English pronunciation.
The problem for Japanese people with poor English skills becomes clear: It is based on school
education. The guidelines for English education in high schools as determined by MEXT cover
English pronunciation in its entirety. The Japanese subjects were different from the English subjects
in all points concerning pronunciation because they had never been taught how to speak English inschool and did not know how to pronounce the language.
MEXT seems determined to amend the fundamental law of education to allow students to learn
English at a younger age

1). In English education, the quality - the content of the class - must be

more important than the quantity - the length of the class. The key for English education reform
would not, therefore, be reforming the guidelines for English education in early childhood but
rather reviewing the recent environment for foreign language education of the junior and seniorhigh school levels.

5. Conclusion
This study investigated the English phonetic characteristics uttered by Japanese subjects inconsideration of their English education background. Before recording, the Japanese subjects

─ 66 ─

Tomoko Nariai：A Study of English Phonetic Characteristics Uttered by Japanese Learners of English in Consideration of Their School Education Backgroundpracticed the English sentences after listening to the speeches uttered by native speakers ofEnglish. The speech of the Japanese subjects was, however, different from that of the English
subjects in all points. The Japanese subjects had not been taught how to intonate English or movetheir mouth and tongue in English in their school days. Their performance was therefore caused
by a lack of sufficient education in English pronunciation according to the guidelines in their schooldays.

6. Reference
1)

MEXT, Foreign Language Education[http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/kokusai/gaikokugo/index.htm] Oct4,2019.

2)

GOM, 英 語 に 関 す る 意 識 調 査 [https://prtimes.jp/main/html/rd/p/000002228.000000136.html] Dec 3,
2018.

3)

A. Kashiwagi, M. Snyder, “Intelligibility of Japanese College Freshmen as Listened to by Native and4)

K. Ishida, “Factors affecting intelligibility of English: comparison of effects caused by segmental and

Nonnative Listeners,” Jacet Journal, Vol.53, pp39-56, 2014.
prosody errors generated by the text-to-speech technology,” Journal of Kansai University Graduate Schoolof Foreign Language Education and Research, Vol.11, pp71-97, 2013.
5)
6)

M.Sugito, Nihon jin no Eigo,Izumi Shoin, 1996.
T. Derwing, M. Munro, G. Wiebe, “Evidence in favor of a broad framework for pronunciation instruction”,
Language Learning, Vol.48, pp393-410,1998.

7)
8)

P. Roach, “English Phonetics and Phonology: A Practical Course,” Cambridge University Press, 2009.
S. Yabuuchi, H. Satoi, “Prosodic Characteristics of Japanese EFL Learnersʼ Oral Reading Comparison
between Good and Poor Readers,”Gaikokugo Kyoiku Media gakkai kikan shi, Vol.38, pp99-112, 2001.

9)

S. Yamane, Notes on the intelligibility of Japanese EFL learners' pronunciation, Kansai Daigaku Gaikokugo
Gakubu Kiyo, Vol. 13, pp129-141, 2015.

10) University of Edinburgh, Mocha-Timit [http://www.cstr.ed.ac.uk/research/projects/artic/mocha.html],
Oct. 4, 2019.
11) K. Tanaka, Y. Itoh, H. Kojima, N. Fujimura, “Speech data retrieval system constructed on a universal
phonetic code domain,” ASRU 2001, pp. 323-326, 2001.
12) Audacity, [https://www.audacityteam.org/], Oct 4, 2019.
13) Royal Institute of Technology, Wavesurfer, [https://www.speech.kth.se/wavesurfer/], Oct 4, 2019.
14) Cambridge Centre, CEFR [https://cambridgecentre.jp/exams/cefr/], Oct 4, 2019.
15) M.Tejima, “On Teaching English Pronunciation in Japanese Secondary Education How It Is and How It
Should Be,” Onsei Kenkyu, Vol.15, No.1, pp31-43, 2011.
16) MEXT, Chapter 2 subject, Section 9 foreign language [http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/cs/1320086.
htm]17) MEXT, Chapter 2 subject for education, Section 8, foreign language, [http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/
shotou/cs/1320334.htm]

─ 67 ─