Sophia University Junior College Division Faculty Journal
第 44 号, 2023, 29-48

Research Note

A Case Study on the Effectiveness ofThree Treatments on /l/ and /r/ Phonemes
with a Japanese Learner
Omar Serwor Massoud
Abstract
This research investigates how a Japanese professional made progress in her
production of the /l/ and /r/ sounds over a six-week period. The study considers thesecond language acquisition theory on pronunciation activities that help learners
discriminate and enunciate /l/ and /r/ sounds. Three treatment activities address theparticipant’s pronunciation difficulty of the respective sounds: minimal pair, gapfill activity, and tongue twister. The study found that the participant made a 26.2%
improvement rate from the pretest to the posttest. The pretest and posttest are basedon two reading passages that consist of /l/ and /r/ phonemes words. However, despite theprogress, the study has two major limitations: generalizability and retention rate.

Introduction
The English language serves as a medium of communication for many people
worldwide and, intelligible pronunciation is essential for effective communication.
However, the L1 background of some nonnative speakers (NNS) affect their ability
to pronounce words that are intelligible for native English speakers (NS) for effective
communication. Jenkins’ (2000) Lingua Franca Core (LFC) provides strategies toaddress challenges in phonology for NNS to improve the intelligibility of speech, byaddressing aspects of pronunciation such as vowel length, initial consonant cluster, andstress. It is important for NNS to learn appropriate pronunciation to express themselvesclearly.
This paper looks at the effectiveness of three treatment activities to increase thelearner’s ability to discriminate and enunciate the /l/ and /r/ phonemes. The phonemes/l/ and /r/ are challenging to produce for many Japanese speakers of English. The
participant in this study has the same difficulty with pronunciation. With this in mind,
three activities are employed to treat the participant: minimal pair, a gap-fill activity,─ 29 ─

Omar Serwor Massoud

and tongue twister.

1. Literature Review
In L2 speakers, accent plays a vital role in feeling respected and understood.
Levis (2005) found that NNS with strong accents faced discrimination in their work
environment as their speech was deemed less intelligible than NS. Also, in someinstances, Japanese who went abroad faced discrimination for not being able to use the/l/ phoneme (Gluszek and Dovidio, 2010). According to Aoyama et al. (2004), Japaneselearners find it difficult to distinguish the /l/ and /r/ phonemes if they did not learn themwhen they were children. Moreover, many Japanese learners also find it difficult to
produce those phonemes (Kinnaird and Zapf, 2004).
Intelligibility of speech is a key component of effective communication. According to
Munro and Derwing (1999) found non-native speakers with a strong accent can produce
intelligible speech that is comprehensible to NS. On the other hand, Yamane (2015),
the accent of NNS can sometimes obstruct communication even when the speaker’s
speech is otherwise comprehensible. This means that misplacing stress or accent on aword can make it difficult for the listener to understand what is being said. Pronouncing
consonants incorrectly can also impact intelligibility. For example, stressing the wrong
syllable in a word can cause it to be misunderstood, as in the case of “present” being
mistaken for the verb “to present” rather than the noun “a gift.” Similarly, placing thestress on the wrong syllable in a word with multiple meanings can lead to confusion
about which meaning is intended, as in the case of “record” being mistaken for theverb “to record” rather than the noun “a record.” While accent may be a factor in theintelligibility of speech, it is not the only determinant of comprehensibility.
There are several factors that contribute to the difficulty of learning the /l/ and/r/ phonemes. Age has a big influence on the learner’s ability to learn the /l/ and/r/ phonemes (Piske, MacKay, & Flege, 2001). Critical period and sensitive period
hypotheses point to age-determinant factors that can prevent a learner from developing
the ability to distinguish between the sounds /l/ and /r/ (Lenneberg, 1967). Furthermore,learners who learn L2 at the late stage of the sensitive period will have difficulty
developing the /l/ phoneme (Lenneberg, 1967). The Japanese language does not havecertain specific sounds in the English sound system. The Japanese language has a flap
[ɺ] positioned between /l/ and /r/, and it does not have alveolar /l/ and rhotic /r/ (Nogita,2010). In addition, the amount of L1 use affects the degree of the learner’s accent when
speaking L2 (Piske, MacKay, & Flege, 2001). Finally, motivation and prior experience─ 30 ─A Case Study on the Effectiveness of Three Treatments on /l/ and /r/ Phonemes with a Japanese Learnerwith the L2 can influence a learner’s willingness to learn (Seliger et al., 1975; Piske,
MacKay, & Flege, 2001). These factors can make it challenging for learners to masterthe /l/ and /r/ phonemes.
While it can be challenging for many Japanese learners to produce the /l/ phoneme,studies have shown that some are able to make progress. For example, Japaneseindividuals living in the United States for extended periods of time were able todistinguish /l/ and /r/ sounds like NS (Yamada, 1995). In another study, Japanese
who lived abroad for more than 12 years performed better at discriminating /l/ and /r/phonemes compared to those who only stayed for three years (Flege et al., 1995). Suchstudies suggest adult learners can improve their perception and production of the /l/ and/r/ phoneme through extensive practice and exposure.
There are various strategies to develop a learner’s pronunciation. One effective
approach is to provide opportunities for spontaneous speaking practice, as this can help
address pronunciation difficulties (Saito, 2012). Additionally, it can be helpful to provide
guidance and structured instruction to address specific challenges with pronunciation.
Jenkins’ (2000) Lingua Franca Core offers a standardized pronunciation system to help
learners achieve intelligibility and reduce discrimination due to not sounding native-like.
Saito (2012) suggests the following steps to treat learners with pronunciation difficulty:
first, identify the areas the learner has difficulty pronouncing; second, do activities in acontrolled setting to raise awareness of the diagnostic area; last, practice spontaneous
pronunciation activities. Combining controlled practice with spontaneous pronunciation
activities, and following this sequence of steps, can be effective in treating pronunciationdifficulties.
There are a number of activities that can be used to improve a learner’s
pronunciation. In pronunciation classes, teachers use minimal pair activities to help
learners distinguish words that sound similar. These activities can help learners develop
their ability to perceive the /l/ phoneme (MacKain et al.,1981; Iverson et al., 2003; Lively
et al., 1993; Logan et al., 1991; Uther et al., 2008). In a separate study, learners who
took a three-week training program on pronunciation using minimal pair activities
were able to recall and distinguish the phonemes /l/ and /r/ after three months (Lively
et al., 1994). That said, recall accuracy was lower for new words produced by unfamiliar
talkers compared to those produced by familiar ones. Also, learners developed theirproduction skills with the /l/ phoneme. Learners who received explicit instruction andfeedback through one-to-one training could correctly produce the /l/ phoneme (Hattori,2009). Research has also shown that explicit instruction can be effective in building─ 31 ─

Omar Serwor Massoud

awareness of a second language (Spada and Tomita, 2010). A study by Saito (2013)
found that learners who received explicit instruction on pronunciation but did not
focus directly on the /l/ phoneme, still improved their comprehensibility. Sitoresmi(2016) found that tongue twisters were a challenging activity to practice under time
constraints, but drilling words exercises improved pronunciation and motivation.

2. Research Question
The study’s objective is to see if pronunciation activities help improve theparticipant’s ability to discriminate and enunciate the /l/ and /r/ sounds. This paper aims
to explore the research question: Does the participant improve her ability to discriminate
and enunciate the /l/ and /r/ phonemes with three treatments: minimal pair, gap fill
activity, and tongue twister?

3. Methodology
Participant
Natsumi, a pseudonym for a 36-year-old Japanese woman living in Japan,
participated in a study led by a 33-year-old male researcher from the United Kingdom
in 2018. She first learned English in junior high school and attended an English cramschool for six years. In addition, she traveled to Australia at the age of 17 and used
English for functional purposes such as sightseeing and ordering food. After returningfrom her trip, Natsumi stopped using English until she started making foreign friends
online in 2017. In order to communicate with them, she began relearning English anddedicated several hours a week to studying through voice calls and chatting apps. Her
proficiency in English is demonstrated by her score of 420 on the TOEIC listening andreading test. Natsumi plans to continue improving her English skills and make more
foreign friends, as well as travel internationally.

Pedagogical Materials
The pretest consists of two readings of 110-word passages designed to identify andtest the participant’s progress of the /l/ and /r/ phonemes. The three treatment activities
were minimal pair, a gap fill activity, and tongue twister. The activities helped thelearner practice the /l/ and /r/ phonemes.
Treatment one, the minimal pair activity, raised awareness of words that begin withthe /l/ and /r/ phonemes. The participant listened to words pronounced with a British
accent by the researcher, repeated them, and checked her accuracy on a worksheet (see

─ 32 ─A Case Study on the Effectiveness of Three Treatments on /l/ and /r/ Phonemes with a Japanese LearnerAppendix E). In treatment two, Natsumi read the gap fill activity out loud and filled in
the appropriate word in the gap (see Appendix F). The sheet lists the correct words atthe bottom of the gap-fill activity. In the free talk sessions, the participant responded tocommunication questions such as: Where did you go last weekend? What was the most
exciting thing you did today and why? Can you tell me what you plan on doing next week?
As the participant responded to the questions, she paid attention to how she used the/l/ and /r/ phonemes. In treatment three, Natsumi listened to tongue twisters sentences
and repeated them (see Appendices G and H). Then, the participant paid attention tothe onset of each word before saying them. She read each sentence at a slow pace andgradually read them faster. The activity allowed the learner to produce and discern the/l/ and /r/ phonemes.

Assessment Material
The study’s assessment instrument is based on the participant reading aloud
two passages. The pretest and posttest results are based on the correct and incorrect
pronunciation of words with the /l/ and /r/ phonemes in the selected reading passages.
The collected data was added to a spreadsheet file to see the pretest and posttest scores,
see Appendices.
There are two readings. The first reading consists of 110 words, of which 43 havethe /l/ phoneme. The second passage consists of 110 words with 41 /r/ phoneme words.
The participant read the passages and practiced pronouncing the correct form of theword. A smartphone recorder application recorded the pretest responses. The participant
received a score based on the number of correct pronunciations of the /l/ and /r/ words. If
the learner produced words with the /l/ and /r/ phonemes correctly, it was considered asuccess but a failure if the words are produced incorrectly.

ProceduresThis section provides a brief overview of the meetings, including the purpose of theexercises that were practiced.
Session 1, February 18, 2018: Initial meeting. Natsumi was interested in how her
pronunciation assessment would go. She expressed that her pronunciation was terrible
but understood that the activities were there to help improve her intelligibility. She wasinformed that her identity and the performance recordings would remain confidential.
She felt self-conscious about mispronouncing words while reading. As she read thepassage, the researcher listened for words she struggled to say (see Appendix A). The

─ 33 ─

Omar Serwor Massoud

researcher used an iPhone 10 built-in microphone to record conversational utterances.
As she read the passage, the researcher took notes of the errors produced. During thereading, she muttered expressions in Japanese, such as wakannai (I don’t understand)and muzukashii (That’s difficult), when she did not know how to say certain words. At
this point, it became apparent that she had trouble correctly pronouncing words that
contained /l/ and /r/ phonemes. After the reading the passage on luxury travel on Airbnb,
the researcher had a free talk discussion about how the participant felt about thereading. She expressed her desire to one day experience luxury travel. While she foundsome parts of the reading to be challenging, she was ultimately able to understand it.
Session 2, February 25, 2018: Administer a pretest. Natsumi read the two
passages. The first passage consisted of words with the /l/ phoneme and the second withthe /r/ phoneme. Both passages were challenging to read for Natsumi. She struggled
to pronounce some of the words. When she read, she occasionally paused to think
about how she would say the words to avoid mispronouncing them. The words she
mispronounced are highlighted in the reading passages (see Appendices B, C, and D).
During the free talk, she explained that she struggled with pronouncing words that
contained the /l/ and /r/ phonemes. She found that words with the /r/ onset were morechallenging to produce than those with the /l/ onset. She explained that constantly
switching the tongue’s position was tiring.
Session 3, March 4, 2018: Treatment one. Natsumi was very positive and eager
to participate in the treatment session. We started the session with a free talk warmup. Next, she talked about the events that took place over the week. Then the researcher
explained to her about treatment one: the minimal pair activity. After that, theresearcher proceeded to do the activity. First, the researcher gave her the minimal pairworksheet (see Appendix E). The participant was instructed to listen to the researcher
and check the correct word for the minimal pairs presented. After completing theactivity, the participant stated that it helped her focus on the words that differed only by
the /l/ and /r/ phonemes. During the free talk discussion, she explained that she received
limited instruction in junior and high school and paid little attention to the differences
between /l/ and /r/ phonemes. She asked the researcher to explain how to produce the/l/ and /r/ phonemes and where to place the tongue when producing such sounds. The
researcher showed Natsumi pictures of the tongue’s position when producing /l/ and /r/phonemes and how to pronounce them.
Session 4, March 11, 2018: Treatment two. She talked about her week and how
she had practiced the /l/ and /r/ sounds at home using a mirror to direct her tongue. She

─ 34 ─A Case Study on the Effectiveness of Three Treatments on /l/ and /r/ Phonemes with a Japanese Learnerexplained that she still finds pronouncing /l/ and /r/ challenging. Then, the researcher
instructed Natsumi about the second treatment, the gap-fill activity like the pretest
readings, one and two (see Appendix F). In the gap-fill activity, the participant listened
to the researcher read the two passages and filled in the blanks with the appropriate
words listed below each reading passage. The objective was for the participant to pay
attention and discriminate between the /l/ and /r/ sounds in a controlled manner.
Session 5, March 18, 2018: Treatment three. During the free talk, Natsumi
explained she had spent time practicing /l/ and /r/ words at home over the week. In
the tongue twister activity, the researcher explained the instructions to Natsumi (seeAppendix H). The researcher then asked the participant to repeat the sentences after
him. However, the participant became agitated and was unable to remember the second
half of the sentences when attempting to repeat them. Additionally, the participant
mispronounced the words and conflated the /l/ and /r/ phonemes in the sentences.
Natsumi explained that this activity was challenging for her. She explained that thewords with /l/ or /r/ onsets were more difficult to say than those with phonemes in the
middle or at the end.
Session 6, March 25, 2018: Administer a posttest. Natsumi was informed
prior to starting the test that the posttest questions would be identical to the pretest
questions. Then, Natsumi read the two passages for the posttest. As she read the text,
the researcher made notes of the words she produced correctly (see Appendix I). Finally,
during the free talk, she expressed her dream to travel the world. She found the posttest
reading passages easier than the pretest one.

4. Results
The data for this study was collected through the administration of a pretest anda posttest. These tests included two readings, each made up of a 110-word passage
focused on the /l/ and /r/ phonemes. The data collected was used to compare the numberof times a participant correctly pronounced words containing the /l/ and /r/ phonemeson the pretest to the number of correct responses on the posttest. By comparing thesescores, the researcher was able to determine the participant’s overall progress and see
how much they had improved. The result of this comparison allowed the researcher
to understand the participant’s improvement in her ability to produce the /l/ and /r/phonemes accurately.
The participant scored 44.2% and 53.7% on the pretest for reading passages 1 and
2, respectively, indicating difficulty producing words correctly when /l/ and /r/ phonemes

─ 35 ─

Omar Serwor Massoud

pretest scores in Table 1 show that the participant tended to confuse thesesounds, or conflate them.

were the beginning sounds. The pretest scores in Table 1 show that the participant
tended to confuse these sounds, or conflate them.
Test Type

Test Type

Reading Passage 1 Total
obligatory
occasion
Reading
Passage
1 Total(numberof correct items
obligatory
occasion/ total(numberofitems)correct items /total items)(44.2%)
PretestPretest19/4319/43(44.2%)
Posttest

Posttest

30/43 (69.8%)

30/43 (69.8%)

Reading Passage 2
Overall total
Total
obligatory
score (%Overall
Reading Passage 2 Total
occasion(numberofcorrect items)
obligatory
occasion
total score
correct
items/ total items /(numberof correct(% correct
items)
total items)
items)
22/41
22/41(53.7%)(53.7%)

41/84 (48.8%)
41/84

33/41 (80.4%)

63/84 (75%)(48.8%)
63/84 (75%)

33/41 (80.4%)

Table 1. Obligatory Occasion Analysis of /l/ and /r/

Table 1. Obligatory Occasion Analysis of /l/ and /r/
100%
90%

80.4%

80%

75.0%

69.8%

70%
60%

53.7%

50%

48.8%

44.2%

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Reading Passage 1 Total
obligatory occasion

Reading Passage 2 Total
obligatory occasion
PretestOverall total score (% correct
items)

Post test

Figure1. Theoverallpretest and posttest
Figure 1. The
overallscoresfor thescores
pretestfor
andtheposttest
Posttest results indicate evidence of improvement. The participant’s scores on
Posttest results indicate evidence of improvement. The participant's

the posttest for reading passages 1 and 2 are 53.7% and 80.4%, respectively. The
scores on
the posttest
for thereadingpassages
1 and 2 fromare 53.7%
andto80.4%,
participant’s
overallscore onposttest
increased
48.8%
75% in comparison

to the pretest.
TheTheresultshows overallthat theparticipant
madesome from
improvementin
respectively.
participant's
score
on the posttest
increased
48.8%
differentiating and producing the /l/ and /r/ phonemes (Figure 1).
12

5. Discussion
The purpose of the study was to determine the effectiveness of the three treatment
activities on the participant’s pronunciation over a six-week period. The treatments
to some extent improved the participant’s ability to discriminate and produce /l/ and/r/ phonemes. The six sessions followed a three-step process, diagnosing pronunciation

─ 36 ─A Case Study on the Effectiveness of Three Treatments on /l/ and /r/ Phonemes with a Japanese Learnerdifficulties, treating the troubled areas, and seeing the level of the process theparticipant made. Initially, the participant found the /l/ and /r/ complicated, but aspractice time increased, she showed signs of improvement by the end of the program.
In this study, the research question was: Does the participant improve her ability
to discriminate and enunciate the /l/ and /r/ phonemes with three treatments: minimal
pair, gap-fill activity, and tongue twister? The result shows that the participant madeimprovements. The overall score of the participant improved from 48.8% to 75%, a 26.2%
increase from the pretest to the posttest (Figure 1).
In session 1, the participant stated that her priority was the /l/ and /r/ phonemes,
even though she had trouble pronouncing other sounds. Natsumi explained she hadsome difficulty with the voiced and voiceless alveolar-fricatives, /s/ and /z/ phonemes, inthe final consonant of a word. For example, she was unsure when to replace /s/ with /z/.
She was aware of the distinction between /s/ and /z/ and produced such sounds correctly
during the communicative activity inconsistently. She also stated that she had trouble
with the voiced labiodental-fricative /v/ phoneme. She added that the /v/ sound wascomplex, included in Jenkins’ LFC, and necessary for her comprehensibility. Although
she had problems pronouncing different phonemes, she expressed that focusing on the
pronunciation of the /l/ and /r/ phonemes was the priority. Furthermore, the participant
mentioned a desire to experience “luxury travel” in the future, indicating a potential
association between good English skills and high social status or upward mobility.
In session 2, the participant’s reading of both passages was adequate. Natsumi
frequently confused the /l/ and /r/ phonemes, reading words phonetically andmispronouncing them as a result. For instance, she pronounced the word ‘realize’ as/liəˌlaɪz/. This mispronunciation of the /l/ and /r/ phonemes was also apparent during thefree talk discussion.
Natsumi’s performance during the study was influenced by her fear of making
mistakes. This fear may be rooted in the Japanese cultural emphasis on avoiding
errors. During the free talk discussion activities, Natsumi tended to respond to openended questions in a way that minimized the risk of making mistakes. She formulated
sentences that were easy to produce, given her relative understanding of English. For
example, when she formulated sentences, she used words that were easy to produce
and retrieve from memory rather than recalling ones that had the /l/ and /r/ onset to
avoid making incorrect pronunciation. Natsumi had a good understanding of the correct
forms of these words, but struggled to quickly produce the correct pronunciation during
conversation. This suggests that her fear of making mistakes may have hindered her─ 37 ─

Omar Serwor Massoud

ability to pronounce the /l/ and /r/ phonemes appropriately.
Natsumi had difficulty with the treatment activities as she was unfamiliar withsome words in the reading and treatment activities. In session 3, she wanted to continue
talking about her week instead doing minimal pair activities. She felt embarrassed
when she could not perfectly pronounce words that contained the /l/ and /r/ phonemes.
In sessions 4 and 5, Natsumi found treatment activities helped her focus oncorrectly pronouncing /l/ and /r/ phonemes. She found the listening aspect of the gap-fill
activity easier than the other treatments. This can be attributed to the listed answers
below the passages, which she could read and select correctly to complete the blankspaces. However, the tongue twisters were very difficult for her. She appreciated theopportunity to practice the phonemes in a fun manner.
In session six, the posttest readings were the same as the pretest. The participant
produced the words more quickly and clearly. One potential reason for making progress
may be due to her being more prepared for the reading than the pretest, which helped
her focus on reading the words more carefully. The /l/ and /r/ phonemes in the middle orend of a word have a more discreet sound than when they are at the onset. It may also
explain why she made more progress on pronouncing words where /l/ and /r/ were in the
middle or the end of the word.
While the posttest results show that the participant’s pronunciation improved tosome extent, she still had difficulty with some words that contained /l/ and /r/ at the onset.
The posttest results also revealed that the incorrect words produced by the participant
were similar to the ones she got wrong during the pretest. Despite this, the use ofminimal pairs, gap-fill activities, and tongue twisters helped improve her pronunciation
to some degree. These treatment activities allowed her to focus on her core difficultywith the /l/ and /r/ phonemes and taught her the correct way to produce these sounds.
During the free talk, the participant expressed her desire to travel the world,
indicating that she is emotionally invested in learning English and potentially sees it asa means to achieve her aspirations. This emotional investment could potentially make iteasier for her to improve her English skills. The improvement in her performance on the
posttest reading passages compared to the pretest also supports this idea. Overall, thepresent study offers some insight into the effectiveness of pronunciation activities andhow it may help learners focus on their pronunciation difficulties, leading to improved
ability to distinguish and produce /l/ and /r/ phonemes. However, it is important toconsider the limitations of the study, including the small sample size, which makes it
difficult to generalize the findings to a larger population.

─ 38 ─A Case Study on the Effectiveness of Three Treatments on /l/ and /r/ Phonemes with a Japanese Learner

Conclusion
The present study offers some insight into the effectiveness of pronunciation
activities. It shows that pronunciation activities may help enable learners to focus on
their pronunciation difficulty, which can help improve their ability to distinguish andproduce /l/ and /r/ phonemes. The participant’s pronunciation improved to some extent
due to the use of three treatments: minimal pair exercises, gap fill activities, and tongue
twisters. The use of minimal pair exercises, gap fill activities, and tongue twisters led toan improvement in pronunciation for the participant in this study. However, it was also
noted that some learners may need to be warmed up and be in the right mindset before
receiving these treatments in order to be more receptive to them.
There are several limitations to this study, which make it difficult to apply thefindings to a larger population. A study with a larger sample size would be necessary to
determine the generalizability of these results. Secondly, it still needs to be determined
whether the participant can retain her ability to discriminate and produce /l/ and /r/ inthe long term. In hindsight, assessing the participant’s performance in a spontaneous
speaking situation would have been helpful. Also, informing the participant about
orthographic reading and phonics would have been beneficial.
Overall, this study provides some insight into the potential benefits of pronunciation
activities for language learners. Future research should aim to increase the scale of thestudy to better understand the generalizability of the findings.

References
Aoyama, K., Flege, J. E., Guion, S. G., Akahane-Yamada, R., & Yamada, T. (2004).
Perceived phonetic dissimilarity and L2 speech learning: the case of Japanese /r/and English /l/ and /r/. Journal of Phonetics, 32(2), 233-250. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0095-4470(03)00036-6
th

Avery, P., & Ehrlich, S. (1992). Teaching American English pronunciation. (4 ed.). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
BreakingNewsEnglish.com. (n.d.). Airbnb enters luxury travel market. Www.
breakingnewsenglish.com. Retrieved February 24, 2018, from https://breakingnew
senglish.com/1802/180225-airbnb-luxury-travel-0.html
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D., & Goodwin, J. (1996). Prominence in intonation anddiscourse (ch. 6). Teaching pronunciation: A reference for teachers of English to
speakers of other languages. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciation

─ 39 ─

Omar Serwor Massoud

teaching: a research-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 379. https://doi.
org/10.2307/3588486
Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focussed instruction on l2 acquisition.
AILA Review, 19, 18–41. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.19.04ell
Gluszek, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (2010). The way they speak: a social psychological perspectiveon the stigma of nonnative accents in communication. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 14(2), 214–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309359288
Hattori, K. (2009). Perception and production of English /r/-/l/ by adult Japanese
speakers. Dissertation, University College London. Available at: http://discovery.ucl.
ac.uk/19204/1/19204.pdf
HomeSpeechHome. (n.d.). 900+ L Words, Phrases, Sentences, and Paragraphs by Place,
Syllable, & Blend. HomeSpeechHome. Retrieved November 24, 2022, from https://www.home-speech-home.com/l-words.html
Iverson, P., Kuhl, P. K., Akahane-Yamada, R., Diesch, E., Tohkura, Y., Kettermann, A.,& Siebert, C. (2003). A perceptual interference account of acquisition difficulties
for nonnative phonemes. Cognition, 87(1), B47 B57. https://doi.org/10.1016/s00100277(02)00198-1
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. New models,
new norms, new goals. Oxford University Press.
Kinnaird, S., & Zapf, J. (2004). An acoustical analysis of a Japanese speaker’s productionof English /r/ and /l/. IULC Working Papers, 4, 1-27.
Lauer, J. (2017). Can Japanese students of English significantly improve /l/ pronunciation?
Hiroshima Studies in Language and Language Education. 20, 37-48.
Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley and
Sons.
Levis, J. M. (2005) Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching.
TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 369-377. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588485.
Lively, S. E., Logan, J. S., & Pisoni, D. B. (1993). Training Japanese listeners to identify
English /r/ and /l/ II: The role of phonetic environment and talker variability inlearning new perceptual categories. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 94,
1242-1255.
Lively, S. E., Pisoni, D. B., Yamada, R. A., Tohkura, Y., & Yamada, T. (1994). Training
Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/ III: long term retention of newphonetic categories. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 96, 2076-2087.
Logan, J. S., Lively, S. E., & Pisoni, D. B. (1991). Training Japanese listeners to─ 40 ─A Case Study on the Effectiveness of Three Treatments on /l/ and /r/ Phonemes with a Japanese Learner

identify English /r/ and /l/: A first report. The Journal of the Acoustical Society ofAmerica, 89(2), 874–886. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1894649
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and Teaching Languages Through Content: A
Counterbalanced Approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
MacKain, K. S., Best, C. T., & Strange, W. (1981). Categorical perception of English /r/and /l/ by Japanese bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 2(4), 369–390. https://doi.
org/10.1017/s0142716400009796
Minimal Pairs /l/ and /r/. (2017, January 17). Retrieved from https://www.englishclub.
com/pronunciation/minimal-pairs-l-r.htm/
Munro, M., & Derwing, (1999). T. Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility
in the speech of second language learners. In J. Leather (Ed.). Phonological issues
in language learning. (pp. 285-310). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Nogita, A. (2010). Do Japanese ESL learners’ pronunciation errors come from inability
to articulate or misconceptions about the target sounds? Working Papers of the
Linguistics Circle, 20(1), 82-116.
Saito, K. (2012). Effects of Instruction on L2 Pronunciation Development: A Synthesisof 15 Quasi-Experimental Intervention Studies. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 842–854.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.67
Saito, K. (2013). Reexamining effects of form-focused instruction on L2 pronunciation
development: The role of explicit phonetic information. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 35(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263112000666
Schmidt, R. (2010). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language
learning. In W.M. Chan, S. Chi, K.N. Cin, J. Istanto, M. Nagami, J. W. Ser, T.
Suthiwan, & I. Walker, Proceedings of Classic 2010, Singapore, December 2-4
Singapore: National University of Singapore, Centre for Language Studies. pp. 721737.
Seliger, H. W., Krashen, S. D. & Ladefoged, P. (1975) Maturational constraints in theacquisition of second language accent. Language Sciences, 36, 20-22.
Sitoresmi, U. (2016, January). Tongue twisters in pronunciation class. In Proceeding ofInternational Conference on Teacher Training and Education (Vol. 1, No. 1)
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of
language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263-308.
Speakmethod. (n.d.). English Pronunciation Online: 500 Words T Sounds. www.
speakmethod.com. Retrieved February 24, 2018, from http://www.speakmethod.
com/500wordspracticeL.html

─ 41 ─

Omar Serwor Massoud

Speakmethod. (n.d.). English Pronunciation Online: 500 Words T Sounds. www.
speakmethod.com. Retrieved February 24, 2018, from http://www.speakmethod.
com/500wordspracticeR.html
Tongue Twisters - R and L (2018, February 18). Retrieved from http://www.eslcommando.
com/2014/02/tongue-twisters-r-and-l.html
Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2012). Disentangling accent from comprehensibility.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(4), 905–916. https://doi.org/10.1017/
s1366728912000168
Uther, M., Uther, J., Athanasopoulos, P., Singh, P. & Akahane-Yamada, R. (2007).
Mobile Adaptive CALL (MAC). A lightweight speech-based intervention for mobile
language learners. Proceedings of Interspeech 2007 Conference, (Antwerp, Belgium,
August 27-31, 2007), pp. 2329-2332
Yamane, S. (2015). 日本人学習者の目指す明瞭性 ( intelligibility ) の高い英語発音 は (Notes
on the intelligibility of Japanese EFL learners’ pronunciation) 西大学外国語学部紀要 (13), 129-141.

Appendix A: Initial Diagnostics
Airbnb is moving into luxury travel. Its new business will have new places to stay,
like vacation homes and boutique hotels. Airbnb offers over four million rooms in 191
countries. It has had over 260 million reservations. This will be more than one billion in
2028. The Airbnb boss wants everyone to use it.
Airbnb does not own any rooms. It helps property owners to rent homes totravelers. The company gets money from booking fees. It will soon offer adventure traveland “unique spaces.” It will offer yurts - big, round Mongolian tents. It will also offer
travelers “full-on luxury stays.” These include “some of the world’s nicest homes.”

Appendix B: Pretest Text
Reading A /l/
It is always difficult, not at all simple, to learn a new language. Language learning isa lifelong process of listening for the sounds of vowels and consonants and developing
one’s knowledge about language rules. Most people have to complete several classes to
speak clearly. While learning new rules, some problems reveal little differences between
languages. These subtle points can feel almost laughable, but they tell of cultural choicesthat happen when people are living in different worlds. A student will only be truly glad
when real progress leads to fluent speech.

─ 42 ─A Case Study on the Effectiveness of Three Treatments on /l/ and /r/ Phonemes with a Japanese Learner

Reading B /r/
It is difficult for girls in America to prepare for the future. Many girls watch toomuch TV and, as a result, believe that dressing well, driving a great car, having
a lot of friends, and being pretty will guarantee success in life. However, they
are too young to realize that these values arise from the wealth of TV actors. As
they become more grounded and grow up, they can see that product advertising
clearly dictates the appearances on TV. Of course, some girls have a hard time
accepting reality and carry their dreams of material fortune into adulthood.
Only later do they realize how a person can be strong through moral character.

Appendix C: Pre-test Obligatory Occasion
Reading 1 /l/
It is always difficult, not at all simple, to learn a new language. Language
learning is a lifelong process of listening for the sounds of vowels and consonants
and developing one’s knowledge about language rules. Most people have tocomplete several classes to speak clearly. While learning new rules, someproblems reveal little differences between languages. These subtle points can feel
almost laughable, but they tell of cultural choices that happen when people areliving in different worlds. A student will only be truly glad when real progress
leads to fluent speech.
Reading 2 /r/
It is difficult for girls in America to prepare for the future. Many girls watch toomuch TV and, as a result, believe that dressing well, driving a great car, having
a lot of friends, and being pretty will guarantee success in life. However, they
are too young to realize that these values arise from the wealth of TV actors. As
they become more grounded and grow up, they can see that product advertising
clearly dictates the appearances on TV. Of course, some girls have a hard time
accepting reality and carry their dreams of material fortune into adulthood.
Only later do they realize how a person can be strong through moral character.

─ 43 ─

Omar Serwor Massoud

Appendix D: Pretest result
Reading 1

Reading 2

1. always

O 23. rules

1. prepare

23. advertising

2. difficult

O 24. problems

2. for

O 24. clearly

3. all

O 25. reveal

3. future

O 25. appearances

4. simple

O 26. little

4. girls

O 26. courseO

5. result

27. girls

OO

5. learn

27. languages

6. language

28. subtle

O 6. believe

O 28. hard

7. language

29. feelO 7. dressing

O 29. reality

8. learning

30. almost

O 8. driving

30. carryO

9. lifelong

31. laughable

9. great

31. theirO

O 32. dreams

O

11. friends

O 33. materialO

O 12. pretty

O 34. fortune

10. listening

O 32. tell

11. vowels

33. cultural

12. developing

34. people

13. knowledge

O 35. living

14. language

36. worlds

15. rules

37. will

16. people

O 38. only

17. complete

O 10. car

13. guarantee

35. later

14. however

O 36. realize

O 15. areO 37. personO

O 16. realize

38. strongO

O 39. truly

17. arise

39. through18. several

O 40. glad

O 18. from

19. classes

O 41. real

19. actors

20. clearly

42. leads

21. while

O 43. fluent

O 40. moral
O 41. character

20. grounded
21. grow

22. learning

22. product

Score: 19/43

Score: 22/41

─ 44 ─O

A Case Study on the Effectiveness of Three Treatments on /l/ and /r/ Phonemes with a Japanese LearnerAppendix E: Treatment 1 Minimal pair /l/ and /r/
1

lack

rack

9

lied

ride

2

lamb

ram

10

lies

rise

3

lamp

ramp

11

lip

rip

4

lane

rain

12

locketrocket

5

late

rate

13

loom

room

6

laze

raise

14

lows

rose

7

lead

read

15

luck

ruck

8

lice

rice

16

lush

rush

─ 45 ─

Omar Serwor Massoud

Appendix F: Treatment 2 Gap-fill activity
April, the elephant, __________ in Brazil. Her friends Lucy the __________ and Lexie,
the Owl, liked to be lazy. They would play on the log in the lake, take extra long__________, and dig holes. Then they met Albert the Whale, near a pool of water,by the ocean. Albert told them it is okay to __________, be silly, and be __________
sometimes, but it was dangerous to do in the jungle. Albert told them eleven waysthat would help them be safer. April, __________, and Lexie listened and __________
how to be safer. After __________ finished talking, the three friends yelled, “Thankyou,” to him as he swam away.
Albertlizard

lived

laugh

lucy

learnedluncheslazy

Whenever I have free time, I __________ to my garage. I have all kinds of crazyexperiments going on in there. I don’t mean testing rats or anything. I mean, reallycool experiments. For example, __________ now I am experimenting to see if carrots
can __________ batteries. I have had other experiments that have gone longer. My
experiment to see if __________ will make the speakers in my __________ louder
has been going on for over a year now. There are so many more ideas that I want toexperiment with - making a fireproof door, testing to see what __________ are madeof, trying to see if I can teach __________ to read. If my brain was made of trees, itwould be a forest of ideas. Science is __________!
race

radio

recharge

radicalraisins

rats

right

rainbows

─ 46 ─A Case Study on the Effectiveness of Three Treatments on /l/ and /r/ Phonemes with a Japanese LearnerAppendix G: Treatment 2 Gap fill activity
April, the elephant, lived in Brazil. Her friends, Lucy the Lizard and Lexie,
the Owl, liked to be lazy. They would play on the log in the lake, take extra longlunches, and dig holes. Then they met Albert the Whale, near a pool of water, by theocean. Albert told them it was okay to laugh, be silly, and be lazy sometimes, but
it was dangerous to do in the jungle. Albert told them eleven ways that would help
them be safer. April, Lucy, and Lexie listened and learned how to be safer.
After Albert finished talking, the three friends yelled, “Thank you,” to him as heswam away.
Albertlizard

lived

laugh

lucy

learnedluncheslazy

Whenever I have free time, I race to my garage. I have all kinds of crazyexperiments going on in there. I don’t mean testing rats or anything. I mean, reallycool experiments. For example, right now, I am experimenting to see if carrots
can recharge batteries. I have had other experiments that have gone longer.
My experiment to see if raisins will make the speakers in my radio louder has
been going on for over a year now. There are so many more ideas that I want toexperiment with - making a fireproof door, testing to see what rainbows are madeof, trying to see if I can teach rats to read. If my brain was made of trees, it would bea forest of ideas. Science is radical!
race

radio

recharge

radicalraisins

rats

right

rainbows

Appendix H: Treatment 3 Tongue twister /l/ and /r/ words
1. Lassie Lilly likes Ronny’s rulers.
2. Lad Larry rarely loves lyres.
3. Lessening levels of lead really lures lily pads.
4. Revelers revel in leveling levels.
5. Rory’s lawn rake rarely rakes really right.
6. A really leery Larry rolls readily to the road

─ 47 ─

Omar Serwor Massoud

Appendix I: Posttest result
Reading 1
1. always

O 23. rules

2. difficult

O 24. problems

3. all

O 25. reveal

4. simple

O 26. little

5. learn

O 27. languages

6. language
7. language

Reading 2
1. prepare

O 23. advertisingO

O 24. clearlyO

O 25. appearancesO

O 26. courseO

5. result

27. girls

O

O 28. subtle

O 6. believe

O 28. hardO

O 29. feelO 7. dressing

O 29. reality

O

O 30. carryO

31. theirO

O 10. carO 32. dreamsO

33. culture

O 11. friends

O 33. materialO

12. developing

O 34. people

O 12. pretty

O 34. fortuneO

13. knowledge

O 35. living

13. guarantee

35. laterO

14. language

O 36. worlds

14. however

O 36. realize

O 2. for3. future
O 4. girls

8. learning

30. almost

O 8. driving

9. lifelong

O 31. laughable

9. great

10. listening

O 32. tell

11. vowels

15. rules

37. will

16. people

O 38. only

17. complete

O 37. personO

O 16. realize

38. strongO

O 39. truly

17. arise

39. through18. several

O 40. glad

O 18. from

19. classes

O 41. real

19. actors

O 41. character

20. clearlyO 42. leads

20. groundedO

21. while

O 43. fluent

21. growO

22. learningO

22. product

O

Score 30/43

O 15. areScore: 33/41

─ 48 ─

O 40. moralO