TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ i

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................. iv

RÉSUMÉ .................................................................................................................................... v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................... vi

DEDICATION ......................................................................................................................... vii

CERTIFICATION ................................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................... ix

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... x

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... xi

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY ............................................................ 4

1.1. Language situation of Cameroon ..................................................................................... 4

1.2. Cameroon educational system ......................................................................................... 6

1.3. English in the Francophone educational sub-system ....................................................... 8

1.3.1. Teaching of English in Francophone Primary schools ............................................. 9

1.3.1.1 Syllabus ............................................................................................................... 9

1.3.1.2.. Teachers........................................................................................................... 11

1.3.1.3. Books ................................................................................................................ 12

1.3.1.4. Timetables ........................................................................................................ 12

1.3.1.5. Teaching method .............................................................................................. 12

1.3.2. The teaching of English in the francophone secondary schools ............................. 13

1.3.2.1. Syllabus ............................................................................................................ 13

1.3.2.2. Teachers............................................................................................................ 14

1.3.2.3. Books ................................................................................................................ 14

1.3.2.4. Timetables ........................................................................................................ 15

i
 1.3.4.5. Teaching method .............................................................................................. 16

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ........ 17

2.1. Works on the vowels on the Speech of Francophone speakers ..................................... 17

2.2. Gaps and contribution .................................................................................................... 21

2.3. English and French vowels ............................................................................................ 21

2.3.1. English vowels ........................................................................................................ 22

2.3.2. French vowel ........................................................................................................... 24

2.3.3. Vowel contrast ........................................................................................................ 26

2.4. The influence of L1 on L2 ............................................................................................. 26

2.5. Theoretical framework................................................................................................... 28

2.5.1. Contrastive analysis ................................................................................................ 28

2.5.1.1. Disadvantages of Contrastive Analysis ............................................................ 29

2.5.1.2. Relevance of Contrastive Analysis to this work .............................................. 29

2.5.2. Error analysis .......................................................................................................... 29

2.5.2.1. Error analysis proper ........................................................................................ 30

2.5.2.2. Source and procedure for analysing errors ....................................................... 31

2.5.2.3. Errors and mistakes .......................................................................................... 33

2.5.2.4. Advantages and disadvantages of Error Analysis ............................................ 33

2.5.2.5. Relevance of Error Analysis to this work ........................................................ 34

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................ 35

3.1. Setting ............................................................................................................................ 35

3.2. Informants ...................................................................................................................... 35

3.3. Data collection instruments ........................................................................................... 37

3.4. Method of data collection .............................................................................................. 37

3.5. Method of data analysis ................................................................................................. 38

3.6. Difficulties ..................................................................................................................... 38

CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ................................................................. 40

ii
 4.1. Analysis of the vowels ................................................................................................... 40

4.1.1. Front vowels ............................................................................................................ 40

4.1.2 Back vowels ............................................................................................................. 42

4.1.3 Central vowels.......................................................................................................... 44

4.1.4. Long vowels ............................................................................................................ 45

4.2 Analysis of the questionnaire.......................................................................................... 49

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 53

APPENDIX .............................................................................................................................. 57

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 64

iii
 ABSTRACT

Various studies have investigated the pronunciation of English segmental features in the
speech of francophone learners in Cameroon. The present work which follows the same line,
examined whether the ten Cours Moyen Deux (CM2) informants of “Ecole Publique de
Mfandena” and the ten Quatrieme (4eme) students of “Lycée de Zamengoué” pronounced the
twelve English monophthongs contained in the corpus following Standard British English
(SBE) norms. It aims at investigating which of the two level of education outperforms in the
rendering of English monophthongs and explains why the francophone learners of English tend
to deviate from SBE norms, despite the number of years of exposure to English Language as a
subject in school. Accordingly, the selected informants consisted of Francophone speakers of
primary and secondary schools who are in CM2 and 4eme, except students whose parents were
from the South-West and the North-West regions in Cameroon. Lado’s Contrastive Analysis
and Corder’s Error Analysis were used as theoretical foundations for this investigation. The
findings revealed that all the 20 informants greatly failed in pronouncing the English
monophthongs according to the SBE norms. Deeper analysis of renditions of English
monophthongs following the SBE norms further reveals that the CM2 pupils realised 6.11% of
few vowels following the SBE norms and the 4eme students scored 7.02%. Meanwhile, 43.33%
represent the renditions of CM2 pupils and 43.54% is the renditions of the 4eme following the
FrancoEng pronunciation. This led to the conclusion that Francophone learners of English in
school are ignorant of the SBE pronunciation norms especially the one of English
monophthongs. Also, regarding the approximate scores between the two levels, the 4eme
students barely outperform the CM2, but this insignificant gap clearly shows that the level of
education and the number of years of exposure to English do not ameliorate the pronunciation
of Francophone learners. These findings reinforce previous research on the analysis of the
English speech of Francophones. It also highlights the necessity to improve the teaching and
learning of English Language in the Francophone sub-system of education.

iv
 RÉSUMÉ

Diverses études ont été menées sur la prononciation des traits segmentaires dans le discours des
apprenants francophones au Cameroun. Le présent travail, qui s’inscrit dans la même lancée, examine
si les élèves du Cours Moyen Deux (CM2) et de quatrième (4eme) prononcent les douze voyelles
principales (monophtongues) de la langue Anglaise selon les normes de l’Anglais Britannique standard.
Il vise à rechercher lequel des deux niveaux d’éducation surpasse l’autre dans le rendu des
monophtongues Anglais et explique pourquoi les apprenants francophones de la langue Anglaise ont
tendance à s’écarter des normes de l’Anglais Britannique Standard, malgré le nombre d’années
d’exposition à la langue Anglaise en tant que matière d’enseignement à l’école. Pour mener à bien notre
travail, l’Analyse Contrastive de Lado et l’Analyse des Erreurs de Corder ont été utilisées comme
fondements théoriques tout au long de cette investigation. L’analyse Contrastive de Lado nous a permis
de prédire et expliquer certaines difficultés que les apprenants francophone de l’Anglais pourraient avoir
en prononçant les monophtongues de la langue Anglaise. L’Analyse d’Erreurs de Corder quant à elle
nous a permis d’identifier les différents lapsi présents dans la prononciation des apprenants francophone.
Notre étude était basée sur les élèves francophones du primaire à savoir le CM2 et les élèves du
secondaire notamment la classe de 4eme à l’exception des élèves dont les parents sont originaires des
régions du Sud-Ouest et du Nord-Ouest du Cameroun. A la fin de note étude, nous avons réalisé que les
vingt apprenants sélectionnés ne sont pas parvenus à prononcer les monophtongues Anglais selon les
normes de l’Anglais Britannique Standard. Une analyse approfondie de ces derniers a révélé que les
élèves du CM2 ont prononcés quelques voyelles selon les normes de l’Anglais Standard à seulement
6,11%. Quant aux élèves de 4eme, leur pourcentage de prononciation selon les normes de l’Anglais
Standard a été de 7,02%. Parallèlement, 43,33% pour les CM2 et 43,54% pour les 4emes ont représenté
la prononciation de ces même voyelles Anglaise selon l’Anglais généralement parlé par les
francophones. Cela a conduit à la conclusion selon laquelle les apprenants francophones n’ont pas une
maitrise des normes de prononciations de l’Anglais Britannique Standard en particulier celle des
monophtongues. Les scores approximatifs des deux niveaux d’éducation montrent également que les
élèves de 4eme supassent à peine ceux du CM2. Ce léger écart entre les deux niveaux démontre que
malgré le nombre d’années d’exposition à l’Anglais à l’école, les apprenants francophones ont tendance
à ignorer les normes de prononciation du standard Britannique. Alors cette étude renforcent les études
menées sur l’analyse de la prononciation dans le discours Anglais des francophones et egalement
souligne la nécessité d’améliorer le processus d’enseignement et d’apprentissage de la langue anglaise
dans le sous-système francophone.

v
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am very grateful to the great number of people who really supported me throughout this
investigation. First, my gratitude goes to my supervisor, Professor Jean Paul Kouega, for his
time, effort and patience in guiding me through this research. His availability, his attention and
his suggestions created a calm and constructive working atmosphere throughout the research
process.

I am also grateful to Tsala and Noah my academic elders here in the department of
English, for their assistance during the investigation. They provided documentations, advices
and encouragements that represented an important support for me and i will never forget that.

I equally express my gratitude to all the lecturers in the Department of English for the
knowledge that they transmitted to me during the two years that our training lasted.

I am so thankful to all the member of my family, especially to my uncle, Ayissi Etoundi Thomas
Parfait and also to Mr Tsala Belibi for all the support he has given to me.

Finally, special thanks to my best friends Carine, Flo, Leonie and Ornella for all the love and
encouragements they filled me with.

vi
 DEDICATION

To my lovely mother, Onana Etoundi Sylvie.

vii
 CERTIFICATION

I certify that this research work, entitled “The pronunciation of English monophthongs in the
speech of francophone learners: The case of Cours Moyen Deux (CM2) and Quatrieme (4eme)
students”, was carried out by Oleme Christine Larissa, a student of the Department of English,
Higher Teacher Training College Yaoundé.

__________________________________________________

Supervisor

Jean Paul Kouega

Professor

Department of English

University of Yaounde 1.

viii
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CM2 : Cours Moyen Deux

CM1 : Cours Moyen Un
CE1 : Cours Elémentaire un
CEP: Certificat d’Etudes Primaires
FSLC: First School Leaving Certificate
MINEDUC: Ministry of Education
MINESEC: Ministry of Secondary Education
ENIEG : Ecole Normale d’Instituteurs de l’Enseignement General
ENIET : Ecole Normale d’Instituteurs de l’Enseignement Technique
BEPC : Brevet d’Etudes du Premier Cycle
GCE O’ Level: General Certificate of Education- Ordinary Level
GCE A’ Level: General Certificate of Education- Advanced Level
PTA: Parent-Teacher Association
OBA: Objective Based Approach
CBA: Competence Based Approach
EFL: English as a Foreign Language
SBE: Standard British English
EA: Error Analysis
CA : Contrastive Analysis
SLA : Second Language Acquisition
L1: First Language
L2: Second Language
FrancoEng: Francophone English
RP: Received Pronunciation
CamFE: Cameroon Francophone English

ix
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: official list of subjects in primary school ................................................................... 7

Table 2: Cours Moyen Un (CM1) syllabus ............................................................................. 10
Table 3: Cours Moyen Deux (CM2) syllabus ......................................................................... 11
Table 4: the contents of the new programme of study for Francophone 4ème learners of
English. ..................................................................................................................................... 14
Table 5: modules for all the secondary classes in the francophone system. ........................... 15
Table 6: frenchified pronunciation in CamFE ......................................................................... 17
Table 7: rendering of /ɪ/ .......................................................................................................... 19
Table 8: rendering of /ɛ/, /ɒ/ and /ɔ/ ........................................................................................ 19
Table 9: rendering of /ɜ:/, /u:/ and /ʊ/ ...................................................................................... 20
Table 10: rendering of /ə/ and /ʌ/ ............................................................................................ 20
Table 11: The monophthongs of SBE (O’Connor, 1973) ....................................................... 22
Table 12: enrolment of the two schools and the number of informants selected: ................... 36
Table 13: informants’ classification according to gender ....................................................... 36
Table 14: renditions of the high, front; unrounded vowel /i/ in the corpus. .......................... 40
Table 15: renditions of the high, front, unrounded vowel /ɪ/ in the corpus ............................. 40
Table 16: renditions of the mid-low, front, unrounded vowel /ɛ/............................................ 41
Table 17: renditions of the low, front, unrounded vowel /æ/ .................................................. 42
Table 18: renditions of the low, back, unrounded vowel /ʌ/ in the corpus ............................. 42
Table 19: renditions of /ɒ/ and /ʊ/ ........................................................................................... 43
Table 20: renditions of the mid-low, central, unrounded /ə/ ................................................... 44
Table 21: renditions of the mid-high, central,unrounded /ɜ:/ .................................................. 45
Table 22: renditions of /ɑ:/, /u:/ and /ɔ:/ ................................................................................. 46
Table 23: renditions of /i:/ ....................................................................................................... 47
Table 24: The overall picture of SBE pronunciation for the monophthongs investigated ...... 48
Table 25: The teachers were asked for how long they had been teaching English. ................ 49
Table 26: previous levels taught .............................................................................................. 49
Table 27: the most important aspect of language used in their teaching method.................... 50
Table 28: teaching of pronunciation ........................................................................................ 50
Table 29: elements taught to learners during the teaching of pronunciation .......................... 51
Table 30: .................................................................................................................................. 51

x
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: British English vowel (Roach, 2000, P36-38) ......................................................... 23

Figure 2: tableau des voyelles en francais, JuanFrance 2018 ................................................. 25
Figure 3: English monophthongs pronunciation rate by CM2 and 4eme pupils ....................... 48

xi
 INTRODUCTION

English is a variety of the West Germanic language that has been spoken in England since
the fifth century. From this period, English has evolved like every living language and has
witnessed major changes that philologists classified into three phases named Old English,
Middle English and Modern English. The Modern English, the version of the language spoken
today (Chamonikolasova, 2014) has developed from the Early Modern English which
developed from the late fifteen century to the late seventeen century. The standardisation of
English Language has known great factors that facilitated the process notably the art of printing
introduced in 1476 by William Caxton. Since, the English Language extended on all continents
through colonisation, industrialisation and more.

One of these extensions of the English Language through colonisation is present in

Cameroon in which English has become one of the official languages of the country. Therefore,
English is a medium of institution and is taught both as a second and a foreign language in the
country. The various sociolinguistic contexts where English Language is used in Cameroon
resulted to new varieties of English characterised by significant deviations from Standard
British English (SBE) at different linguistic level including phonology, morphology, grammar,
lexicology, semantics and discourse.

In Cameroon francophone learners of English as a foreign language usually begin

learning the second language as a school subject either in primary and secondary school and
those who reach the tertiary level generally have to continue studying the language no matter
what field they choose to specialise in. The major differences between French and English
phonological systems usually result to a number of difficulties that learners encounter in the
acquisition process.

Motivation

What prompted the present investigation is firstly the love for phonology and languages,
secondly the fact that previous studies have been done to investigate the use of SBE in English
language classrooms in Cameroon. These studies include works like Safotso (2012a), Kouega
(2019), Kouega and Ombouda (2018). All these researchers ended with the conclusion that
many Cameroonian primary pupils, secondary students and their respective teachers have
limited mastery of English pronunciation (Rebara, 2022). Thirdly, French which is the first
Language (L1) of francophone learners has an important influence on English. Finally, English

1
language is taught as an important subject in both primary and secondary schools. This language
then has an important place in every examination in the country.

Research problem

English is studied in all educational institutions and levels in Cameroon. Both primary
and secondary schools learn English from day one of school through written texts rather than
spoken methods, as a result they constantly make mistakes and errors. So, this work would carry
out an investigation to test the pronunciation of English monophthongs in the speech of
francophone learners of both primary (CM2) and secondary school (4eme) as an evaluation of
the evolution of the English pronunciation.

Research questions

To investigate this issue, the following research questions have guided this work:

1. How do CM2 and 4ème pronounce English monophthongs?

2. Do 4ème students outperform CM2 pupils in the rendering of English monophthongs?

3. What should be done for francophones to speak English faster and better?

Research objectives

The present work sets out to investigate the pronunciation of English monophthongs by
francophone learners by comparing two levels of education (primary and secondary schools).
It principally focuses on vowels monophthongs. Thus, this work examines whether the CM2
and 4eme students pronounce the English monophthongs properly and whether the level of
education has a significance on the performance of the learners’ pronunciation. This work
targets francophone learners of English studying in the Francophone sub-system of education
in two selected schools in Yaoundé namely Ecole Publique de Mfandena and Lycée de
Zamengoué.

Curiosity about the English spoken by francophone speakers has sparked the interest of
many researchers in the recent years. Safotso (2012b) studied the aspects of English
pronunciation of French-speaking Cameroonians with the conclusion that the English spoken
by francophones in Cameroon is an autonomous variety of New Englishes that distinguishes
itself from SBE and CamE. In the same vein, Kouega and Ombouda (2018), for example,
studied the English spoken productions of both primary school teachers and their graduating
pupils in Cameroon. And they found out that primary school teachers were not qualified to

2
teach English in class which resulted to their learners’ constant deviations from the target
English pronunciation. Kouega (2019) analysed the major linguistic features of the English of
Francophone users, the findings revealed that francophone users tend to replace English
monophthongs especially the long vowels with their shorter versions.

Scope of the study

As far as the scope is concerned, our work takes into consideration both linguistic and
sociolinguistic domains. The linguistic part examined here is phonology, as the study is about
segmental (vowels) features of spoken English. For the sociolinguistic part, the background of
the informants and the level of education are the variables under study because the informants
of the study consist of only francophone learners in the class of CM2 in Ecole Publique de
Mfandena and 4eme in Lycée de Zamengoué in Yaoundé Cameroon. So, this study focuses
essentially on pupils who are about to leave the primary school and students that are in
secondary schools three years after leaving the primary school.

Significance of the study

This work is relevant in that the study of English pronunciation of French-speakers is

significant for both teachers and learners of French background. It helps them to improve their
English proficiencies. Through the study of phonology, this work will help the English learners
especially in Cameroon to know of their mistakes and errors and eventually automatically make
a self-correction of them. It is helpful in that learners will be able to differentiate words through
their vowel length and quality. Moreover, this work is significant in that it draws teachers
attention to the areas where their pupils have difficulties.

Structure of the work

This study is divided into four chapters. The chapter one entitled general background of
the study provides information about the language situation in Cameroon, the Cameroon
educational system and gives an overview of the teaching of English in the francophone sub-
system in primary and secondary schools. The chapter two, entitled literature review and
theoretical framework, discuss previous literature on the topic and provides a review of the
theoretical models that were used to carry out this study. The chapter three discusses the
different methods used to collect and analyse the data. The final chapter of this work, analyses
the data and discusses the findings.

3
 CHAPTER ONE:
BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

This chapter covers up the language situation in Cameroon (1.1), the Cameroon
educational system (1.2) and English in the francophone educational sub-system (1.3). These
are considered in time.

1.1. Language situation of Cameroon

As previous researchers have pointed out, Cameroon is situated in one of the complex
multilingual areas in Africa. This position makes it experience the enriching effects of linguistic
interference and contact. Kouega (2007a), also pointed out the multilingual aspect of Cameroon
and mentioned the fact every language in the country has a status. There are two official
languages, four major vehicular languages, several minor lingua francas, close to three hundred
lesser minority languages and one mixed language variant created by the youths.

• Official languages

Cameroon uses two official languages, English and French, a legacy of Cameroon’s
colonial past as a colony of the United Kingdom and France from 1916 to 1960. The status of
French and English as official languages has been stipulated by the successive constitution of
Cameroon since Reunification in 1961. French is used in all aspects of social life. In education,
it is the language of instruction in all the francophone sub-system of education, it is also taught
as subject in the anglophone sub-system and competence in French is checked in all public
competitive examination. English, is also used in many domains of social life by a limited
portion of the country’s population. In education it is the medium of education in the
anglophone sub-system and it is taught as a subject In the francophone sub-system in the
country. It also appears as subject in all the public competitive examination.

• Vehicular languages

There are four main vehicular languages which include: Fulfulde, Pidgin, Beti and
Camfranglais. The knowledge of just one of these codes enables speakers to communicate
perfectly with a multitude of interlocutors. Pidgin is the most widely spoken vehicular language
spoken in the Anglophone regions (Southwest and Northwest) and it is intensively used in other
regions like the littoral and the west regions. Fulfulde is used in all the grand North which

4
include three regions Adamawa, North and Far North and in the northern part of the East region.
Kouega and Baimada (2012) in a recent sociolinguistic study attest the use of Fulfulde in
religion. Beti is the global term referring to related languages spoken in the Centre and South
Regions in Cameroon and their neighbouring countries Gabon, Equatorial Guinea and Congo.
Languages that constitute this language group include: Bulu, Bebele, Eton, Ewondo, Fang,
Menguisa and others.

Camfranglais, a powerful new outgroup language variant is pointed out by Kouega

(2007) as :

A composite language- a pidginised form- that blends, in the same speech act, linguistic
elements drawn from French, English, pidgin and other widespread languages in Cameroon.
Functionally, it resembles a slang, which youngsters use to communicate among themselves to
the exclusion of non-group members. Fluent users are secondary school students, who
eventually leave school and become soldiers and policemen, thieves and prisoners, gamblers
and conmen, musicians and comedians, prostitutes and vagabonds, hair stylists and barbers,
peddlers and labourers and in a few cases, high-ranking civil servants and businessmen. This
language seems to be preferred by youngsters when they discuss issues of importance to them
such as food, drink, money…. a look at its origin shows that it arose in the early eighties, when
the decision to promote bilingualism in education by teaching English as a subject in the
French-medium secondary schools in the country was fully implemented.

There are also a few minor lingua francas in the country. They are vehicular languages
confined to specific geographic areas with their speakers being proficient in the major lingua
franca of the locality. Some of them include: Arab Shua, Basaa, Douala, Hausa. The users of
Arab Shua for example, are found in the Far North region of Cameroon. It therefore coexists
with the Fulfulde which is the dominant lingua franca of the area. Basaa is spoken in part of the
Centre region where the Beti is dominant and in a part of the littoral where pidgin is the most
widespread lingua franca. Douala is spoken along the Atlantic coast. It was spread by the
missionaries who at this time used it in native schools. It was so popular during the 1910 period
that the Germans passed a law to check its spread. A more powerful lingua franca is spoken in
the Northern Cameroon and in part of Northern Nigeria called Hausa. It is a transborder
language which co-exists with Fulfulde, a widespread lingua franca in northern Cameroon.

5
 • Lesser minority

African languages are said to be classified into four great families: Afro-asiatic; Nilo-
Saharan, Niger-Kordofan and Khoisan. Afro-asiatic languages are spoken in the area stretching
from Northern Cameroon through Niger and Chad to Sudan. The Nilo-Saharan languages
includes the languages of Ethiopia and Egypt, Niger-Kordofan languages are spoken in the
Black African area. Khoisan languages are found in Southern African region. Of these four
languages only the first three are spoken in Cameroon.

As Kouega (2007b) reported, the number of languages spoken in Cameroon are still to
be worked out by experts. Chia (1983) identified 123 distinct languages but a more extended
investigation that same year identified 237 languages but the exact number is still unknown. In
2000, Grimes and her summer institute of linguistic research team went over these languages
and found out that there were 286, that we can sub-divide as follows: three languages without
first language speakers ( French, English, Pidgin) ; four extinct languages ( Duli, Nagumi, Gey
and Yeni) and 279 living languages. Some efforts have been made by the government to
promote Cameroonian languages. The first step has been done when they instructed the
effective use of Cameroonian languages on the media. The second step was to set up a
department of Cameroonian Languages and Cultures, where teachers are trained to teach
Cameroonian languages. In that department, teacher trainees are taught a variety of subjects,
including the Alphabet, Orthography, and Culture of all Cameroonian languages and cultures,
Cameroon oral literature, Science of education. The teaching of Cameroonian languages started
with selected languages particularly chosen to be taught in school: Basaa, Beti, Bulu, Douala,
Ghomala, Libum, Ngiembon and Yemba.

1.2. Cameroon educational system

The educational system of a country is a formal organization of school, academic and

professional pathways. In Cameroon, the educational system is a colonial heritage. It consists
of four levels of education: kindergarten education; primary education, secondary education
and higher education. The Cameroon educational system is valid for both private and public
education. Cameroon operates two educational systems: the anglophone system which is based
on the British model and the francophone system which is based on the French model. In the
francophone system, education starts with kindergarten which aims at awakening children’s
physical, socio-emotional and intellectual̀ potential. It prepares children for entry into primary
school which begins with the Section d’Initiation au Langage (SIL) and last six years. All over

6
these six years francophone pupils are taught eighteen subjects listed in the MINEDUC
(2001:5)

Table 1: official list of subjects in primary school

Official titles of subjects Gloss

- Lecture (French language: Reading)
- Lecture/production ecrite (French language: writing)
- Grammaire (French: Expression and grammar)
- Vocabulaire (French: Expression and vocabulary)
- Conjugaison (French: Expression and verb forms)
- Ecriture/orthographe (French: Writing, Copying, Word spelling)
- recitation (French: recitation)
- English/reading (Mathematics)
- English /writing (Science and environmental studies)
- English/Langage structure/Speech (Civics)
- Mathémathiques (Hygiene and Health)
- Science et Education à l’environnement (Art Work)
- Education civique et morale (Music, songs)

- Hygiène pratique (National Culture)

- Activités pratiques (Physical training)

- Musique, chant
- Culture nationale
- Education physique et sportive

At the end of this period of six years, francophone pupils sit for a public examination
Certificat d’Etudes Primaires (CEP) while the anglophone pupils sit for the First School
Leaving Certificate (FSLC). They also sit for another examination concours d’entrée en
sixième/common entrance which enable them to officially enter into secondary education and
offer them two options: a general education and a vocational education. Secondary education
last for seven years in both anglophone and francophone sub-systems. In the francophone sub-
system students are taught various subjects including history, mathematics, biology and
languages from sixième to troisième. at the end of the first cycle which is from sixième to
troisième the students sit for a nation-wide examination to obtain a certificate called Brevet

7
d’Etudes du premier cycle (BEPC). The second cycle is a specialisation cycle and lasts three
years. At this level the students are required to specialise in Arts or in science based on their
performance in troisième class. The first year of the second cycle is called seconde, in that class,
Arts students go to seconde A and science students go to seconde C. the second year is the class
of première; students sit here for a nation-wide examination called probatoire. The last year of
the second cycle is called terminale and there students sit for baccalaureat, which is the
secondary education exit examination. The francophone technical education has the same
structure and their certificates are also referred as probatoire technique and Baccalaureat
technique.

In 2018, by order Number 227/18/MINESEC/IGE/ of August 213, 2018, modifications

have been done to second cycle of francophone education system, with the number of
specialisations moving from two to four: Arts, Science and Technology, Social sciences, and
Cinema. English is to be taught three hours a week for three years in both Cinema and Science
and technology specialisations. Within the Arts specialisation, there is a special sub-
specialisation referred as Serie ABI, A4 Bilingue. English is to be taught five hours a week for
three years; in this sub-field.

In the Anglophone sub-system, general education students read subjects like

mathematics, biology, literature. The first cycle here last five years from Form One to Form
Five, where they sit for the nation-wide certificate called General Certificate of Education-
Ordinary Level (GCE O’ Level). This certificate also serves as an orientation guide, as some
students are good at the sciences and others at the Arts. The second cycle last two years,
successful candidates move on to Lower Sixth Form and lastly to Upper Sixth For, where they
sit for the General Certificate of Education- Advanced Level (GCE A’ Level). The Secondary
technical education is structured in the same way.

Both Baccalaureat and GCE A’ Level certificates are required into tertiary level
education institutions. In most of these institutions, an effort is being made to apply the
Bachelor-Master-Doctorate (BMD) system.

1.3. English in the Francophone educational sub-system

This section considers in turn up the teaching of English in francophone sub-system

(1.3.1), (1.3.2), (1.3.3) etc…

8
1.3.1. Teaching of English in Francophone Primary schools

The 2005 census revealed that the schooling population of Cameroon stood at
8,804,601Francophone and Anglophone youngsters aged 4-24 years. In Cameroon; English is
taught as a compulsory subject in all the francophone sub-system of education as early as the
first day of the primary school cycle, which lasts for six years. This policy became effective in
1998 since then, efforts are being made for the success of teaching English as a subject. English
has been implanted in primary schools for francophone learners to have what Mbangwana
(2004: p19) calls “a sound basic knowledge of the practical language that they need in everyday
life after they leave school.” And to provide them with a solid linguistic base for further studies.
In addition, it was a question of teaching them unity and living together. In primary school the
main objective is to learn the basics of writing, reading, pronunciation; oral and written
expression.

1.3.1.1 Syllabus

The general objectives of teaching English in primary francophone schools are to enable
the pupils to acquire an elementary mastery of the language that is the aptitude to understand
oral and written messages and to express themselves orally and in writing at school and out of
school. The specific objectives for this level are: to introduce the four skills listening, speaking,
reading and writing; to teach the vocabulary of their immediate surrounding; to introduce the
alphabet, the sounds of English and some basic structures especially those that are needed for
daily school activities. Teaching is required to focus on speech practice, reading and written
work. class one syllabus on speech practice makes emphasis on the spoken language. Here
teacher should make children to listen carefully and to repeat; alphabet and sound should be
taught; interactive questions should be simplified; songs, rhymes and games should be part of
the teaching. The reading activities should include pictures that they can relate to, simple
exercises like matching exercises are recommended and the eclectic method of teaching is
recommended to be used.

In class two the same activities are to be reinforced and effort should be made to teach
language structures such as commands and instructions, the progressive, the simple present
tense, the singular and plural of nouns, interrogative pronouns and answers to questions,
adjectives and prepositions. The level two English syllabus focuses on effective
communication. The general objectives are to lead students to the language features necessary
for their daily life. The teaching methods focus on grammar. The level three English syllabus

9
 focuses on effective communication. The objectives here are to prepare learners for entry into
secondary education, to expose them to the English-speaking culture and to promote
bilingualism and national integration. Activities that reflect real life situations are required.

The following content are expected to be taught in CM1 and CM2.

Table 2: Cours Moyen Un (CM1) syllabus

Communicative objectives Structural focus

Describing or talking about a journey She caught a bus in the morning. It was a safe journey

Talking about an obligation
Asking someone to do something politely
Talking about habitual actions
Talking about one’s present actions
Stating what is wrong with one
We must sweep the classroom. She has to wash her
hands before eating
Could you open the window, please?
He goes to his farm every day. She plays the guitar
everyday…
He is singing
What is the matter with you? I have backache…

Comparing people He is taller than I. He is as fat as his friend.

Comparing things A Cow is bigger than a dog.
Predicting outcomes Events: what will happen if…?
Story: what will happen next…?
Expressing regret I wish I listened to my parents. I wish I took

10
 Table 3: Cours Moyen Deux (CM2) syllabus

Communicative objectives Structural focus

Talking about one’s present actions We are cleaning the room.
Talking about one’s habitual actions We sweep the classroom every day. She comes to school on
Friday.
Describing what one is good at She is good at mathematics/ jumping…
Describing the activities of someone he is a good fisherman. He catches fish with a net.

Talking about one’s
intentions
Comparing people and things
Talking about the past
Counting objects
Describing a journey
Predicting outcomes
Describing ways of travelling
future She is going to visit her aunt next week. I shall visit my uncle
next year.
He is taller than I. Peter is more intelligent than John. An,
elephant is stronger than a cow.
I was in class four when I was eight years old
Counting up to 1,000,000 (one million)
The journey was interesting/ boring/ dangerous…
Following this story/ situation, I think
He goes by land (on foot, by bicycle, on horseback), by air (by
plane, by balloon), by

1.3.1.2.. Teachers

Primary school teachers are trained in professional schools run by the Ministry of
Secondary education (MINESEC). These schools are known by their French acronyms as
ENIEG ( Ecole Normale d’Instituteurs de l’Enseignement Général) and ENIET (Ecole Normale
d’Instituteurs de l’Enseignement Technique). Entrance into these schools is via competitive
examination and the candidates must meet the following requirements:
- Be aged 17 to 32 years
- Be a holder of the Brevet d’Etudes du Premier Cycle (BEPC) or the General Certificate
of Education (GCE)
- Or be a holder of baccalaureat or GCE A ‘Level
Candidates with the BEPC or GCE O’Level are trained for three years and those with the
Baccalaureat or GCE A ‘Level are trained for one year. At the end of the training they are
awarded the certificate known by the French acronym CAPIEMP (Certificat d’Etudes
Pédagogique des Instituteurs de l’Enseignement Maternelet Primaire). Certified primary

11
teachers in Cameroon are grouped into four categories namely: civil servant teachers, contract
teachers, “absorption” teachers and parent-teacher association (PTA). Civil servant teachers are
employees of the government that have graduated from a government teacher training school
and have been integrated in the state pay roll. Contract teachers are government employees who
are recruited to teach but are not integrated in the state pay roll. “Absorption” teachers are
trained teachers who are called upon to work for 5 to 10years for free while waiting for
government to process their files. Finally, PTA teachers are recruited by pupils’ parents. Parents
are required to contribute a certain amount of money for each child in addition to the official
registration fee. This extra money is used to pay PTA teachers.

1.3.1.3. Books

Books used in some primary schools of the francophone sub-system for the teaching of
English include: Beginning English, Champions en Anglais, Elementary English for Cameroon
Schools, English All Stars, Harrap’s Shorter Dictionary, Major in English, Model English
Textbook, Standard English for French-speaking Primary schools in Cameroon, Standard
English Tune In.

1.3.1.4. Timetables

In the francophone sub-system of education, especially in the primary schools the English
Language is taught four hours and thirty minutes (4:30hours) per week. given that the school
year in Cameroon lasts 36 weeks; primary school students are taught 952hours in English
Language by the time they leave primary school.

1.3.1.5. Teaching method

The new teaching method recommended is the Competency-based approach. This

approach started in the United States of America to reform teaching education and training in
the 1960s (Hodges&Harris, 2012). It is a recent teaching approach in Cameroon since 2014 to
replace the old method called Objective Based Approach (OBA) which focused on concepts
without taking into consideration their outcome. The replacement of the old approach with the
new one required a modification of the syllabus, course objectives and material planning. The
CBA helps learners to be engaged actively in every step of knowledge acquisition, skills
development and professional behaviours that need to be demonstrated and practiced in a
specific discipline. CBA generally is an approach to education that lays emphasis on the
learners’ demonstration of desired learning outcomes as central to the learning process. In this
regard, the significance of CBA lays in the competence of the learners so it puts the learners at

12
the centre of the learning process. Therefore, we can see a practice of this method in every
educational system in Cameroon, notably the primary schools.

1.3.2. The teaching of English in the francophone secondary schools

As in francophone primary schools, English is taught as a foreign language in the

francophone secondary schools. English as a subject in all secondary schools’ classes is
obligatory, all the students must do it in examinations. The coefficients of English in the
Francophone sub-system of education vary, it depends on the class and the specialisation of the
learners. From 6ème to terminale it is coefficient two and it is taught two days a week for one
or two hours. The learners who chose science as a specialisation are not supposed to do English
as a subject but by the time the reach the tertiary level, they can choose it as their specialisation.

1.3.2.1. Syllabus

The syllabuses, especially the one of the secondary schools have been renewed due to the
fact that they have to make the CBA method effective by 2035. The syllabuses were designed
by the Inspectorate General of education in the Ministry of education since 2012. The principal
objectives are to help teachers with challenging great number of students in classrooms and to
train students to succeed life through teaching/learning process. another objective is to train
competent Cameroonians ready for the emergence of the country in 2035.

The new syllabuses put emphasis on real life situations, from a school drawn from society
to a school that train citizens to a better insertion into socio-cultural and economic activities.
The syllabus for each of the secondary classes contain eight headings: listening, speaking,
reading, writing, pronunciation, vocabulary and functions.

13
 Table 4: the contents of the new programme of study for Francophone 4ème learners of English.

Domains if life Modules Status Time

Family and social life Using language to talk about social integration.
Compulsory 15h

Economic life and Using language to talk about a vision of their future
occupation professional life while managing leisure. Compulsory 15h

Environment well-being Using language to talk about protection of the

and Health environment and the fight against endemic and Compulsory 15h
pandemic diseases.

Citizenship and Human Using language to talk about gender issues and
Rights mutual acceptance. Compulsory 15h

Media and Communication Using language to explore ICTs

Compulsory 15h

1.3.2.2. Teachers

Secondary school teachers are trained in Higher Teacher Training colleges and some
others private school. Candidates with the Baccalaureat and the GCE A ‘Level are trained for
three years and after their graduation the are to teach in the first cycle from 6ème to 3ème. the
candidates with the bachelor degree are trained for two years and are to teach the both cycles
(first and second cycle). They have to teach three hours a week and seventy-five hours a year.
In the private secondary schools, the teachers are chosen by the principal of the school. The
number of hours to teach English Language depends on either the principal or the teacher
himself.

1.3.2.3. Books

The official textbook lists is drawn by a council whose members are appointed by the
Ministry of Secondary Education. The textbooks published take in consideration the syllabus
requirement, cultural values and physical characteristics like size, weight, layout, packaging
and fonts. All books received are graded following each of these criteria and the three books
with the best scores are chosen and forwarded to the Minister for validation. Books written by
the national inspectors are automatically chosen but are removed when these inspectors are no
longer in service. Many books have been published for the francophone sub-system namely Go
for English, stay tuned and Interactions in English to fulfil the need of the second official

14
 language. Go for English was the first English book produced in 1993 for all African countries.
Then it has been replaced by Stay tuned which finally has been replace by Interactions in
English due to the new approach of teaching put into practice by the Ministerial order No 4/9/14
MINSEC IGE of 9th December 2014. The new book has been designed and has the same
module for all the secondary classes from 6ème to terminale but are developed differently
according to the level.

Table 5: modules for all the secondary classes in the francophone system.

Modules Units
Module One: Family and Social Unit1: Diversity and integration
Unit2: Patriotism
Unit3: Tolerance and acceptance
Revision of Module1
Module Two: Economic Life Unit1: Consumption habits
Unit2: Accommodation and eating out
Unit3: Recreation
Revision of Module2
Module Three: Environment, Health and Well-being Unit1: Climate change
Unit2: Garbage collection and recycling
Unit3: Maintaining hygiene and sanitation
Revision of Module3
Module Four: Citizenship Unit1: The quest for excellence
Unit2: Promoting gender equality
Unit3: Democracy
Revision of Module4
Module Five: Media, Communication, Services and Unit1: Communicative services
Technology Unit2: Hitches and complaints
Unit3: ICT and relaxation
Revision of Module5

1.3.2.4. Timetables

In the francophone sub-system of education, the English Language is taught three hours
in every class per week. The number can be reduced to two hours in some schools with a
coefficient of three and two in the secondary technical high school. English language is taught

15
two days a week respectively is the first day is one hour then the second is automatically two
hours.

1.3.4.5. Teaching method

The competence-based approach like in the primary school is the teaching method in the
secondary school required by the MINESEC. As said above, it replaces the old method known
as the Objective approach. It is used to build up learners’ competences. The CBA is effectively
used in educational systems in Cameroon especially in the Francophone sub-system, but the
method was found difficult for some teachers. CBA is student centred, consequently, it
promotes only active teaching methods and techniques so that the learners should be at the
centre of the instructions.

16
 CHAPTER TWO:
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Literature review

This section reviews works on the pronunciation of English monophthongs by

francophones (2.1). Thus, reviews the vowel systems of both English and French languages
(2.2) and finally discusses the influence of first language (L1) on the pronunciation of second
language (L2) (2.3). This part will help the readers to see the contribution of this work to the
science.

2.1. Works on the vowels on the Speech of Francophone speakers

Researchers who have worked on the English of francophones include: Safotso (2012),
Kouega and Ombouda (2018) and Kouga (2019).

Safotso (2012a) in a study to analyse some aspects of English pronunciation of French-

Speaking Cameroonians. The data were from the oral reading of some selected words and
sentences by 50 francophone Cameroonian speakers of different levels of education, radio
broadcasts, TV debates, political speeches, casual conversations and seminar sessions. The
reference model used for the analysis was RP English and the Cameroon English form. The
findings highlighted that Francophones speakers use to Frenchify the pronunciation of some
English words. Meaning that Francophone learners of English tend to articulate certain words
as they articulate French ones.

Table 6: frenchified pronunciation in CamFE

Word RP form FrancoEng CamE

Quality /kwɒlɪtɪ/ /kaliti/ /kwaliti/
Piece /pi:s/ /piɛs/ /pis/
Rich /rɪt ʃ/ /riʃ/ / rɪtʃ/
Maritime /mærɪtaim/ /maritim/ /maritaim/

Efforts /ɛfəts/ /efɔ/ /efɔts/

Mentality /mɛntəlɪtɪ/ /mãtaliti/ /mɛntaliti/

17
 Safotso (2012b) concluded his work with an affirmation that CamFE is an autonomous
variety of New Englishes that distinguishes itself from SBE and CamE.

In the same line, Kouega and Ombouda (2018) who conducted a study that examined the
English spoken productions of both primary school teachers and their graduating pupils in
Cameroon by checking how much English is learnt by the primary child by the time that he
moves to the secondary education level. The data has been collected through classroom
observations, tape-recording of lessons and a spoken performance test taken by pupils. The data
came from 112 informants of both sexes including primary school teachers and CM2 pupils of
six schools in the city of Yaoundé. The reference model used for the analysis was RP English.
The finding revealed that many primary schools teachers of the francophone sub-system are not
qualify to teach the English Language. Also, CamFE (Cameroon Francophone English)
speakers tend to replace some monophthongs with varieties of foreign monophthongs which
see, to reflect the spelling of words in which they occur.

/ɪ/ for example tends to be replaced by French equivalent like /a/, /o/, /ɛ/

/ɛ/ is also usually replaced by the equivalent /ea/, /eɔ/

Kouega (2019) also focuses on Cameroon Francophone English Phonology. He analysed

the major linguistic features of the English of Francophone users. the data were collected
through spoken and written materials from examinations scripts and interviews organised to
evaluate the English production of medicine students. The reference model used was the RP of
Standard British English. The findings revealed at the level of phonological features that
speakers hardly realise long vowels because they tend to replace them by other vowels which
are shorter than RP long vowels and longer than RP short vowels. Like/ɪ/ and /i:/ that are usually
rendered /i/, making the word pair feet/fit` `sound alike:

18
Table 7: rendering of /i:/ and /ɪ/

RP FrancoEng RP
Graphemes Words FrancoEng renderings\ N=10 percentage
rendering rendering renderings

/e/ EY Key /ki:/ /ke/ 8 80%

/ɛ/ ESE These /ᶞi:/ /dis/ 2 20%

/i:/ /jɛ/ IE Pieces /pi:siz/ /pjɛs/ 9 90%

/ea/ EA Ideal /aɪdi:/ /ideal/ 1 10%

/a/ AGE Manage \mænɪʤ\ /manaʒ/ 10 100%

/ɪ/
/e/ E Equal \ɪkwɔl\ /ekwal/ 10 100%

The short vowel /ɛ/ is usually pronounced as expected; however it may be replaced in
certain contexts /e/ which is drawn from French.

Table 8: rendering of /ɛ/, /ɒ/ and /ɔ/

RP FrancoEng RP FrancoEng renderings \ N₌10

Graphemes Words
renderings renderings renderings percentage

/ɛ/ /e/ E Special /spɛʃl/ /special/ 10 100%

/ɒ/ /a/ A Quality /kwɒlətɪ/ /kwaliti/ 10 100%

/ɔ:/ /u/ OU Bought /bɔt/ /but/ 10 100%

When /u:/ and /ʊ/ are represented by the letter U they are pronounced /y/ as in French.

19
 Table 9: rendering of /ɜ:/, /u:/ and /ʊ/

RP
FrancoEng FrancoEng renderings\ N₌10
RP renderings Graphemes words renderin
renderings percentage
gs

/u:/ /y/ U Supreme /su:pri:m/ /syprɛm/ 10 100%

/ʊ/ /y/ U Virulent /vɪrʊlənt/ /viʁylã/ 10 100%

/ɜ:/ /i/ IR Confirm /kənfɜ :m/ /kõfiʁm/ 10 100%

/ɜ:/ /y/ UR Occur /əkɜ:/ /ɔkyʁ/ 10 100%

/ɜ:/ /u/ OUR Journal /dʒɜ:nl/ /ʒunal/ 10 100%

/ɜ:/ /ɛ/ ER Prefer /prɪfɜ:/ /prefɛ/ 10 100%

/ɜ:/ /ɔ/ OR Worm /wɜ:m/ /wɔm/ 10 100%

Lastly the vowels /ə/ and ʌ/ are hardly realised by the French speakers. /ə/ is replaced by /a/ as
in the word “available”, /ɛ/ as in “percentage”. /ʌ/ is rendered as /u/ as in the word “courage”.

Table 10: rendering of /ə/ and /ʌ/

FrancoEng RP FrancpEng renderings/ N= 10

RP rendering Graphemes words
rendering renderings percentage

/ə/ /a/ A Available /əveiləbl/ /avelabl/ 10 100%

/ə/ /ɛ/ ER Percentage /pəsɛntɪʤ/ /pɛsãtaʒ/ 10 100%

/ə/ /ɔ/ OA Cupboard /kʌbəd/ /kɔbɔt/ 10 100%

/ʌ/ /y/ U Conducted /kəndʌktɪd/ /kõdyktɛt/ 10 100%

/ʌ/ /u/ OU courage /kʌriʤ/ /kuraʒ/ 10 100%

20
2.2. Gaps and contribution

After looking at the review of related literature, we can observe that many researchers
have investigated the English speech of francophone English speakers and some of them even
centred their studies on the phonological aspects, namely Safotso (2012), Kouega and Ombouda
(2018) and Kouega (2019). They all studied the English of francophone learners going to
various schools and from various levels. Safotso (2012) for example investigated on informants
of different level of education, Kouega and Ombouda (2018) worked to investigate on primary
schools’ teachers and their CM2 pupils and finally Kouega (2019) studied the English of
francophone medicine students. Their scopes spanned only across only one level of education
while this study focuses on two level of education: primary school (CM2) and secondary school
(quatrième class). Specifically, this work investigates the pronunciation of English
Monophthongs when the previous works touched all the phonological features of the English
speech of French-speakers.

2.3. English and French vowels

Vowels are produced by the vocal cords and are modified by the buccal cavity. The height
of the tongue (high, mid, low), the position of the tongue (front, central, back) and the position
of the lips (rounded, unrounded) are criteria that enable to distinguish vowels from each other.
As in English, French vowels are spoken without any kind of block in the airway. A highlight
of the differences between the two languages is necessary not to give a thorough account of
their phonology but to present the major points of divergence between the two languages so as
to contribute at investigating the phonological aspects that are more significant source of
difficulties and errors for francophone learners of English as a foreign language. Jones (1992:3)
argued that “no two persons of the same nationality pronounce their own language exactly alike.
The differences may arise from a variety of causes such as locality, social surroundings, early
influences or individual peculiarities”. Consequently, the description of a language like English,
which possesses a wide array of varieties and dialectal divergences all over the world, must not
consider the deviations from one specific variety as incorrect. Still, RP as proposed by
O’Connor (1973) and Parisian French will be the references to the English and French
phonological systems respectively.

The analysis of the vowels inventories of two languages must first observed the
differences at the phonemic and articulatory levels. In the case of French and English, the
primary difference is the presence of short and long vowels in English and the absence of this

21
distinction in French as French vowels only contains pure vowels also called monophthongs
that are all short.

2.3.1. English vowels

The total number of English vowels are different from each other depending on the variety
of English. Roach (2000), listed twelve monophthongs for the Standard British English
pronunciation. Amond the twelve monophthongs, seven are short vowels and five are long
vowels. Table1 and figure 1 show and display the vowels respectively.

Table 11: The monophthongs of SBE (O’Connor, 1973)

Vowels Example words

ɪ hid /hɪd/
ɛ head /hɛd/
Æ had /hæd/
ʌ sun /sʌn/
ɒ pot /pɒt/
ʊ put /pʊt/
i heed /hi:d/
ɑ part /pɑ:t/
ɔ saw /sɔ:/
u: shoe /ʃu:/
ɜ bird /bɜ:d/
ə sofa /səʊfə/

22
Figure 1: British English vowel (Roach, 2000, P36-38)

From figure1, it can be seen that:

the high vowels are /u/, /ʊ/, /i/,

mid vowels are /ɜ/, /e/, /ə/, /ɔ/

and low vowels are /æ/, /ʌ/, /ɒ/, /ɑ/.

The front vowels are /i/, /ɪ/, /e/, /æ/, /ɜ/,

the central vowels are /ə/, /ʌ/ and back vowels are /ɒ/, /ɑ/, /u/, /ʊ/, /ɔ/.

Besides the two parameters considered in Figure1, namely tongue height and tongue
area raised, O’Connor (1973), there is a third feature that plays a role in the classification and
distinction of vowels which is the position of the lips. The lips can either be rounded as is the
case when one pronounces the sound /u/ or unrounded as in /i/. the unrounded vowels
monophthongs includes /i/, /e/, /a/, /ɛ/, /ɑ/. And the rounded vowels includes /ɔ/, /o/, /u/.

Now using the three parameters of the tongue height, tongue area and lip position; the
twelves English Monophthongs can be described as follows.

- /i:/ high, front, unrounded as in “heed”

- /ɪ/ high, front, unrounded as in “hid”

23
 - /ɛ/ mid low front, unrounded as in “head”

- /æ/ low, front, unrounded as in “had”

- /ɑ:/ low, back, unrounded as in “part”

- /ɒ/ low, back, rounded as in “pot”

- /ɔ:/ mid-low, back, rounded as in “saw”

- /ʊ/ high, back, rounded as in “put”

- /u:/ high, back, rounded as in “shoe”

- /ʌ/ low, back, unrounded, as in “sun”

- /ɜ:/ mid-high, central, unrounded as in “bird”

- /ə/ mid-low, central, unrounded as in “sofa”

Using the auditory feature of duration, the vowels monophthongs can be grouped into two
classes:

- Short monophthongs /ɪ, ɛ, ə, ɒ, ʌ, ʊ, æ/

- Long monophthongs /i:, ɑ:, ɔ:, u:, ɜ:/

2.3.2. French vowel

In comparison to English, French has fourteen monophthongs including eleven oral and
three nasal monophthongs. The eleven oral vowels include /i/, /e/, /ɛ/, /a/, /y/, /ø/, /œ/, /u/, /o/,
/ɔ/, /ə/.

The three nasals vowels are /ã/, /ɔ͂/, /ɛ̃/

24
Figure 2: tableau des voyelles en francais, JuanFrance 2018

Figure2 demonstrates that the oral front vowels of French are /i/, /y/, /e/, /ɛ/,/ɛ͂ /a/, /ø/, /œ/
while /u/, /o/, /ɔ/, /ã/, /ɔ͂/ are the back vowels and /ə/ is the central vowel.

A distinction between rounded and unrounded vowels can also be seen in French vowels

- Unrounded vowels identified as open and mid-open in French include /i/, /e/, /a/, /ɛ/

- Rounded vowels include: /y/, /ə/, /ɔ/, /u/, /ø/, /œ/, /o/, /ã/, /ɔ͂/, /ɛ̃/

French vowels can be classified as followed:

- /i/: front vowel, high, oral, unrounded as in “bille”

- /e/: front vowel; mid-high oral, unrounded as in “blé”

- /ɛ/: front vowel, mid-low, oral, unrounded as in “père”

- /ɛ/̃ : front vowel, mid-low, nasal, unrounded as in “vin”

- /a/ front vowel, low, oral, unrounded as in “va”

- /a͂/: front vowel, low, oral, unrounded as in “enfant”

- /y/: front vowel, high, oral, rounded as in “tu”

- /ø/: front vowel, mid-high, oral, rounded as in “jeune”

- /œ/: front vowel, mid-low, oral, rounded as in “coeur”

- /ə/: central vowel, neutral, oral; rounded as in “reposer”

25
 - /u/: back vowel, high, oral, rounded as in “vous”

- /o/: back vowel, mid-high, oral, rounded as in “beau”

- /ɔ/: back vowel, mid-low, oral, rounded as in “sort”

- /ɔ̃/: back vowel, mid-low, oral, rounded as in “maison”

2.3.3. Vowel contrast

Some English vowel pairs contrast in terms of vowel length and vowel quality. Vowel
quality in phonetic refers to the position of the tongue and lips during the articulation of a vowel.
Through vowel quality the difference between one vowel and another one can be made. A vowel
can be classified based on the shape of the lips and the location of the tongue during the
articulation. A vowel can be closed, mid-closed, open, mid-open. It can also be front, central
and back depending on the height of the tongue and the location of the tongue. SBE vowels
pairs contrast include /i/-/ɪ/, /u/-/ʊ/, /ɛ/-/æ/, /ɒ/-/ɔ/ and /ʌ/-/ɑ/. For example, in English the vowel
/i/ as in “heed” and /ɪ/as in “hid” are different.

According to O’Connor (1973), vowels can be categorised as long and short vowels. SBE
has seven short vowels /ɪ/, /ɛ/, /æ/, /ə/, /ɒ/, /ʊ/, /ʌ/ and five long vowels /u/, /ɑ/, /i/, /ɔ/, /ɜ/. The
length is important in that it makes the difference on the meaning of words and sometimes it
varies according to the context. Vowels before consonant /t/ tend to be shorter than /d/ as in the
words seat and seed.

On the contrary, vowel length does not really apply to French. Occasionally, the French
vowels can know a lengthening but majority of the cases the opposition of the duration between
short and long vowels lost its distinctive value in Standard French. Nevertheless, the
lengthening of certain vowels constitutes a feature that can make it possible to distinguish words
in French but there is not special phonetic sound for that. In phonetic transcription the marker
of a long sound is the symbol /:/ like in the words mettre /mɛtʀ/ and maître /mɛ:tʀ/. Because
lengthening is not practice in French daily speeches, it might be problematic for francophone
speakers to perceive and familiarise with the long English sound. The speakers might be
influence by the phonetic sounds of French.

2.4. The influence of L1 on L2

Learning English as L2 like any other language necessitate the mastering of phonological
features of the target language. Various researchers have investigated the influence that L1 can

26
have on L2 at the level of speech production(phonology). Majority of them agreed that the
native language of learners has a great influence on some aspects of the second language
acquisition. This process is known as L1 transfer (Gass and Selinker, 1994). The interference
between L1 system and L2 system represent the main obstacle to second language acquisition.
From this point, SLA argues that the acquisition of a second language requires the abandon of
the difference that can appear in the both linguistic systems. In various linguistic studies, terms
like interlanguage and interference have been frequently used. Corder (1967), with Selinker
(1972) have inserted the notion of interlanguage in the study of second language acquisition or
foreign language. This notion does not quite refer to a mixture of L1 features and L2 features
as a transitional phase in the L2 acquisition process. The process called interference refers to
the influence of L1 on the production of L2. When this influence results in a correct target form
that is called positive transfer or facilitation. The opposite happens when an L2 does not accept
a substitution by L1 form for accuracy purpose, this called negative transfer. therefore, early
acquisition of the phonological system of the L1 has a great influence on the learner capacity
to accurately perceive and produce an L2. In sound production, Flege (1992:566) observed
that, L2 learners tend to break down a target L2 word into the phonemes of the L1: “many
aspects of L2 production can be understood in terms of how L2 sounds are categorized. To
prevent and predict the various difficulties that a learner can have while acquiring L2, a
structural and scientific analysis must be done. Lado (1964) proposed a hypothesis of
contrastive analysis CA that argues that learners’ difficulties in language can be predicted by
comparing the linguistic structures of the L1 and the one of the target languages. L1 transfer
has also been defined as being the effects of prior knowledge develop during skills development
of L1. L1 transfer is characterised into two situations: L1 positive transfer and L1 negative
transfer. This appears, in some cases where similarities exist between the two languages, the
transfer of L1 knowledge can facilitate skills development in L2 (positive transfer in L1). In the
case where specific knowledge of English are required and have not yet been learned, a negative
transfer in L1 could be evidenced by L1 knowledge being inappropriately applied to L2.

27
2.5. Theoretical framework

This section focuses on the theoretical orientation that determined the angle from which
this study was carried out. Therefore, the fact that the English of francophone speakers is greatly
influenced by French and sometimes their mother tongues, the tool for analysis will be mainly
Error analysis by Corder (1967), Lado’s Contrastive Analysis will not be neglected all along
the investigation.

2.5.1. Contrastive analysis

Contrastive analysis was initiated in 1945 by the American linguist C.C Fries and was
taken up later by Robert Lado in his book linguistic accross cultures (1957). In that book Lado
laid down the theoretical foundation of CA. while many researchers asserted that the similarities
and differences between various languages was enough to deal with the problem of teaching
these languages, Lado on his opinion demonstrated that learners of a target language will find
elements of this target language that are similar to their native language easier to learn and the
elements that are different will be difficult to learn.

The various studies made on CA consisted of comparing the systems of the native and
the target language. Lado was the first to provide a comprehensive theoretical treatment that
suggest sources and procedure for contrastive analysis of languages. This included the
description of the languages, the comparison of them and the prediction of learning difficulties.
The objectives of contrastive analysis are relevant: to make foreign language teaching more
effective, to find out differences between L1 and L2 based on the assumptions that foreign
language learning is based on mother tongue, similarities facilitate learning and difficulties
cause problems. CA hypothesis can exist in two versions : a strong version that claims that the
difficulties of the learner can be predicted by a systematic contrastive analysis and teaching
material can then be devised to meet those difficulties. A weak version that claims that no more
than an explanatory role for contrastive linguistics where difficulties are evident from the errors
made by the learners.

Oller and Ziahosseiny like cited in (Khansir,2012) proposed a third version of contrastive
analysis based on their analysis of the spelling errors committed by some foreign learners of
English with various native language background. They stated that “the categorization of
abstract and concrete patterns according to their perceived similarities and differences is the
basis for learning; therefore, wherever patterns are minimally distinct in form for meaning in
one or more systems confusion may result” (1970, P184).

28
2.5.1.1. Disadvantages of Contrastive Analysis

CA disadvantages were pointed out by the proponents of Error Analysis, they argued that
CA focus on the differences between L1 and L2 and ignore factors which may affect the second
language learner’s performance like his learning and communication strategies, training
procedure and overgeneralization. CA shows a number of difficulties which do not really
appear in the learner performances. Fisiak (1981,7) argued that the significance of CA lies in
its ability to indicate potential areas of interference and errors. A number of researchers of
learner’s errors have carried out their studies in the file of error analysis that indicated that the
influence of L1 was less than that said by contrastive analysis. Therefore, all the mistakes are
not caused by the makeup of L1, others factors like analogical replacement or sheer muddle are
the causes of errors. Replacement based on analogy often causes the learner to make mistakes
when he sets out to apply the rules in L2 which he has learnt indiscriminately.

2.5.1.2. Relevance of Contrastive Analysis to this work

Comparing the French vowel system to the English one can reveal a significant difference
in the number of vowels. Contrastive Analysis is therefore relevant in that it will help explaining
why the learners are often tempted to render the more general items as the more specific ones
to produce expressions that deviate from the target SBE. CA is relevant for the learners, because
it will help them to overcome their phonetic and phonological problems and improve their oral
ability. For the teachers it will help them understanding the reason why their students’
pronunciation deviates so that they will encourage them not to fear the mistakes that they can
make when speaking. Once that the learners are at ease with the teacher and the language, the
teaching/learning battle is won.

2.5.2. Error analysis

Error analysis a branch of applied linguistic developed as a reaction to contrastive analysis

which was the major approach to second language acquisition studies in the 1950s and 1960s.
according to Khansir (2012) error analysis emerged to reveal that learners’ errors were not only
because of their native languages but also, they reflected some universal strategies. Contrastive
analysis is the “study of contrast between the native language and the target language” Brown
(2000:207) cited in Wetzorke (2005) which specifically examines “the effect of native language
on the target language”

The search for how to solve the constant errors made by learners has led to the formerly
applied theory of linguistic Contrastive analysis and Error analysis.
29
 As one is a response to the other, Error analysis and Contrastive analysis are different.
Contrastive analysis starts with the comparison of systems of two languages and predicts only
the areas of difficulty or error for the second language learner, whereas Error analysis starts
with errors in second language acquisition and study them in the broader framework of their
sources and significance. Error analysis was used for the first time as a way to study second
language acquisition in 1960s. Corder’s Seminal paper, ‘The significance of Learner’s Errors’
(1967), captured researchers’ attention from teaching strategies to learning strategies.

2.5.2.1. Error analysis proper

In the 1970s, the conception of error and the linguistic theories of reference remarkably
change. Errors are no longer foresee but they are collected. many investigations are compiled
and diverse classification criteria are at the origin of different type of grid. Error Analysis
studies are based on Chomsky’s generative linguistic and are influence by the constructivism
of Piaget but it is developed particularly thanks to Corder’s research. EA object of study is a
collection of errors (phonetic, lexical, morphosyntactic errors) without taking the context into
consideration. It compensates for the limitations of contrastive analyses with respect to
undescribed and unknown mother tongues.

EA is a systematic analysis of the learner’s interlanguage based on his actual performance

in L2. It is concerned with the identification, classification and study of the learner’s systematic
deviations in the use of the language as conceived by a native speaker (Selinker,1972). The
term interlanguage was first used by Larry Selinker in 1969 in an article titled Language
Transfer, and discussed in detail in 1972 in another article titled Interlanguage. According to
Selinker (1972:219), interlanguage means:

“a separate linguistic system whose existence we are compelled to hypothesize based on

the observed output which results from the learner’s attempted production of a target language
norms. This linguistic term we will call interlanguage.”

For Selinker, this system results from a psycholinguistic process involving the reaction
between two linguistic systems namely L1 and L2. Therefore, interlanguage is a restructuring
of the learner’s system starting from L1 to the target language. All these discussions about
interlanguage show that the learner always makes errors on all linguistic levels, which indicates
the stages of development of his interlanguage. Corder (1981:10) pointed out that it will be
useful to refer to errors of performance as “mistakes” and reserve the term “error” to the
systematic errors of the learner from which a current knowledge of the language can be

30
reconstruct. Corder added that mistakes are deviations from the norms made by the native
speakers in the use of their mother tongue and that they result from factors such as distractions
or inattention, displacement of interest. Errors, explains Corder are on the other hand; deviations
from L2 made by the non-native speakers or learners because of their dynamic transitional
competence with respect to L2. As for the classification of errors, Corder (1971) distinguishes
between overt and covert errors. While overt errors are easy to correct for the benefit of the
learners, covert errors are not because they appear grammatically in L1. Corder (1981:66) like
Lado (1957:4) believe that non-native speakers of the same L1 are likely to make the same
errors at any stage of learning L2.

EA has been set up to identify and improve strategies used in both teaching and learning
languages. Also, to identify sources of learners’ errors by investigating the motives behind
committing such errors.

Corder (1967) argues that learners’ errors should not be condemned drastically but they
should be seen as sources of insight into the learning process. This framework views learner
language as an independent linguistic system which should neither be measured against L1 nor
L2 norms. EA were therefore the first theory to consider learners’ errors from a tolerant point
of view as evidence of a successful learning process.

2.5.2.2. Source and procedure for analysing errors

According to EA, errors in second language come from first language transfer,
overgeneralisation of second language rules, fossilisation, students ‘creation and others. In EA
there is a distinction between overt and covert errors. Overt errors are those that are
ungrammatically correct at the level of the sentence structure while covert errors are
grammatically correct but they have nothing to do with the context of communication. So, overt
errors deal with the sentence level or grammar while covert errors deal with the discourse level
or semantics. Error analysis is carried out in different stages, such as collection, identification,
description, explanation and evaluation.

• Data collection for error analysis: Data can be collected over weeks, months and years.
Data must be actual and natural to get actual information. Data could consist of student
essays or audio recording in case the teacher or researcher investigates aspects of
speech.

31
• Identification of errors: Corder (1974, p123) says “error refers to a systematic deviation
from a selected norm or set of norms. In this stage, we need to distinguish something
that is an error from what is a mistake.

• Description of errors: after the identification of errors, they are to be described and
classified. Corder classified the errors into two levels which determine the nature of
these one.

- Superficial level: this level can occur due to physical differences between the learners.

- Deeper level: this level is more explanatory and powerful since the level study the
various linguistic branches namely phonology, orthography, syntax; and
lexicosemantic.

• Explanation of errors: in this stage, the investigator explains the causes of errors. Errors
are grouped into two terms:

➢ Interlingual transfer: this is caused by the influence of the mother tongue on the
target language. This type of errors is frequent at the initial stages of second
language learning since the learner only knows the first language system.

➢ Intralingual errors: these are errors that result from the second language itself.
Seven types of intralingual errors can be distinguished.

✓ False analogy: it is when the learner thinks that all the elements in a language work the
same.

✓ Misanalysis: it is when the learner has formed his own rule in the L2 and put this rule
into practice.

✓ Incomplete rule application: it is when the learner does not apply all the rules necessary
in a situation.

✓ Exploiting redundancy: this is due to the abondance of redundance found in a language.

✓ Over-elaboration: it is a grammatical error where the learner ignores the fact that certain
words always walk with other words or always trigger j

✓ Hypercorrection: it is when the learners over correct his L2 output in the fear of making
mistakes. Sometimes the zealous efforts made by the teachers to correct their students’
errors induce these one to make errors in other correct forms. For example, the teacher’s

32
 insistence that the francophone EFL learners produce the sound /ɪ/ correctly prompts
them to always produce /ɪ/ where the sound /i:/ is required.

✓ Overgeneralisation: it is almost similar to false analogy; the learner knows one rule and
applies it everywhere.in other words it is the use of one form in a given context and
extend its application to another context where it should not be apply. An, example of
overgeneralisation can be seen in the omission of the third person singular s by French
speakers usually in their English speech. It is important to note that learners tend to make
used of overgeneralisation to reduce their linguistic encumbrance.

• Evaluation of errors: it refers to the process of measuring the gravity of seriousness of

the errors. Here the researcher analyses each error in order to find out the seriousness of
errors in relation to its impact in learning the language.

2.5.2.3. Errors and mistakes

These two terms are often taken as synonymous. However, in linguistic these terms are
defined with their specific meanings. Corder (1974) established a difference by saying that
errors are the result of incomplete learning and linguistics incompetence of the learners and
errors cannot be self-corrected, while mistakes are the results of poor performance of language
due to factors like fatigue and carelessness and learner can correct them by himself because he
knows the right structure of the language. Hocking (1974) cited by Mbibah (2017) also made a
distinction between errors and mistakes. He argues that a mistake is an error of performance
due to random guess or a slip, while an error is the idiosyncrasies in the interlanguage of the
learner, manifesting in the learner’s system of operation during the learning process. An error
can be seen as a second language deviation from the first language transfer. Thus, the fact that
an L2 learner deviates from the native language of the speaker is consider as an error. Errors
are concrete data which can serve as evaluation of the learner’s input. They are consider by
Corder(1970) as a bridge between the learner’s current input with regard to the target language
and the target objectives.

2.5.2.4. Advantages and disadvantages of Error Analysis

Errors are very important in the process of human learning. So; in SLA, like any other
learning process, the making of errors is needed. Dulay and Burt (1974) cited in Tsala (2020),
see an error as a goof and say that “we can’t learn without goofing”. In teaching; EA helps
teachers in understanding the new ways of teaching by giving the feedback on errors made by

33
learners, how they progress and what have to be added. To the researcher; EA provide
information on how language is learned and the strategies used by learners in the progress of
learning. Finally, it is more important to the learner himself, because it can be seen as a device
that the learner uses in order to learn (Corder 1976).

EA might have many merits, but it has not escaped criticism at the hands of certain
linguists that point out its disadvantages. The main allegation laid against it is that it makes no
allowance for “avoidance phenomena” (Schachter 1974). It means that the learner uses a
strategy to avoid what is difficult. EA’s diagnosis does not consider the fact that the learner
can avoid some aspects of the language he doesn’t know. It is more focus on the learner’s
proficiency rather than his ability to communicate fluently and easily. More, it is dangerous to
pay too much attention to the learners’ errors because it distracts the classroom from the correct
utterance in the second language that will be unnoticed. Another shortcoming of error analysis
is the overstressing of production data.

2.5.2.5. Relevance of Error Analysis to this work

Error Analysis is significant to the present study because it investigates the informants’
ability in vowels monophthongs pronunciation and analyses the difference between their
English speech and the one of the standard British English (SBE). This is due to the fact that
the informants’ renditions of sentences containing the targeted phonological variable
(monophthongs) will be assessed in relation to the SBE norms as proposed by O’Connor (1973)
in his. In sum, EA is relevant to the present study as it will reveal how the CM2 and 4eme
pronounced English monophthongs.

34
 CHAPTER THREE:
METHODOLOGY

This chapter considers the methodology that guided this study. It takes up in turn: the
setting, the informants, the data collection instruments, method of data collection, method of
data analysis and difficulties encountered.

3.1. Setting

This study was carried out in the city of Yaoundé, in the Centre Region of Cameroon and
precisely in Lycée de Zamengoué and Ecole Publique de Mfandena. The city of Yaoundé was
chosen because of the availability of the informants and the relative proximity found there as
opposed to other cities of the country like Ebolowa, Douala or Bafoussam which are very far
and do not allow to follow up the various informants. Yaoundé was also chosen because the
investigator lives there. So, familiarity of the researcher with the environment and the fact that
she lives near of the two schools chosen for the research motivated the choice of Yaoundé as
area of focus for this study. Also the schools were judge convenient for the this study as it
compares two level of education.

3.2. Informants

The informants for this study comprised male and female genders. They were selected
from two schools, 10 from Ecole Publique de Mfandena in the class of CM2 and 10 from Lycée
de Zamengoué. The teacher of each class also served as informants. A total of 22 informants
were interviewed. They were selected from the basis of three criteria. First, they were from a
francophone background, second, they were studying in the Francophone sub-system of
education and third they were either in quatrième or in CM2. Again, informants were selected
from various ethnic groups except from ethnic groups from the South-West and North-West
Regions of Cameroon. Informants from these two regions were not sampled for this study
because they may have a different level of pronunciation of words in English that could be
closer to the standard British English.

35
Table 12: enrolment of the two schools and the number of informants selected:

Class Number of informants Percentage

CM2 (60) 10 50%

4eme (73) 10 50%

Total 20 100%

The table 12 shows that it can be seen that the informants were from two distinctive levels
of education: outgoing primary CM2 and secondary 4eme. This selection has been done by the
quest to find out whether 4eme students are more proficient in the target language because of
their high level of education than the outgoing primary school CM2.

Moreover, in order to promote gender equality in the investigation, the informants under
study were classified according to gender: male and female. The table below classifies the
informants according to gender in each class.

Table 13: informants’ classification according to gender

Number of
Gender Class Total Percentage
informants

Male CM2 3 6 30%

4ème 3
Female CM2 7 14 70%
4ème 7
Total 20 100%

Table 13 shows that amongst the 20 informants from with the data are collected, the
female gender is dominant with 70% and the male represent just 30%. This can be justified by
the fact that there were a few numbers of males in each classroom. It is important to note that
as earlier illustrated in table 12, the CM2 class has a total number of enrolments of 60 pupils in
which there are 40 girls and 20 boys. As for the 4eme, it is enrolled with 73 students for 43 girls

36
and 30 boys. Also, the girls were more volunteer than the boys to participate in the data
collection may be because the investigator was also a female.

3.3. Data collection instruments

The instruments used in the process of collecting data were sentences to be read
containing the appropriate sounds, a tape recorder and a questionnaire for the teachers of each
class. The informants were given a list of five sentences to read aloud. They were also given a
list of 29 words to read. These words include: TEACHING, IS, SUCH, A, OPPORTUNITY,
TO, WORK, WITH, OTHERS, IT, CREATES, NEW, KNOWLEDGE, KEEPS, BUILDS,
HEALTHY, AND, LASTING, IMPACT, ON, THE, FUTURE, GENERATIONS,
TEACHERS, HELP, LEARNERS, BECOME, BETTER, CITIZENS. These words were
selected because they were found in the students’ textbooks for a text entitled “advantages of
some occupations” and they were words only made of monophthongs vowels. So, it was
important to know if the presence of these words in their textbooks means that the informants
are able to pronounce them according to SBE norms. The tape recorder was an important
instrument for data collection because it was used to record the informants’ phonological
renditions of the lexical items. The data were collected in calm places to avoid recording noise
that could the results.

3.4. Method of data collection

The words list analysed in this work was designed and presented to the students to be
read. They all came from students’ textbooks as previously mentioned before to evaluate the
English production of CM2 pupils and 4eme students seeking to evaluate if the number of years
of learning English between the two classes ameliorate their proficiency in English. Labov
proposed the word list style as an effective data collection method and this one has been
approved by many researchers to be one of the best to collect broad or raw material for analysis.
As soon as the informants read the sentences and have been recorded by the investigator, they
were immediately played and transcribed. The analysis of the collected data was carried out
based on the contrastive analysis and the error analysis. Firstly, the investigators played and
transcribed the phonological renditions of the selected informants according following the SBE
norms proposed by O’Connor. Secondly, the frequencies of the informants’ renditions were
calculated and illustrated on tables for a comparison of the proficiency of both levels. Also, the
frequency of each incorrect renditions of the informants were analysed. The incorrect renditions
with the higher percentage were considered as being a feature of what is called CamFE

37
(Cameroon Francophone English). If 4eme students who are three classes more than the CM2
approximate SBE renditions, then the investigator could conclude that the years on learning
English between the two classes significantly improve the pronunciation of SBE by the foreign
learners in Cameroon. But, if there is no significant difference between the two levels’
renditions of the monophthongs under study, the investigator would conclude that the level of
education and the years studying English do not influence the pronunciation of SBE by
francophone English learners in Cameroon. As earlier indicated, French-speaking students were
chosen because of the fact they already have a first language (L1) which may affect the
pronunciation of words in their L2 English. So, it was very important to find out if this influence
of L1 on L2 can change with years of practice.

3.5. Method of data analysis

Before collecting the data, the teachers were required to fill up a questionnaire about how
they feel about their students’ English proficiency level. For an effective analysis of the raw
data collected for this study, a correct procedure was followed up. As soon as the data was
collected through the recorder, it was firstly transcribed by the investigator to facilitate the
analysis. Then the investigator identified SBE and FrancoEng features in the transcribed words.
The frequency of each variant was ranged per percentages. The collected data were analysed
using the quantitative method for subsequent intervention. The analysis was carried out with
reference to contrastive analysis and Error analysis. The O’Connor suggested English
renditions of SBE were used as a model to analyse the FrancoEng variants in the speech of the
informants. The analysis of the data therefore; provided an opportunity for the phonological
ability of French-speaking learners in SBE to be assessed. It is important to note that these
learners only have four years learning that separate them from each other and learn English
from the first year of school and the target variant used to teach them is the SBE pronunciation.
So, the findings presented in the next chapter will show whether the training has been effective
and more if the number of years that separate the level of education make them more proficient.

3.6. Difficulties

During the data collection process, the investigator faced some obstacles. One of the main
was the unavailability of the informants as they were preparing themselves to go to second
semester holidays. Follow up the two classes chosen were difficult because of their oppose
locations. Some students were ashamed to read the selected sentences because of the fear to
make mistakes/ errors and being mocked.it was not easy to manage the timetable of the

38
researcher with the one of the teachers of respective classes as the researcher were involved in
his teaching practice and the teachers especially the one teaching secondary school, who were
occupy with his other classes and activities.

39
 CHAPTER FOUR:
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

This chapter analyses the data and discusses the findings. Firstly it examines the English
monophthongs in turn (4.1) and then it analyses the questionnaire filled in by the respective
teachers of CM2 and 4eme.

4.1. Analysis of the vowels

This section takes up the English monophthongs in turn. It considers front vowels (4.1.1),
back vowels (4.1.2), central vowels (4.1.3) and long Vowels (4.1.4).

4.1.1. Front vowels

Table 14: renditions of the high, front, unrounded vowel /ɪ/ in the corpus

FrancoEng rendering
RP CM2 4eme Total
RP FrancoEng Graphemes Words
rendering 10 10 20
/tiʃɪŋ/ /titʃɪŋ/
Teaching /ti:tʃɪŋ/ 50% 50% 20=100%
10 10
/ɪs/ /ɪs/
Is /ɪz/ 50% 50% 20=100%
10 10
/ɪt/ /ɪt/
It /ɪt/ 50% 50% 20=100%
10 10
/wɪt/ /wɪt/
/ɪ/ /ɪ/ i With /wɪð/ 50% 50% 20=100%
10 10
/ɪmpakt/ /ɪmpakt/
Impact /ɪmpækt/ 15% 25% 8=40%
3 5
/lastɪŋ/ / lastɪŋ/
Lasting /lɑstɪŋ/ 50% 50% 20=100%
10 10
/sitizɛn/ /sitizɛn/
Citizens /sɪtɪzənz/ 50% 50% 20=100%
10 10
/ɛ/ I Impact /ɪmpækt / /ɛmpakt/ 35% /ɛmpakt/ 25% 12=60%

40
 7 5
/bɪkɔm/ / bɪkɔm/
/ɪ/ E Become /bɪkʌm/ 50% 50% 20=100%
10 10
/noleʒ/ /noleʒ/
40% 15% 11=55%
8 3
/e/ E Knowledge /nɒlɪʤ/
/noleʤ/ /noleʤ/
10% 35%
2 7 9=45%
/byɪld/ /byild/
/yi/ UI Builds /bɪldz/ 30% 45% 15=75%
6 9
/buɪld/ /build/
/ui/ UI Builds /bɪldz/ 20% 5% 5=25%
4 1

Table14 shows that /ɪ/ seems to be easily pronounced as expected by the francophone
informants like in the words IT, IS, WITH, IMPACT. However, it has been replaced in certain
contexts which are obviously drawn from French. The word IMPACT for example, /ɪ/ has been
rendered as /ɛ/ by 7/10 CM2 pupils (35%) and by 5/10 4eme students (25%) for a total of 12/20
(60%). Difficulties are also observable when the same sound /ɪ/ is presented in others
graphemes like in “E” in the word KNOWLEDGE for example, it has been rendered /e/ by all
the twenties informants. Similarly, in the grapheme “UI” in the word BUILD, 6 CM2
informants rendered /ɪ/ as /yɪ/ and the 4 others as /u/, as for the secondary school 4ème students,
9 of them rendered /ɪ/ as /yɪ/ and one as /uɪ/.

Table 15: renditions of the mid-low, front, unrounded vowel /ɛ/

FrancoEng rendering

RP CM2 4eme Total

Franco
RP Graphemes Words renderi
Eng 10 10 20
ng
/help/ 25% /help/ 20% 9=45%
Help /hɛlp/
5 4
/ɛ/ /e/ E 20=100
/beta/ 50% /beta/ 50%
Better /bɛtə/ %
10 10

41
 /hɛlp/ 25% /hɛlp/ 30% 11=55%
/ɛ/ E Help /hɛlp/
5 6
/elti/ 30% /elti/ 15% 9=45%
/e/ EA Healthy /hɛlθi/
6 3

/ɛlti/ 20 /ɛlti/ 11=55%

/ɛ/ EA Healthy /hɛlθi/ 35%
4 7

Table15 illustrates that the vowel /ɛ/ is sometimes pronounced as expected as seen in HELP
and Healthy where 22.5% of CM2 and 32.5% of the 4eme pronounced the sound /ɛ/. However,
it has been replaced in certain contexts by /e/ as in BETTER when it appears in the letter E
which is obviously drawn from French.

Table 16: renditions of the low, front, unrounded vowel /æ/

FrancoEng rendering
FrancoE Graphem RP CM2 4eme Total
RP Words
ng es rendering 10 10 20
/an/ 50 /an/ 50
And /ænd/ 100%
10 % 10 %
/ɛmpakt/ 35 /ɛmpakt/ 25
/æ/ /a/ A Impact /ɪmpækt/ 60%
7 % 5 %
/ɪmpakt/ 15 /ɪmpakt/ 25
Impact / ɪmpækt/ 40%
3 % 5 %

Table 16, shows that /æ/ is pronounced /a/ because of its usual apparition in the letter A which
is rendered /a/ in french pronunciation as in AND and IMPACT

4.1.2 Back vowels

Table 17: renditions of the low, back, unrounded vowel /ʌ/ in the corpus

FrancoEng rendering

RP CM2 4eme Total

RP FrancoEng Graphemes Words
rendering 10 10 20

42
 /syʃ/ /syʃ/
/y/ U Such /sʌtʃ/ 10% 20% 6=30%
2 4
/sɔtʃ/ /sɔtʃ/
U Such / sʌtʃ/ 40% 30% 14=70%
8 6
/ɔ/
/bɪkɔm/ /bɪkɔm/
/ʌ/ O Become /bɪkʌm/ 40% 50% 18=90%
8 10
/bɪkom/
/o/ Become /bɪkʌm/ 10% 0 0 2=10
2
O
/oda/ /oda/
others ʌðəz/ 50% 50% 20=100%
10 10

Table17 shows that the vowel /ʌ/ is hardly realised by all the informants. /ʌ/ is replaced by /y/
and /ɔ/ in the grapheme U as in the word SUCH where 2/10 CM2 pupils for a percentage of
(10%) and 4/10 4eme students (20%) realised /ʌ/ as /syʃ/ . the others informants, namely, 8/10
CM2 and 6/10 4eme students realised the same word as /sɔtʃ/. When /ʌ/ was presented in the
grapheme O it was rendered as it is spelt as in OTHERS similarly in the grapheme O, /ʌ/ was
substituted into /ɔ/by 8/10 CM2 and also by the 10 informants of 4eme as in the word
BECOME.

Table 18: renditions of /ɒ/ and /ʊ/

FrancoEng rendering
FrancoE Graphem RP CM2 4eme Total
RP Words
ng es rendering 10 10 20
/opɔtynit
Opportunit /ɒpətju:nəti 50 /opɔtyniti/ 50
/ɒ/ /o/ O i/ 100%
y / % %
10 10
/noleʒ/ /noleʒ/
8 40 3 15
55%
Knowledg % %
/nɒlɪʤ/
e
/noleʤ/ 10 /noleʤ/
35 45%
2 % 7

43
 50 50
/ʊ/ OU Could /kʊd/ /kuld/ /kuld/ 100%
% %
/u/
/gud/ 50 /gud/ 50
OO Good /gʊd/ 100%
10 % 10 %

Table18 shows that the vowel /ɒ/ is usually replaced by /o/ at 100% when represented by the
grapheme O as in OPPORTUNITY and in KNOWLEDGE. The vowel /ʊ/ is rendered as /u/ in
the words GOOD and COULD by all the informants.

4.1.3 Central vowels

Table 19: renditions of the mid-low, central, unrounded /ə/

FrancoEng rendering
RP CM2 4eme Total
RP FrancoEng Graphemes Words
rendering 10 10 20
/e/ A a /ə/ /e/ 10 50% /e/ 10 50% 20=100%
/də/ /də/
/ə/ E The /ðə/ 50% 50% 20=100%
10 10
/ʒenereʃiɔ͂/ /ʒenereʃiɔ͂/
/e/ E Generations /ʤɛnəreiʃnz/ 50% 50% 20=100%
/ə/ 10 10
/opɔtuniti/ /opɔtuniti/
/i/ I Opportunity /ɒpətju:nəti/ 50% 50% 20=100%
10 10
/opɔtuniti/ /opɔtuniti/
/ɔ/ Or Opportunity /ɒpətju:nəti/ 50% 50% 20=100%
10 10
/fytyr/ /fytyr/
/yr/ URE Future /fju:tʃə/ 25% 35% 12=60%
5 7
/fytɔ/ /fytɔ/
/ɔ/ URE Future / fju:tʃə/ 25% 15% 8=40%
5 3
/oda/ /oda/
Others /ʌðəz/ 50% 50% 10=100%
10 10
/a/ ER
/ titʃa/ / titʃa/
Teachers /ti:tʃəz/ 35% 12=60%
7 5 25%
/ɜ/ ER Learners /lɜ:nəz/ /linɜ/ 25 % /linɜ/ 8=40%

44
 5 3
15%
/lənɜ/ /lənɜ/
25% 12=60%
5 7 35%
/titʃɜ/ / titʃɜ/
Teachers /ti:tʃəz/ 3 15% 5 8=40%
25%

The table 19 illustrates that /ə/ was difficult to be rendered as expected by the informants in
majority of the graphemes in which it is represented , at least, they all succeeded in pronouncing
it as expected in the word THE even if they substituted the sound /ð/ into /d/. In the grapheme
A and E all the informants rendered it as /e/ as in the words A and GENERATIONS which
represents 100%. In the grapheme I, it was rendered according to its spelling by all the
informants in the word OPPORTUNITY. When /ə/ appears in the grapheme URE it was
rendered in two different ways: 5/10 CM2 and 7/10 4eme substituted the /ə/ into /yr/ when the
8/20 others informants rendered it /ɔ/ in the word FUTURE. /ə/ was also rendered /a/ as in the
word OTHERS where 100 of the two level rendered it /oda/ and 35% of the CM2 and 25% of
4eme rendered the word TEACHERS as //ti:tʃa/.

4.1.4. Long vowels

Table 20: renditions of the mid-high, central,unrounded /ɜ:/

FrancoEng rendering

RP CM2 4eme Total

RP FrancoEng Graphemes Words
rendering 10 10 20

/wɔk/ /wɔk/
/ɔ/ OR Work /wɜ:k/ 50% 50% 20=100%
10 10
/ɜ:/
/linɜ/ /linɜ/
/i/ EA Leaners /lɜ:nəz/ 25% 15% 8=40%
5 3

/lənɜ/ /lənɜ/
/ə/ EA Leaners /lɜ:nəz/ 25% 35% 12=60%
5 7

45
 Concerning the vowel /ɜ:/, table 20 shows that this vowel is systematically replaced by
substitutes that used when represented in the grapheme OR it was rendered /ɔ/ as in WORK. In
the grapheme EA it was rendered /i/ and /ə/ in the word LEANERS where 25% of the CM2 for
15% of the 4eme pronounced it /linɜ/ , While, 25% of CM2 and 35% of 4eme pronounce it
/lənɜ/. In this case, learners seem to generalise the rule of how to pronounce EA which is
generally pronounce /i:/ in the Standard British English as in “sea” /si:/, “teach” /ti:tʃ/ or
“breathe” /bri:ð/.

Table21: renditions of /ɑ:/, /u:/ and /ɔ:/

FrancoEng rendering
FrancoE Graphem RP CM2 4eme Total
RP Words
ng es rendering 10 10 20
/lastiŋ/ 50 /lastiŋ/ 50
/ɑ:/ /a/ A Lasting /lɑ:stɪŋ/ 100%
10 % 10 %
/u:/ /tu/ 50 /tu/ 50
/u/ O To /tu:/ 100%
10 % 10 %
/for/ 30 /for/ 25
/o/ 55%
6 % 5 %
/ɔ:/ O For /fɔ:r/
/fɔr/ 20 /fɔr/ 25
/ɔ/ 45%
4 % 5 %

The table 21 shows that the long vowel /ɑ:/, it is usually replaced by /a/ as in LASTING from
its spelling in French. For the long vowel /u:/, when represented in the grapheme O it is rendered
as /u/. similarly the long vowel /ɔ:/ represented in the grapheme O is rendered /o/ or /ɔ/ as in
FOR where 6/10 CM2 and 5/10 4eme rendered it /for/ and 4/10 CM2 and 5/10 4eme rendered
the same word /fɔr/

46
Table 22: renditions of /i:/

FrancoEng rendering
RP CM2 4eme Total
RP FrancoEng Graphemes Words
rendering 10 10 20
/tiʃɪŋ/ /titʃɪŋ/
10 50% 10 50% 20=100%
Teaching /ti:tʃɪŋ/

EA /titʃa/ /titʃa/
/i/ 7 35% 5 25%
/i:/ Teachers /ti:tʃəz/ 20=100%
/titʃɜ/ / titʃɜ/
15% 25%
3 5
/kip/ /kip/
EE Keeps /ki:ps/ 40% 50% 18=90%
8 10
/kɛps/ /kɛps/
/ɛ/ EE Keeps /ki:ps/ 10% 0% 2=10%
2 0

Table 22 shows that the long vowel/i:/ was rendered as its short version /i/ by the 20
informants in the grapheme EA in the word TEACHING /ti:tʃɪŋ/. All the CM2 students have
not only substituted the long /i:/ into its short version /i/ but in the word TEACHING they also
substituted the sound /tʃ/ into /ʃ/ because they had difficulties in pronouncing it, when the 4eme
students succeeded in pronouncing it.

In the grapheme EE, /i:/ was rendered as /ɛ/ and i/ in the word KEEPS . 2/10 CM2
informants rendered /ɛ/ which represents 10 % of renderings while none of the 10 4eme
rendered it the same way. As far as the rendering of /i:/ as /i/ is concerned, the others 8/10 CM2
and the 10/10 4eme rendered /ki:ps/ as /kip/ in addition, they also ommotted to pronounce the
/s/ at the end of the word.

47
Table 23: The overall picture of SBE pronunciation for the monophthongs investigated

RP (close to RP) FrancoEng

Segments
CM2 4eme CM2 4eme
/i:/ 0% 0% 50% 50%
/ɪ/ 21,50% 30% 25% 23,50%
/ɛ/ 19% 21% 32% 28%
/ɜ/ 0% 0% 50% 50%
/ɑ/ 0% 0% 50% 50%
/ɒ/ 0% 0% 50% 50%
/ɔ/ 25% 25% 25% 25%
/ə/ 7,80% 8,20% 38% 46%
/u:/ 0% 0% 50% 50%
/ʊ/ 0% 0% 50% 50%
/ʌ/ 0% 0% 50% 50%
/æ/ 0% 0% 50% 50%
SCORE 6.11% 7.02% 43.33% 43.54%

Graphic: English monophthongs pronunciation rate

50
45 43.33 43.54

40
35
30
25
20
15
10 7.02
6.11
5
0 0 0 0
0
CM2 4eme

RP FrancoEng

Figure 3: English monophthongs pronunciation rate by CM2 and 4eme pupils

The table 23 provides a summary of the results obtained after the analysis of the data. The
results reveal that the informants greatly failed the pronunciation of vowel monophthongs

48
according to the SBE norms. Nevertheless, we can observe a slight percentage of success on
the approximate realisation of some English monophthongs like /ɪ/, /ɛ/, /ɔ/ and /ə/ &mong the
CM2 informants which is 6.11% and 7.02 among the 4eme informants.

The graphic clearly illustrates the gaps between the pronunciation of English
monophthongs by the different informants with the SBE norms. From that graphic we can
observe that the dominant pronunciation is the FrancoEng, the CM2 only scored 6,11 % of
pronunciation of few monophthongs according to SBE norms while the 4eme had a total
percentage of 7.02%. Meanwhile the total of renditions following the FrancoEng is of 43.33%
for the CM2 and of 43.54% for the 4eme. From the graphic, we can observe that there is no
great difference in the percentage of renditions of the two levels namely, the primary school
CM2 and the first cycle of secondary school 4eme.

4.2 Analysis of the questionnaire

This section analyses the questionnaire that have been given to the respective teachers of
CM2 ( Ecole Publiaue deMfandena) and 4eme ( Lycée de Zamengoué). The total number of
teacher was two teachers for one per class so we had two questionnaires filled by these teachers.

Table 24: The teachers were asked for how long they had been teaching English.

How long have you been teaching English

CM2 4eme
10 years 4 years

Table 24 shows the responses of the teachers about the number of years that they had been
teaching English. The CM2 teacher has been teaching English for ten years while the 4eme
teacher has been teaching English for four years.

Table 25: previous levels taught

Which classes have you been teaching?

CM2 4eme
- CE1 - 6eme
- CM1 - 3eme
- CM2

49
Table 25 shows that the CM2 teacher has already taught three classes (CE1, CM1 and CM2)
while the 4eme teacher has only taught two classes ( 6eme and 3eme).

Table 26: The most important aspect of language used in their teaching method

In your teaching, which aspect(s) of the language occupy(ies) the bigger place?
CM2 4eme
Vocabulary ✓ ✓
Grammar ✓ ✓
Pronunciation
Listening

Table 26 shows that for both teachers, the aspects which occupy the bigger place in their
teaching method is vocabulary and grammar. Meaning that the aspects of pronunciation and
listening are not taught as much as vocabulary and grammar are taught.

Table 27: teaching of pronunciation

Do you teach pronunciation or correct learners’ pronunciation during the teaching of

English
Extend CM2 4eme
Every
lesson
Often ✓
Rarely ✓
Never

Table 27 reinforces what was shown in table 26 namely the teaching of pronunciation is
not an important aspect for both teachers. The 4eme teacher teaches pronunciation in different
occasions but not all the time while the CM2 teacher hardly gives attention to the aspect of
pronunciation in his English lessons.

50
Table 28: elements taught to learners during the teaching of pronunciation

What element of pronunciation do you teach just little or never teach at all
CM2 4eme
Pronunciation
of vowels
Pronunciation Little
of consonants
Stress Never Never
Others Never Never

Table 28 shows that two elements of pronunciations are taught for the period that the
teacher can give to the aspect of pronunciation. The CM2 teacher teach more vowels’
pronunciation than consonants while the 4eme teacher teach both of them but both teachers
admit that they never touch the teaching of stress and others aspects involve in pronunciation.

The teachers have been also asked which aspect of English pronunciation they think they
have less mastery of. Both CM2 and 4eme teacher have mentioned that they have less mastery
of pronunciation of vowels and stress, moreover; the CM2 teacher added others..to the list. That
means that the CM2 teacher has a better mastery of the pronunciation of consonants.

Table 29: English pronunciation rate of the students

How can you rate the English pronunciation of your students?

CM2 4eme
Weak
Average ✓ ✓
Good
Very good

Table 29 shows that both teachers rate their students’ pronunciation to the average levels
from what they observe during their teaching of English.

After analysing the different responses to the questionnaire by the two teachers, we have
observed that both teachers hardly teach pronunciation during their English lessons. Also, the
fact that the CM2 teacher thinks to have only a good mastery of the pronunciation of consonants

51
can really affects the pronunciation of others elements that he does not master by his students
especially the pronunciation of vowels which is the focus of this study. The analysis of the
questionnaire reveals that the 4eme teacher gives more time to the teaching of pronunciation as
he often teaches it and even more correct his students errors. This could be a plus for the 4eme
students’ proficiency in English.

52
 CONCLUSION

Below are summarised the findings got from the analysis of the data collected in the field;
this is followed by an outline of the sociolinguistic; pedagogic implications of the findings;
recommendations and suggestions for research.

Summary of findings

This work was guided by a number of research questions and its findings.

- How do CM2 and 4ème pronounce English monophthongs?

A production test containing five sentences, involving 29 words made of the twelve
English monophthongs, was given to a total of 20 CM2 pupils (Ecole Publique de Mfandena)
and 4eme students (lycée de Zamengoué) for them to be read aloud. Their renditions were
recorded through a tape recorder and were analysed in order to see whether CM2 pupils and
4eme pronounce English monophthongs as expected in the SBE, in a situation where English
is learnt by the both level as a foreign language.

The fact that the investigator focussed his research only on English monophthongs does
not mean that the other sounds of the words in the corpus were correctly pronounced. For
example, the primary school CM2 had difficulties in pronouncing the sound /tʃ/ so they tend to
replace it by /ʃ/ as in TEACHING. All the informants tend to realise diphthongs as if they were
monophthongs /ei/>/e/ and /ju:/>/y/ as in MAKE, OPPORTUNITY and FUTURE.

The findings about the English monophthongs reveal that two major phenomena
happened in the pronunciation of Francophone, the renditions according to spelling and the
replacement of sound. As far as the rendition according to spelling is concerned, the data
analysis reveals that the informants used to pronounce familiar graphemes as they are spelt in
French. In fact, the vowels /ə/, /ʌ/ and /ɒ/ when presented in graphemes like I and O were
pronounced as they are spelt as in OPPORTUNITY, BECOME and OTHERS. The others
vowels that seemed to be unknown by the informants’ L1 phonetic systems tend to be replaced
by easier and shorter counterparts. The findings reveal that all the twelve English
monophthongs have known sounds replacement. /i:/ was realised /ɛ/ in KEEPS. The sound /ɪ/
was realised /e/ in KNOWLEDGE by all the informants. /ʌ/ was replaced by /y/ in the word
SUCH. The sound /ə/ was pronounced /e/, /ɔ/, /yr/ like in FUTURE. /ɛ/ was rendered /e/ in the

53
word HELP. /ɒ/ was pronounced /o/ by all the informants. /ɑ/ and /æ/ were also pronounced by
all the informants /a/ in LASTING and AND. /u:/ and /ʊ/ were pronounce /u/ by all the
informants in TO and GOOD. Also, the Sound /ɔ/ was rendered /o/ in FOR. This leads to the
conclusion that francophone learners totally deviate from the SBE pronunciation norms.

- Do 4ème students outperform CM2 pupils in the rendering of English monophthongs?

From the informants’ renditions of the pronunciation of English monophthongs, we realised

that the informants of both CM2 and 4eme are not even close to the RP. A deeper analysis
of the renditions of the English monophthongs following the SBE norms further reveals that
the CM2 only succeed in realising 3/12 monophthongs as expected and this just because the
pronunciation of these one were already known or reflected the graphemes. Thus, the CM2
realised the vowel /ɪ/ 21.5%; /ɛ/ 19% and the /ə/ 7.80% the rest of the 9 others English
monophthongs were a total failure. As for the 4eme, they also succeeded in the same three
vowels with the same context. They scored / ɪ/ 30%; /ɛ/ 21% and the /ə/ 8.20%. Globally,
the total renditions of the twelves monophthongs according to RP is 6.10 for the CM2 and
7.03% for the 4eme. Meanwhile, 43.33% of renditions for the CM2 and 43.54% for the
4eme followed the FrancoEng pronunciation. The results are clear and contradictory at the
same time. Although the 4eme have a higher percentage on rendering according to SBE
norms with 7.02% against 6.11% for the CM2, the latter also have a slightly higher
percentage in FrancoEng rendering. We can therefore conclude that the 4eme outperform
the CM2 even if it remains very insignificant. This insignificance is the proof that nothing
really seems to be changing in terms of improving pronunciation among francophone
learners of English despite the time and the years of education. At least another proof out
the outperformance of the 4eme had been observed during the data collection, the fact is
that 4eme students were able to read the different items faster than the CM2 who themselves
were struggling to read.

Sociolinguistic implications

The findings of this study carry the following sociolinguistic implications:

• First the fact that the informants are taught English from their first step in school but
are not able to pronounce the vowel monophthongs as expected in the SBE
pronunciation norms, simply shows that although the three years that separate their
level of education, they still failed to master the pronunciation of English
monophthongs. This means that the teaching-learning process is not successful as

54
 the teachers in the questionnaire that they received, said that they hardly teach
pronunciation in class and even more they do not have a total mastering of
pronunciation themselves. The informants tend to render a sort of FrancoEng due to
the fact that the only pronunciation norms that they know comes from French
essentially. The teachers themselves, do not have a mastery of English in general
and particularly at the level of pronunciation when they are supposed to teach the
SBE in their English lessons. Nguefac (2010 and 2011) cited in Tsala (2020), shows
in his studies that the types of English taught in Cameroon no matter the sub-system
of education is far from the SBE. Kouega and Ombouda (2018) mentioned the fact
that primary school teachers are not competent to teach English because they have
not been trained for that, that’s why their pupils also fail in being proficient in
English.

• Also, the informants for this study are selected from two levels of education namely
the outgoing primary school CM2 and the three years after primary school 4eme.
The goal is to find out if they pronounce English monophthongs in the way expected
by the SBE norms and also to know which of the two level outperform the other.
However, the findings reveal that the two level are very far from the SBE
pronunciation and more, that the three years between them seem to have no
influence on their pronunciation. At least, during the data collection, it has been
observed that the 4eme students were able to read the different items faster than the
CM2 that were too slow. The pronunciation of English monophthongs by our
francophone students was so insignificant that it should push the teachers to teach
pronunciation frequently in their classes so that in the next years an improvement
could be observable in their English proficiency.

The percentage obtained in the renditions of the informants as being pronounce according
to words orthography shows that francophone learners of English no matter their level of
education tend to replaced English sound by French ones or others substitutes that make their
speech not proficient.
Pedagogical implications
The pedagogical implications of this study are the following: first, the informants of the
two different level of education violated the rules of SBE vowels pronunciation, which
represents the principal way of determining what type of English a speaker speaks and where
he comes from. It important to note that the informants did not only fail on rendering the English

55
monophthongs as expected according to the SBE norms, but they also made no effort in certain
contexts to pronounce the items regardless of the spelling. This failure in the SBE pronunciation
of English monophthongs in the speech of the informants, simply, indicates that the effort made
by the government to promote RP in Cameroon are vain because both teachers and learners do
not dissociate French pronunciation from English pronunciation.
Then; the government should integrate the teaching of pronunciation in the training
syllabus of the teachers. The primary school teachers must receive a qualified English training
before leaving their training schools or special English teachers should be post in primary
schools to improve the teaching-learning process of English. They should also ameliorate
didactic materials especially the one used to teach pronunciation by using helping materials like
earphones, speakers. Because the teachers in Cameroon do not even speak the SBE variant, it
must be easier for the educational authorities to choose the major variant of English spoken in
Cameroon to be taught in classrooms.
Teachers should in their teaching give an equal place to the aspect of pronunciation. Also
the teacher should in every lesson correct their learners pronunciation. They should make an
effort to teach the variety of English recommended by the authorities (SBE) by working and
practicing hard to approximate the target language pronunciation.
Learners are the main purpose for which this type of investigation is carried out. So, they
have to be seriously motivated in learning English in order to improve the level of English in
their speech. Students must frequently listen and watch programmes that are presented in SBE.
They must be active partners in the construction of their knowledge so that they can make
personal efforts in the learning process. They are required to practice reading individually at
home or to participate in class in the reading activities.
Suggestions for further research
The present study has made an effort to investigate the the pronunciation of English
monophthongs in the speech of francophone learners (the case of CM2 and 4eme students).
There is still much to be done in that domain of research. The present study was limited to
francophone learners of CM2 and 4eme of two schools in Yaounde and these students were
coming from ecole publique de Mfandena and Lycee de Zamengoue. So the same study can be
done on a different sample like on a public school and a private school with the objectives to
carry out which of the public or the private school outperform the other. Also another study can
be carried out on the pronunciation of English monophthongs in relation to other sociolinguistic
variables (gender, age, ethnicity).

56
APPENDIX

57
APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ENGLISH TEACHERS IN THE FRANCOPHONE SUB-

SYSTEM

1. You are: □certified teacher □contract teacher

2. How long have you been teaching English language?

3. What levels have you previously taught?

4. In your teaching method, which aspect(s) of the language occupy (ies) the bigger
place?

□ vocabulary/lexicon

□grammar

□pronunciation

□listening

5. Among the following choices, are there elements that you very rarely, or never do in
class, or elements that you consider less essential?

□ vocabulary/lexicon

□grammar

□pronunciation

□listening

6. You teach pronunciation and/or correct learners’ pronunciation:

□ every lesson/ systematically

□often

□rarely

□never

7. (if you do pronunciation) is there an element that you teach little or never?

58
 □ pronunciation of consonants

□ pronunciation of vowels

□ stress

□others…

8. If you chose one or more box(es) on question7 why?

9. Is there an aspect of English Language that you think you have less mastery of?

□ pronunciation of consonants

□ pronunciation of vowels

□ stress

□others…

10. Do you think your students have a specific English accent?(British, Cameroon
English, Cameroon Francophone English)

11. How can you rate the English pronunciation of your students?

□ weak

□ average

□ good

□very good

59
APPENDIX B

PRODUCTION TEST

1- Teaching is such a great opportunity to work with others.

2- It creates new knowledge.

3- It keeps and builds healthy and good communities.

4- It could make a lasting impact on the future generations.

5- Teachers help learners to become better Citizens for a better life.

WORDS LIST

1- TEACHING

2- IS

3- SUCH

4- A

5- OPPORTUNITY

6- TO

7- WORK

8- WITH

9- OTHERS

10- IT

11- CREATES

12- NEW

13- KNOWLEDGE

14- KEEPS

15- BUILDS

60
16- HEALTHY

17- AND

18- LASTING

19- IMPACT

20- ON

21- THE

22- FUTURE

23- GENERATIONS

24- TEACHERS

25- HELP

26- LEARNERS

27- BECOME

28- BETTER

29- CITIZENS

61
APPENDIX C:

• Sentences selected to be read aloud by the informants in relation to English

monophthongs.

No. Sentences Phonological renditions

1 Teaching is such a great opportunity to work with /ti:tʃɪŋ/ /ɪz/ /sʌtʃ/ /ə/ /greit/
others. /ɒpətju:nəti/ /tu:/ /wɜ:k/ /wɪð/
/ʌðəz/

2 It creates new knowledge. /ɪt/ /krieits/ /nju:/ /nɒlɪʤ/

3 It keeps and builds healthy and good communities. /ɪt/ /ki:ps/ /ænd/ /bɪldz/ /hɛθi/
/ænd/ /gʊd/ /kəmju:nətiz/

4 It could make a lasting impact on the future generations /ɪt/ /kʊd/ /meik/ /ə/ /lɑ:stɪŋ/
/ɪmpækt/ /ɒn/ /ðə/ /fju:tʃə/
/ʤɛnəreiʃnz/

5 Teachers help learners to become better Citizens for a /ti:tʃəz/ /hɛlp/ /lɜ:nəz/ /tu:/
better life /bɪkʌm/ /bɛtə/ /sɪtɪznz/ /fɔ:r/ /ə/
/bɛtə/ /laif/
The above table represents of the sentences selected to be analysed, the first column the
sentences containing the target words a total number of twenty-four which their turns contain
the target twelve monophthongs of English among them. The second column presents each
word as they are pronounced in isolation in SBE. This chapter is divided into twelve sections,
each taking up a specific vowel monophthong. The analysis of the informants’ renditions of the
twelves vowels goes from table to table.

The tables below shows how the corpus was rendered by the pupils.

62
 • Rendition of the sentences by one CM2 pupil

No. Sentences Phonological renditions

1 Teaching is such a great opportunity to work with /tiʃɪŋ/ /is/ /suʃ/ /e/ /gret/ /opɔtyniti/
others. /tu/ /wok/ /wit/ /oda/

2 It creates new knowledge. /ɪt/ /krit/ /niju/ /noleʒ/

3 It keeps and builds healthy and good communities. /ɪt/ /kip/ /an/ /byild/ /hɛlti/ /an/
/gud/ /komyniti/

4 It could make a lasting impact on the future generations /ɪt/ /kuld/ /mik/ /e/ /lastɪŋ/
/ɛmpakt/ /ɔn/ /də/ /fytyr/
/ʒenereʃn/
5 Teachers help learners to become better Citizens for a /ti:tʃə/ /hɛlp/ /lenɜ/ /tu/ /bɪkom/
better life /beta/ /sɪtɪzn/ /for/ /e/ /beta/ /laif/

• Rendition of the sentences by one 4eme students

No. Sentences Phonological renditions

1 Teaching is such a great opportunity to work with /tʃitʃɪŋ/ /is/ /sɔtʃ/ /e/ /gret/
others. /opɔtyniti/ /tu/ /wɔk/ /wit/
/oda/

2 It creates new knowledge. /ɪt/ /kret/ /niju/ /noledʒ/

3 It keeps and builds healthy and good communities. /ɪt/ /kip/ /an/ /byild/ /elti/ /an/
/gud/ /komyniti/

4 It could make a lasting impact on the future generations /ɪt/ /kuld/ /mek/ /e/ /lastɪŋ/
/ɛmpakt/ /ɔn/ /də/ /fytyr/
/ʒenereʃn/
5 Teachers help learners to become better Citizens for a /tʃi:tʃa/ /hɛlp/ /lenɜ/ /tu/
better life /bɪkom/ /beta/ /sɪtɪzn/ /fɔr/ /e/
/beta/ /laif/

63
 REFERENCES

Birdsong, D. (2003). Authenticité de prononciation en français L2 chez des apprenants tardifs

anglophones : Analyses segmentales et globales. Acquisition et Interaction en Langue
Étrangère, 18, 17-36.

Chia, E. (1983). Cameroon home languages. In Koenig, E. L., Chia, E., and Povey, J. (Eds.) A
sociolinguistic profile of urban centers in Cameroon, (pp. 19-32) Los Angeles: Cross Road
Press
Corder, S. (1967). The significance of learners' errors. International Review of Applied
Linguistics. 5(4), 160-170.
Corder, S. (1974). Error Analysis. Perspective on second language acquisition. London:
Longman.
Corder, S. P. (1978). Simple codes and the source of the second language learners initial
heuristic hypothesis. Studies in Second Acquisition.
Corder, S. P. (1981). Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University.
Fisiak.J.(1981). Contrastive linguistic and the language teacher. Oxford:
OxfordPergamonPress.
Flege, J. E. (1992). Speech learning in a second language. In C. A. Ferguson & L. Menn, C.
Stoel-Gammon (Eds.), Phonological development: Models, research, implications (pp. 565-
604). Timonium, MD: York Press.
Khansir.A.A.(2012).Error analysis and second language acquisition. Theory and Practice in
Language Studies, Vol. 2, No. 5, pp. 1027-1032, May 2012

Kouega, J. P. (2007b). The language situation in Cameroon. Current Issues in Language

Planning (CILP),

Kouega J. P. (2008). The English of Francophone users in Cameroon: A phonological

appraisal. Annals of the Faculty of Arts, Letters and Social Sciences, University of Yaounde 1.
Special Edition. Test Schrift in Honour of Professor Paul N. Mbangwang, PP. 109-120.

64
Kouega, J. P. and Baimada, F. G. (2012). Language use in the Islamic faith in Cameroon: The
case of a mosque in the city of Maroua. Journal of Language and Culture 3(1), pp. 10-19.
Online version at: http://www.academicjournals.org/JLC

Kouega, J. P. (2017). Letters and Sounds in English: A handbook Phonology.

Kouega, J. P and Ombouda Onana, E. (2018). The English of Francophone primary school
teachers and Cours Moyen Deux (CM2) Pupils in Cameroon. International Journal of
Language and linguistics. 6(3), 90-100. Online version at: 10.11648/j.ij11.20180603.15

Kouega. J.P.(2019).The English of Francophone Speakers in Cameroon. GRIN Verlag,

Munich.
Jones, D. (1922). An outline of English phonetics. New-York: G. E. Stechert & Co.
Lado, R. (1957) Linguistics across cultures: Applied Linguistics and Language Teachers.
University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Lado, R. (1964). Language teaching: A scientific approach. MacGraw Hill.

MINESEC (Ministère de l'enseignement secondaire) (2014). Programme officiel de

Yaounde, Cameroon.
renseignement secondaire (4eme). Official for syllabus for secondary education (Form3).

MINEDUC (Ministère de 'Education Nationale) [Ministry of Education] (2000). National

sullabus for English-speaking primary schools in Cameroon Yaounde, Imprimerie Nationale
MINEDUC (Ministère de 'Education Nationale) [Ministry of Education) (2001).

Programmes Officiels de l'Enseignement Primaire (Niveaux I. Il et IIID. (Official Syllabi for

Primary Education (Levels I, Il and III]. Yaounde, Cameroon: Imprimerie Saint John
MINESEC (Ministère des Enseignements Secondaires) (Ministry of Secondary Education]
(2014). Statistical yearbook 2013-2014. Yaounde : MINESEC
MINESUP
Ngefac, A. (2011). When the blind lead the blind: The fallacy of promoting Standard British
English accent in Cameroon. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 2(1), 40-44.

65
O’Connor.J.D.(1973). Phonetics.pp320.
Rebara.L.S. A study of some aspects of the English speech of francophone in Cameroon
(unpublished dissertation). ENS Yaounde1.
Roach, P. (2000). English phonetics and phonology: A practical course (4th Ed.). Cambridge:
Cambridge
University Press.
Safotso, G.T. (2006). The pronunciation problems of Ghoma"la"-French and Ewondo-French
speaking learners of English and Pedagogical Implications, PD Research Project, University
of Yaounde 1.
Safotso, G. T. (2012). Aspects of Cameroon Francophone English (CamFE) phonology. Theory
language studies, PP.2471-2477.
Safotso, G.T. (2015). A study of the phonologies features of Cameroon Francophone English.
Saarbrücken: Scholars Press.
Schachter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning, 24, 205-214.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1974.tb00502.x
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 219- 223.

Tsala, JF. (2020). The Intelligibility of the SBE pronunciation of some lexical items to
educated Cameroonians: a case study of some second and third year
students of the university of yaounde1 (unpublished dissertation).
ENS yaounde1.

Valdman, Albert. (1976). Introduction to French phonology and morphology. Newbury House
Publishers, Inc., Rowley, Massachusetts.
Simo Bobda, A. S. (1994). Aspect of Cameroon English phonology. Berne: Peter Lang

66