Feature Article

An Acceptable Alternative
Articulation to Remediate
Mispronunciation of the
English /l/ Sound: Can
Production Precede Perception?
GREG RAVER-LAMPMAN
CORINNE WILSON
Old Dominion University

This article explores the teaching of an acceptable alternative

articulation to correct the mispronunciation of the English /l/
sound by speakers of some Asian languages and dialects who
struggle to differentiate the English liquids /r/ and /l/.
Although teaching pronunciation, and especially segmentals,
has generated controversy over whether practitioners should
promote native-like, nonaccented speech, the /l/ sound is a
high-functional-load consonant, the mispronunciation of which
can cause significant communication problems. Many methods
designed to correct this mispronunciation assume that percep-
tion must precede production. This article builds on research
suggesting that speakers of Japanese, Korean, and Chinese
may be able produce the /l/-/r/ distinction even if they fail
to perceive it (Goto, 1971; Sheldon & Strange, 1982) as well as
research that found that 30% of a sample of 50 U.S. university
students, all native English speakers, produce the /l/ sound
in a nonalveolar position, with their tongue tip touching the
bottom of their front teeth protruding slightly (Raver-Lamp-
man, 2015). The present study produced evidence that teach-
ing this alternative articulation in three 30-minute sessions
helped speakers of Japanese, Korean, Mandarin Chinese, and
Thai improve the pronunciation of the /l/ sound regardless
of their ability to perceive it. Implications for instruction are
discussed.
doi: 10.1002/tesj.319

TESOL Journal 9.1, March 2018 203

© 2017 TESOL International Association
The teaching of pronunciation in English as a second language
(ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL) classrooms has
generated controversy, thanks in part to “accent reduction”
programs that treat a foreign accent as a pathology that requires
correction (Derwing, 2008; Lippi-Green, 1997). With the topic
becoming almost radioactive to some academics (Lippi-Green,
1997), empirical research on remediating persistent pronunciation
problems and institutional support for doing so have often been
limited (Levis, 2015). Even among ESL professionals, the terms
accentedness, comprehensibility, and intelligibility can often be
confused and used interchangeably (Munro & Derwing, 2015).
A debate over whether instructors can actually improve a
student’s pronunciation complicates matters. Purcell and Suter
(1980) authored a widely cited paper on pronunciation that found
four variables—native language, aptitude for oral mimicry,
concern for accent accuracy, and length of residence in the nation
where the language is spoken—accounted for the “pronunciation
accuracy” of 61 nonnative English speakers as rated by 14 judges.
Factors dealing with formal instruction—years of formal training
in English, years in classes focused on pronunciation—played a
negligible role in pronunciation accuracy (p. 285). In sum, they
concluded that teaching pronunciation was largely ineffective.
Such research has had the effect of muting empirical studies
that demonstrated pronunciation improvement before and after
intervention (Levis, 2015). Perhaps as a result of the mixed
research on and hostility toward the notion of “correct”
pronunciation, less than half of TESOL programs in the United
States offer courses that emphasize pronunciation (Levis, 2015).
Levis and Grant (2003) counter that some elements of
pronunciation, especially suprasegmentals, should be a primary
focus of instruction because their mastery can improve
comprehensibility; they also argue that efforts to correct
problematic segmentals take place in individual student
conferences. They assert that such pronunciation remediation can
improve intelligibility.
The suggestion that a pronunciation teacher work on
segmentals during one-on-one conferences (Levis & Grant, 2003)

204 TESOL Journal

assumes that such one-on-one sessions will be adequate to correct
the mispronunciation. This is where Purcell and Suter (1980) may
have a point: As Levis and Grant (2003) conceded, not all
pronunciation programs are effective.
Many segmental errors can resist intervention because speakers
often have difficulty not only producing the contrasts but
perceiving them as well (McClelland, Fiez, & McCandliss, 2002).
Teaching speakers the correct perception of the distinction
between the /l/ and /r/ sounds, however, does not always result
in the correct production (Goto, 1971; Sheldon & Strange, 1982).
Research has also documented a nonalveolar articulation used by
first language (LI) speakers of English to pronounce the English /
l/ sound—an articulation not tested in L1 speakers of Asian
languages such as Japanese, Korean, Thai, and Mandarin Chinese.
This study investigated the following research question: After
three 30-minute teaching sessions demonstrating an alternative
articulation used to produce the /l/ sound, without any
instruction on perception, would L1 speakers of Japanese, Korean,
and Mandarin Chinese improve their pronunciation of the /l/
sound in the initial, medial, and final position as rated by an L1
speaker of English?

LITERATURE ON REMEDIATION OF THE

MISPRONUNCIATION OF THE ENGLISH /R/ AND /L/
SOUNDS
With the teaching of segmentals falling out of favor, one must ask
why it’s important to focus on a single minimal pair when there
are hundreds in the English language. A barrier to selecting
segmentals to target in a typical mixed-language U.S.-based ESL
classroom is that L1s from diverse language groups may produce
dozens of mispronounced vowels and consonants (Derwing, 2008;
Riney, Takada, & Mitsuhiko, 2000). In other words, which of the
dozens of poorly articulated segmentals should an instructor
attempt to remediate, and why select the /l/-/r/ distinction?
Munro and Derwing (2006) proposed a practical method to
determine target minimal pairs by examining how various
segmentals impact accentedness, intelligibility, and

Acceptable Alternative Articulation of the English /l/ 205

comprehensibility: accentedness describes the differences in one’s
speech from the English spoken in the country or region where
classes are taught; intelligibility refers to the extent to which a
listener understands the speaker; comprehensibility refers to how
much effort it takes for a listener to understand. Munro and
Derwing focused on segmentals with high and low functional load.
In its simplest form, a segmental contrast that produces more
minimal pairs in the same lexical categories has a higher
functional load. Munro and Derwing found that mistakes in low-
functional-load minimal pairs, such as the /h/ and /f/ sounds in
words such as with and month, produced perception of
accentedness but had negligible impact on intelligibility or
comprehensibility; a single instance of a high-functional-load
segmental error, such as the Cantonese confusion between the /l/
and /n/, resulted in a significant decrease in the ability of listeners
to understand an utterance.
A resource to identify high-functional-load vowels and
consonants is a web-based catalogue produced by Higgins (2015)
that lists all of the 420 vocalic and 600 consonantal contrasts in the
English language, including lists of minimal pairs. In the case of
/r/ and /l/, Higgins listed 657 /r/ and /l/ minimal pairs, an
extraordinarily high number, including words such as lamp/ramp
that fall in the same lexical category. Although this list did not
include every minimal pair (elegant and arrogant, for instance), the
/l/-/r/ minimal pair had the highest ranking for impeding
comprehension (Higgins, 2015).
Much research on /l/-/r/ remediation has asserted that
speakers must be taught to perceive sounds first and that
production will follow (Aoyama, Flege, Guion, Akahane-Yamada,
& Yamada, 2004; Bradlow, Reiko, Pisoni, & Yoh’ichi, 1999; Goto,
1971). This inability to perceive differences in phones occurs with
speakers of all languages. Many L1 speakers of American English,
for instance, cannot hear nor pronounce the contrasts of the cot-
caught or pin-pen due to a vocalic merger (Baranowski, 2013).
Research on correcting the confusion between /r/ and /l/ by
L1 speakers of Japanese, Korean, Mandarin Chinese, Vietnamese,
and Thai has been conducted for decades, often with mixed results
(Aoyama et al., 2004; Bradlow et al., 1999; Logan, Lively, & Pisoni,
206 TESOL Journal
1991; McClelland et al., 2002; Sheldon & Strange, 1982; Strange &
Dittmann, 1984). Such intervention is often given over a period of
weeks, with a preintervention perception and production test
given before the training and a postintervention perception and
production test given after the training.
In one such study, 11 L1 speakers of Japanese studying English in
Kyoto listened to English /r/ and /l/ minimal pairs and were asked
to identify which was being spoken (Bradlow et al., 1999). Those
who answered incorrectly heard an unpleasant buzz, and those who
answered correctly heard a pleasant chime, later supplemented with
money. Although this research showed moderately effective results,
it offers little to those working in typical multilanguage, U.S.-based
ESL classrooms. Another study using 4 hours of form-focused
instruction with corrective feedback remediated the pronunciation
of the /r/ sound but not the /l/ sound, which is more resistant to
correction (Saito & Lyster, 2012). Such research often involves
specialized equipment that can be complex and time-consuming to
be employed in ESL and EFL classrooms.
Sheldon and Strange (1982) challenged the assumption that
perception must precede production in the case of the /l/-/r/
contrast. Following up on a study by Goto (1971) conducted in
Japan, Sheldon and Strange studied six L1 Japanese speakers
studying English who had lived in the United States for at least
one year; two of them could produce the /l/-/r/ contrast but
struggled to perceive it. Those who produced it well reported
“that they had been taught to pronounce the /r/ and /l/ by
explicit reference of articulatory parameters rather than to
auditory cues” (p. 254).
Traditional modalities for teaching the articulatory parameters of
the English /r/ and /l/ have largely relied on the articulatory
descriptions promulgated by the International Phonetic
Association (IPA), meaning that students are instructed to touch
the apex of their tongue to the roof of the mouth near the alveolar
ridge (Celce-Murcia, Brinton, & Goodwin, 2004). Such production
requires a measure of lingual dexterity. The /l/ is a lateral liquid,
meaning the tongue touches the roof of the mouth and the stream
of air flows around the narrowed tongue body; the /r/ is a central
liquid, meaning the tongue body flares against the surrounding
Acceptable Alternative Articulation of the English /l/ 207
structures while the apex pulls away from the alveolar ridge,
allowing the air to flow over the tongue tip. Producing these
sounds with this placement requires subtle and rapid changes of
the complex musculature of the tongue. The order of consonant
acquisition suggests that learning to produce the distinction
between the lateral and central liquid is difficult to master even for
native speakers of English, with mastery of the /l/ sound typically
occurring at 4 years of age and the /r/ at 5 (Bowen, 1998).
Although the IPA articulatory positions were meant to
be descriptive illustrations of how these sounds are
commonly produced, ESL and EFL texts and teachers often
present them as prescriptive, the “correct” way to pronounce them
(Becker, 2010).
Research by Raver-Lampman (2015) found evidence that 15
of 50 (30%) U.S. university students, all native speakers of
English, use an alternative articulation of the /l/ sound in the
initial, medial, and final positions, and in blends. These were
not nonnative articulations but were perceived by lay listeners
as indistinguishable from the /l/ sound pronounced with the
articulation listed on IPA charts. With this articulation of the
English /l/ sound, it is impossible to produce the English /r/;
if the tongue tip is touching the teeth, air cannot pass over the
tip. This research, however, did not address the effectiveness of
teaching this alternative articulation to L1 ESL and EFL speakers
who struggled to produce the sound. Although research on use
of acceptable articulations of English consonants in ESL and EFL
is scant, research using magnetic resonance imaging technology
(Stone, 2005) has documented that 10 of 22 (45%) L1 speakers of
English use a nonalveolar pronunciation of the /s/ sound, an
articulation with the tongue tip touching the lower incisors at
the gumline; a study using ultrasound (Raver-Lampman,
Toreno, & Bing, 2015) found that 17 of 20 (80%) Japanese
speakers used this articulation to pronounce the /s/ sound in
their own language. Nogita (2010) suggests that teaching the
alveolar position may actually hinder acquisition of the English
/s/. This raises the question of whether teaching an alternative
form of pronouncing the /l/ sound could result in more rapid
acquisition.
208 TESOL Journal
PILOT STUDY
A pilot study with a small population was designed to test this
hypothesis. Although the struggle to produce the distinction
between the /l/ and the /r/ occurs in word-initial, word-medial,
word-final, and consonant clusters, the pilot study focused solely
on the /r/ and /l/ in word-initial position. The study
hypothesized that the alternative articulation of the /l/ and the
alveolar articulation /r/ would make it easier for L1 speakers of
Asian languages such as Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, and
Mandarin to learn the articulation of the English /l/.

Instrument
Based on procedures employed by Kusumoto (2012), a list of 20
English /r/-/l/ minimal pairs with an initial contrast was created
including words such as lip, lap, lamp, light, and lot (see
Appendix A). The list contained mirror images of the pairs (e.g.,
rip, rap, ramp, right, rot). The selected words were derived from the
minimal pair list developed by Higgins (2015) with the criteria that
they be differentiated solely by the initial consonant and that the
meanings be clearly distinct and familiar to advanced speakers of
English as measured by the Common European Framework
(CEFR). These are randomized with an equal number of /r/ and
/l/ exemplars in each column. A rating sheet listed these words
side by side. This study recruited participants from an intensive
English program at a southeastern U.S. university program.

Method
Participants. Four L1 speakers of Korean and two L1 speakers
of Japanese were recruited. Four were female and two were male.
They self-identified as having problems both perceiving and
producing the English /r/ and /l/ sounds. These participants had
studied English for 9 to 13 years, and the total length of residence
in the United States ranged from 3 to 9 months. All spoke English
at an advanced level.
Procedures. The intervention took place in a soundproof room
in a university library. To assess perception, an L1 speaker of
American English recorded a list of the /r/ and /l/ minimal pairs.

Acceptable Alternative Articulation of the English /l/ 209

Participants listened to the recording and marked on a list that
included both minimal pair words, such as light and right, with a
space for a checkmark before each along with a third category
marked unsure (see Appendix A).
To measure preintervention production, participants read
aloud from the list of 20 minimal pairs that had an equal
number of words with an initial /r/ or /l/. Three participants
read from the first column and the others read from the second.
These utterances were recorded on a MicroTrack II, a two-
channel, 24-bit, 96-kilohertz digital recorder that produces files
of sufficient quality to be edited by PRAAT acoustic analysis
software.
Participants were made aware that the perception and
production of /l/ was being evaluated, drawing attention to the
purpose of the study (Huang, 2008). During intervention, the
alternative acceptable articulation was demonstrated on minimal
pair words that began with the /l/ sound, words such as law,
lamp, and loyal, whose minimal pair equivalents are raw, ramp,
and royal. After half a dozen rehearsals, all six participants
appeared to have mastered the articulation, which was observed
as the tongue tip protruded between the teeth. To increase
rapidity of this unfamiliar alternative articulation, participants
sang fa, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la at increasing speeds. After a
teaching session that lasted approximately 30 minutes, each
participant read again from the list of minimal pairs and
recorded them on the MicroTrack II.
Assessment. A rater was recruited from the university’s
applied linguistics master’s program. He was given the list of 20
minimal pairs that included both exemplars with a space for a
check in front of each one, as well as a third category, unsure. The
rater was instructed to listen to 240 tokens produced by the
speakers, 120 preintervention and 120 postintervention, intermixed
so he was unaware of which list was read before intervention and
which was read after intervention. To check on the rater’s
reliability, the recording of the L1 speaker of American English
reading the same words was also included. The rater’s scores were
tabulated by giving each participant 1 point for each word-initial
/r/ or /l/ sound correctly identified pre- and postintervention.
210 TESOL Journal
The L1 speaker of American English received a score of 100%
mastery.

RESULTS
Although this study did not focus on the relation between
production and perception, the data showed little correlation
between the ability to perceive the distinction and the ability to
produce it (see Figure 1). In this preliminary study, Participant 5
tied with Participant 3 for the highest score on the perception test,
correctly identifying 19 of 20 (95%) of the /r/ and /l/ minimal
pairs, yet had the lowest score on the preintervention production
test, reading only 4 of 20 (20%). Participant 2, on the other hand,
had the lowest score on the perception test, 14 of 20 (70%), but the
highest score on the preintervention production test, 20 of 20
(100%). This corroborated the research findings that L1 speakers of
Japanese can master the production of the /l/ and /r/ sounds
even if they cannot perceive it (Goto, 1971; Sheldon & Strange,
1982).
The small number of participants and the varied
preintervention production of the /l/ sound by the participants
made it impossible to determine statistical significance, but the
ability to pronounce the distinction improved markedly in the two
participants who had the most trouble producing the distinction.
Participant 5’s correct differentiation rose from 4 of 20 (20%)
correctly produced preintervention to 18 of 20 (90%) after 20

Figure 1. Relationship between perception and production of the

/r/-/l/ contrast
Acceptable Alternative Articulation of the English /l/ 211
 Figure 2. Change in production after a 30-minute teaching session

minutes of instruction. Participant 6 increased from 11 of 20 (55%)

preintervention to 16 of 20 (80%) postintervention (see Figure 2).
Those who had previously mastered the ability to produce the
distinction preintervention showed a slight decrease: For
Participant 1, tokens marked correct by the rater declined from 19
of 20 (95%) preintervention to 17 of 20 (85%) postintervention; for
Participant 2, it declined from 20 of 20 (100%) preintervention to
14 of 20 (70%) postintervention; for Participant 3, it declined from
15 of 20 (75%) preintervention to 13 of 20 (65%) postintervention.
For Participant 4, the preintervention words correctly marked by
the rater remained the same postintervention, 18 correctly
perceived for 20 tokens (90%). It’s axiomatic that anybody who
masters a sound with one articulatory position need not be
instructed to produce it with an alternative articulatory position
and that such instruction could interfere with successful
production.

EXPANDED STUDY
The results of the pilot study suggested that an expanded study
using more participants and testing for more variables, including
the articulation of the /l/ sounding the word initial, medial, and
final position, and in blends, was warranted. An important change
was the development of an instrument that included the /l/
sound in the initial, medial, and final positions, including blends
such as blush. Although the length of a single instruction session
remained the same, participants were asked to attend three instead
212 TESOL Journal
of one. The hypothesis of the expanded study was that
participants who had failed to master the production of the /l/
sound in all positions (initial, medial, final, and blends) would
increase their production after three 30-minute teaching sessions.
As part of the design, analysis would exclude participants who
had already mastered pronunciation of the /l/ sound in the
pretest.

Instrument
A list of 25 minimal pairs was compiled that included 13 minimal
pairs with a word-initial contrast, six with a word final contrast,
and six with a word-medial contrast, including blends (Higgins,
2015). To evaluate the accuracy of the rater, the minimal pairs
were recorded by an L1 English speaker.

Method
Participants. Thirty-seven L1 speakers of Japanese, Korean,
Mandarin Chinese, Vietnamese, and Thai agreed to participate in
three 30-minute sessions spaced 1 week apart. Other instructors at
the intensive English program were aware of the alternative
articulation, but they did not incorporate it into their classes until
after the study was complete.
Procedures. As in the pilot study, participants were given a
sheet containing all the minimal pairs, this time with the /l/ and
/r/ sound in all positions. They listened a recording of a native
speaker of American English reading the words. They placed a
check in front of the word they heard—for example, light or right—
or marked unsure if they could not hear a difference. They then
read from a list of the minimal pairs, which were recorded on
iPads using Voice Recorder Pro.
To make certain all understood the correct articulation of the
alternative articulation, an explanation was translated into
Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Thai and projected on
a screen in front of the participants. Needless to say, participants
were made aware of the purpose of the intervention. During the
training sessions, the instructor conducted group activities but also
focused on each participant to ascertain that each had mastered
the correct articulation, with the tongue tip visible below the top
Acceptable Alternative Articulation of the English /l/ 213
front teeth. In addition to pronouncing a list of words containing
the /l/ sounds, participants again were asked to sing songs,
including the Christmas song that contains the fa, la, la, la, la, la, la,
la, la. Each session took less than 30 minutes.
At the end of all three teaching sessions, participants were
again presented with a sheet of paper that included only one
column from the minimal pair list. They then read and recorded
25 minimal pairs, 13 with the /l/ sound and 12 with the /r/
sound in word-initial, medial, and word final positions (see
Appendix B). These words included consonant blends such as
blush and brush. Half the participants were asked to read from one
column, the other half from the mirror image. One participant, for
instance, would read from the column with the word raw while
another read from the column with the word law. These were also
recorded onto iPads using Voice Recorder Pro. These pre- and
postintervention recordings were uploaded to a shared folder in a
random order so one could not tell which recording was made
first. A rater from the university’s applied linguistics master’s
program listened to and scored all the recordings on a minimal
pair sheet similar to that used by the participants. The minimal
pair list recorded by the L1 speaker of American English was
embedded among the recordings to assess the accuracy of the
rater; the L1 speaker of American English received a rating of
100% accurately pronounced.

Analysis
Of the 37 participants who started the study, 8 completed only one
teaching session and 12 completed only two teaching sessions.
That left 17 participants who completed all three sessions, 10 from
Japan, 2 from China, 4 from South Korea, and 1 from Thailand. Of
those, nine were female and seven were male. The mean time
studying English was 9 years, with a range from 7 years to 22
years.
Because data from the preliminary study found that people
who have mastered the alveolar articulation showed no
improvement, this study focused on those who had yet to master
the pronunciation. Because minimal-pair scoring contains just two
conditions, a perceived /l/ sound or a perceived /r/ sound, it is
214 TESOL Journal
conceivable that a random distribution could result in a score of
50%; for this reason, the study evaluated only those participants
whose score fell below that figure. Of the 17 participants who
completed all three teaching sessions, six met the criteria. Of these,
all showed an improvement in the ability to produce the /l/
sound, with no significant difference between the initial, medial,
and final positions or the blends (see Figure 3).
The data were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test, a
statistical hypothesis test that can be used for repeated
measurements in a sample from a small population. Because it is a
nonparametric test, it does not require divergence from a normal
distribution. The null hypothesis of this test was that the median
difference between the preintervention and postintervention
scores, expressed in percentages, is zero versus the alternative
hypothesis that the median difference is positive.

RESULTS
The results failed to confirm the assertions that perception and
production of the /r/ and /l/ contrast were unrelated (see
Figure 4). Nonetheless, although the results confirmed a
correlation between perception and production, the relationship
was not one-to-one. In other words, one could not assert from
these data that improved perception would necessarily result in

Figure 3. Pre- and post-intervention production of the /r/ and /l/ for
participants whose mastery of the articulation of the /r/ /l/ sounds fell
below 50 percent
Acceptable Alternative Articulation of the English /l/ 215
 Figure 4. Perception and production of the English /l/ /r/ contrast

improved production. Participant 4, for instance, perceived 14 of

the 25 minimal pairs (56%) but could produce only 5 of the 25
(5%). Participant 2 correctly perceived only 14 of the 25 minimal
pair contrasts (68%), but produced 23 of the 25 (92%).
The Wilcoxon signed rank test did, however, support the
hypothesis that the six participants who showed a mastery of less
than 50% in producing the English /l/ sound showed
improvement after three 30-minute teaching sessions. The analysis
revealed a median pretest value of 38% and a median posttest
value of 50%, an increase of 12%, making the results significant.

DISCUSSION
Although this intervention was decontextualized and performed
outside of traditional class time, the training sequence suggests
that the acquisition of the new articulatory could be incorporated
into ongoing classes using the model outlined by Levis and Grant
(2003), in which instructors target specific segmentals in one-on-
one sessions. The intervention has been successfully incorporated
into an intensive English program at the university where the
research was conducted. Anecdotally, several instructors have
commented on how quickly the students mastered a native-like
/l/ sound. It’s not unusual for Korean, Japanese, and Chinese
students to mention the mastery of this notoriously difficult
216 TESOL Journal
consonant contrast as among the most important skills they have
learned during in the program.

Limitations of the Study

This study does have significant limitations, including the small
sample size, the decontextualized nature of the intervention, and
the fact that the production of the /l/ and /r/ sounds must be
orthographically cued. Because the study used a convenience
sample, the population consisted of post-high-school-age
participants who had studied English for at least 7 years.
Spreading the intervention over three sessions resulted in
significant attrition, reducing the number of participants
producing data that could be analyzed. In addition, participants
were aware that they were being evaluated on their abilities to
correctly pronounce the /l/ sound. This may have affected their
preintervention and postintervention production (McCambridge,
Witton, & Elbourne, 2014). The findings also demonstrate only
short-term retention, because postintervention data were recorded
immediately after the last teaching session.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE STUDY

This study suggests that L1 speakers of Asian languages such as
Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Mandarin Chinese may benefit
from instruction using an alternative articulation of the English
/l/ sound, an articulation in which the tongue touches the bottom
of the upper incisors. The study also reinforces questions about the
assumption in ESL and EFL teaching that perception must precede
production. A future longitudinal study could measure whether
an increased ability to produce a sound could result in an increased
ability to perceive it. Although this study focused on students at the
university level who had studied English for at least 7 years,
future studies could evaluate the effectiveness of teaching this
alternative articulation to EFL elementary or middle school
students in Japan, China, South Korea, Thailand, or Vietnam at the
initiation of English instruction.
The earlier study on an alternative articulation of the /s/
sound (Raver-Lampman et al., 2015) provided evidence that
overreliance on the articulatory positions promulgated by the IPA
Acceptable Alternative Articulation of the English /l/ 217
can actually interfere with consonant acquisition. A similar
conclusion could be drawn from this study. Despite the way it has
been interpreted by many instructors in ESL and EFL classrooms,
the IPA was never meant as the “correct” way to pronounce
English consonants and vowels but was merely a description of
how such sounds are commonly produced (Passy, 1907).
Unfortunately, ESL and EFL students are often told that such
articulations are the only “correct” way to pronounce an English
consonant, limiting interest in finding alternatives.
During a 2015 presentation of this articulatory position of the
/l/ at a conference in Japan, a veteran English EFL instructor
said his Japanese pupils mastered the /l/ by using the
articulation of the unvoiced plosive /d/, which his students
pronounced with their tongue touching the back of their upper
front teeth. Such an effort should be applauded. The point of
this study is not to mandate that the acceptable alternative
articulation outlined in this research is the only other way to
properly teach the English /l/ and /r/, but to encourage
exploration of acceptable alternative articulations to those
described by the IPA.

THE AUTHORS
Greg Raver-Lampman lectures at the English Language Center at
Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. He researches
methods to improve teaching both English as a second language
and English as a foreign language, and has presented in Japan and
published in China.

Corinne Wilson is currently a data analyst for the Virginia Tiered

Systems of Supports and its Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Supports initiative, and an adjunct assistant professor for the
Department of Mathematics and Statistics at Old Dominion
University.

REFERENCES
Aoyama, K., Flege, J. E., Guion, S. G., Akahane-Yamada, R., &
Yamada, T. (2004). Perceived phonetic dissimilarity and L2

218 TESOL Journal

 speech learning: The case of Japanese and English /l/ and /r.
Journal of Phonetics, 32(2), 233–250. doi:10.1016/S0095-4470(03)
00036-6
Baranowski, M. (2013). On the role of social factors in the loss of
phonemic distinctions. English Language and Linguistics, 17(2),
271–295. doi:10.1017/S1360674313000038
Becker, C. (2010). English pronunciation podcast. Retrieved
from http://www.englishpronunciationpod.com/podcast_43.
html
Bowen, C. (1998). Typical speech development: The gradual
acquisition of the speech sound system. Retrieved from http://
www.speech.-language-therapy.com/acquisition.html
Bradlow, A., Reiko, A., Pisoni, D., & Yoh’ichi, T. (1999). Training
Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: Long-term
retention of learning in perception and production. Attention,
Perception and Psychophysics, 61, 977–985. doi:10.3758/BF03206911
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Goodwin, J. M. (2004).
Teaching pronunciation: A reference for teachers of English to
speakers of other languages (11th ed.). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Derwing, T. (2008). Curriculum issues in teaching pronunciation to
second language learners. In M. L. Zampini & J. H. Edwards
(Eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition. Amsterdam,
the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Goto, H. (1971). Auditory perception by normal Japanese adults of
the sounds “L” and “R.” Neuropsychologia, 9, 317–323. doi:10.
1016/0028-3932(71)90027-3
Higgins, J. (March 1, 2015). Minimal pairs for English RP: Lists by
John Higgins. Retrieved from http://www.minpairs.talktalk.ne
t/minimal.html
Huang, S. (2008). Raising learner-initiated attention to the formal
aspects of their oral production through transcription and
stimulated reflection. International Journal of Applied Linguistics
in Teaching, 46, 375–392. doi:10.1515/IRAL.2008.016
Kusumoto, Y. (2012). Between perception and production: Is the
ability to hear L1–L2 sound differences related to the ability to
pronounce the same sounds accurately? Polyglossia, 22, 15–33.

Acceptable Alternative Articulation of the English /l/ 219

Levis, J. (2015). An essential step toward a disciplinary identity.
Journal of Second Language Production, 1(1), 1–10. doi:10.1075/
jslp.1.1.001edi
Levis, J., & Grant, L. (2003). Integrating pronunciation into ESL/
EFL classrooms. TESOL Journal, 12, 13–19. doi:10.1002/j.1949-
3533.2003.tb00125.x
Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent: Language, ideology,
and discrimination in the United States. London, England:
Routledge.
Logan, J., Lively, S., & Pisoni, D. (1991). Training Japanese listeners
to identify English and /l/: A first report. Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 89, 874–886. doi:10.1121/1.1894649
McCambridge, J., Witton, J., & Elbourne, D. (2014). Systematic
review of the Hawthorne effect: New concepts are needed to
study research participations effects. Journal of Clinical
Epidemiology, 67, 267–277. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.8.015
McClelland, J., Fiez, J., & McCandliss, B. (2002). Teaching the
/r/-/l/ discrimination to Japanese adults: Behavioral and
neural aspects. Physiology and Behavior, 77, 657–662. doi:10.
1016/S0031-9384(02)00916-2
Munro, M., & Derwing, T. (2006). The functional load principle in
ESL pronunciation instruction: An exploratory study. System,
34, 520–531. doi:10.1016/j.system.2006.09.004
Munro, M., & Derwing, T. (2015). A prospectus for pronunciation
research in the 21st century. Journal of Second Language
Pronunciation, 1(1), 11–42. doi:10.1075/jslp.1.1.mun
Nogita, A. (2010). Examination of the [s] [S] confusion by Japanese ESL
learners. (Master’s thesis.) Victoria: University of Victoria.
Passy, P. (1907). The sounds of the French language, their formation,
combination and representation. Oxford, England: Clarendon
Press.
Purcell, E., & Suter, R. (1980). Predictors of pronunciation
accuracy: A reexamination. Language Learning, 30, 271–287.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1980.tb00319.x
Raver-Lampman, G. (2015, November). The Asian /r/ and /l/: A quick
fix? Workshop presented at the Japan Association for Language
Teaching conference, Shizuoka, Japan.

220 TESOL Journal

Raver-Lampman, G., Toreno, F., & Bing, J. (2015). An acceptable
non-alveolar Japanese /s/. Journal of Second Language
Pronunciation, 1, 238–253. doi:10.1075/jslp.1.2.05rav
Riney, T., Takada, M., & Mitsuhiko, O. (2000). Segmentals and
global foreign accent: The Japanese flap in EFL. TESOL
Quarterly, 34, 207–225. doi:10.2307/3586541
Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2012). Effects of form-focused
instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation
development of /ɹ/ by Japanese learners of English. Language
Learning, 62, 595–633. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00639.x
Sheldon, A., & Strange, W. (1982). The acquisition of /r/ and /l/
by Japanese learners of English: Evidence that speech
production can precede speech perception. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 3, 243–261. doi:10.1017/S0142716400001417
Stone, M. (2005). A guide to analysing tongue motion from
ultrasound images. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 19,
455–501. doi:10.1080.02699200500113558
Strange, W., & Dittmann, S. (1984). Effects of discrimination
training on the perception of /r-l/ by Japanese adults learning
English. Perception and Psychophysics, 36, 131–145. doi:10.3758/
BF03202673

Acceptable Alternative Articulation of the English /l/ 221

APPENDIX A

RATING SHEET FOR 20 /R/ /L/ MINIMAL PAIRS

Please put a check by the word you hear. If you are not certain, mark
“unsure.”

1. __ rip __ lip __ unsure

2. __ lap __ rap __ unsure
3. __ loot __ root __ unsure
4. __ ramp __ lamp __ unsure
5. __ rift __ lift __ unsure
6. __ lord __ roared __ unsure
7. __ liver __ river __ unsure
8. __ rent __ leant __ unsure
9. __ lot __ rot __ unsure
10. __ Rick __ lick __ unsure
11. __ rope __ lope __ unsure
12. __ lake __ rake __ unsure
13. __ load __ road __ unsure
14. __ rock __ lock __ unsure
15. __ rate __ late __ unsure
16. __ light __ right __ unsure
17. __ leading __ reading __ unsure
18. __ row __ low __ unsure
19. __ long __ wrong __ unsure
20. __ raw __ law __ unsure

APPENDIX B

RATING SHEET FOR 25 MINIMAL PAIRS

# ___Name:___________________
Put a check by the word you hear. If you are not certain, mark
“unsure.”

1. __ alive __ arrive __ unsure

2. __ far __ fall __ unsure
3. __ lap __ rap __ unsure

222 TESOL Journal

Appendix B (Continued)

4. __ car __ call __ unsure

5. __ loot __ root __ unsure
6. __ ramp __ lamp __ unsure
7. __ brew __ blue __ unsure
8. __ lord __ roared __ unsure
9. __ tall __ tar __ unsure
10. __ lot __ rot __ unsure
11. __ Rick __ lick __ unsure
12. __ pray __ play __ unsure
13. __ full __ fur __ unsure
14. __ load __ road __ unsure
15. __ fly __ fry __ unsure
16. __ rock __ lock __ unsure
17. __ bore __ bowl __ unsure
18. __ rate __ late __ unsure
19. __ hear __ heal __ unsure
20. __ blush __ brush __ unsure
21. __ light __ right __ unsure
22. __ leading __ reading __ unsure
23. __ row __ low __ unsure
24. __ glow __ grow __ unsure
25. __ raw __ law __ unsure

Acceptable Alternative Articulation of the English /l/ 223