Speech Melody Properties in English, Czech and Czech English: Reference and Interference

• Authors: Jan Volín , Kristýna Poesová , Lenka Weingartová
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Two major objectives were set for the present study: to provide reference data for the description of Czech and English F0 contours, and to investigate the limits of the ‘interference hypothesis’ on Czech English data. Altogether, the production of 40 speakers in 2392 breath-group F0 contours was analyzed. The speech of 32 professional speakers of English and Czech provides reference values for various acoustic correlates of pitch level, pitch span and downtrend gradient. These values were subsequently used as a benchmark for a confirmation of the interference hypothesis through comparison with a further sample of 8 non-professional speakers of English and Czech-accented English. The native English speakers of both genders produced significantly higher pitch level indicators, wider pitch span and a steeper downtrend gradient than the reference native speakers of Czech. Although the pitch level of the Czech-accented material lies in between the two reference groups, the pitch span of this group is the narrowest, which indicates that factors of foreign-accentedness other than simply interference are in effect.

Keywords

EN

-

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
• Journal: Research in Language
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 13
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 107-123

Dates

published

2015-03-30

Contributors

author

Jan Volín

• Metropolitan University, Prague

author

Kristýna Poesová

• Charles University in Prague

author

Lenka Weingartová

• Institute of Phonetics, Prague

References

• Anderson-Hsieh, J., Johnson, R., & Koehler, K. (1992). The relationship between native speaker judgements of nonnative pronunciation and deviance in segmentals, prosody and syllable structure. Language Learning, 42, 529-555.
• Andreeva, B., Demenko, G., Wolska, M., Möbius, B., Zimmerer, F., Jügler, J., Trouvain, J. (2014). Comparison of Pitch Range and Pitch Variation in Slavic and Germanic Languages. In N. Campbell, D. Gibbon, & Hirst, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Speech Prosody (pp. 776-780). Dublin: TCD.
• Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2014). Praat: doing phonetics by computer. Version 5.4.06, retrieved from http://www.praat.org/.
• Derwing, T., Munro, M. J., & Wiebe, G. (1998). Evidence in favor of a broad framework for pronunciation instruction. Language Learning, 48, 393-410.
• Dolson, M. (1994). The Pitch of Speech as a Function of Linguistic Community. Music Perception, 11(3), 321-331.
• Gilbert, J. (2014). Myth 4: Intonation is hard to teach. In J. Levis (Ed.), Pronunciation Myths: Applying Second Language Research to Classroom Teaching. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
• Hahn, L. D. (2004). Primary Stress and Intelligibility: Research to Motivate the Teaching of Suprasegmentals. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 201-223.
• Holm, S. (2007). The Relative Contributions of Intonation and Duration to Intelligibility in Norwegian as a Second Language. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 1653-1656). Saarbrücken: IPA.
• Kamiyama, T. (2004). Perception of Foreign Accentedness in L2 Prosody and Segments: L1 Japanese Speakers Learning L2 French. Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2004. Nara, Japan: ISCA.
• Keating, P., & Kuo, G. (2010). Comparison of speaking fundamental frequency in English and Mandarin. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 108, 164-187. Los Angeles: University of California.
• Ladd, D. R. (1996). Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Lindh, J., & Eriksson, A. (2007). Robustness of long-time measures of fundamental frequency. Proceedings of Interspeech 2007 (pp. 2025-2028). Antwerp: ISCA. Mennen, I., Schaeffler, F., & Docherty, G. (2007). Pitching it differently: A comparison of the pitch ranges of German and English Speakers. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Saarbrücken: IPA.
• Mennen, I. (2007). Phonological and phonetic influences in non-native intonation. In J. Trouvain & U. Gut (Eds.), Non-Native Prosody. Phonetic Description and Teaching Practice (pp. 53-76). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: A research based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 379-397.
• Nolan, F. (2006). Intonation. In B. Aarts & A. McMahon (Eds.), Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Patterson, D. (2000). A linguistic approach to pitch range modelling. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Edinburgh.
• Reed, M., & Jones, T. (2015). The Melody of English: Research and Resources for Teaching the Pragmatic Functions of Intonation. IATEFL PronSIG webinar held 17th February 2015.
• Rogerson-Revell, P. (2011). English Phonology and Pronunciation Teaching. London: Continuum.
• Volín, J., & Bartůňková, H. (2015). Assets and Liabilities of Simple Descriptors of Fundamental Frequency Tracks. In O. Niebuhr & R. Skarnitzl (Eds.), Tackling the Complexity in Speech. In print.
• Wells, J. C. (2006). English Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Wichmann, A. (2005). The Role of Intonation in the Expression of Attitudinal Meaning. English Language and Linguistics, 9(2), 229-253.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/rela-2015-0018