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

Jan Volín; Kristýna Poesová; Lenka Weingartová

doi:10.1515/rela-2015-0018

Authors

Jan Volín Metropolitan University, Prague
Kristýna Poesová Charles University in Prague
Lenka Weingartová Institute of Phonetics, Prague

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1515/rela-2015-0018

Keywords:

-

Abstract

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.

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.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2014). Praat: doing phonetics by computer. Version 5.4.06, retrieved from http://www.praat.org/.
Google Scholar

Derwing, T., Munro, M. J., & Wiebe, G. (1998). Evidence in favor of a broad framework for pronunciation instruction. Language Learning, 48, 393-410.
Google Scholar

Dolson, M. (1994). The Pitch of Speech as a Function of Linguistic Community. Music Perception, 11(3), 321-331.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

Hahn, L. D. (2004). Primary Stress and Intelligibility: Research to Motivate the Teaching of Suprasegmentals. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 201-223.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

Ladd, D. R. (1996). Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: A research based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 379-397.
Google Scholar

Nolan, F. (2006). Intonation. In B. Aarts & A. McMahon (Eds.), Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Google Scholar

Patterson, D. (2000). A linguistic approach to pitch range modelling. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Edinburgh.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

Rogerson-Revell, P. (2011). English Phonology and Pronunciation Teaching. London: Continuum.
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

Wells, J. C. (2006). English Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

Wichmann, A. (2005). The Role of Intonation in the Expression of Attitudinal Meaning. English Language and Linguistics, 9(2), 229-253.
Google Scholar