Perceptual impact of speech melody hybridization: English and Czech English

Jan Volín; Kristýna Poesová

doi:10.1515/rela-2016-0006

Authors

Jan Volín Charles University in Prague
Kristýna Poesová

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1515/rela-2016-0006

Keywords:

intonation, F0 contours, speech melody, reaction time, Czech-accented English

Abstract

The current paper examines the role of intonation in the perception of foreign-accented speech. In order to assess how difficult it is to mentally process native, non-native and modified speech melodies, four conditions were analyzed and compared: native English, native English with Czech melody, Czech English with native melody and Czech English. The method of reaction times measurement in a word monitoring task was employed, in which 108 Czech listeners heard English sentences in the explored conditions and pressed a button when hearing a target word. Speech melody turned out to have a relatively weak but discernible impact on perceptual processing. Interestingly, Czech English proved to be more difficult to process than native English, although the listeners were Czech. The implementation of English F0 contours on Czech English speech slightly alleviated the cognitive load, however, the second hybrid, native English with Czech melody, pointed to the opposite direction. The causes of this discrepancy were investigated, particularly higher degrees of collocability in certain expressions.

References

Abercrombie, D. 1956. Problems and Principles. Studies in the Teaching of English as a Second Language. London: Longmans, Green.
Google Scholar

Anderson-Hsieh, J., Johnson, R. and K. Koehler. 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

Boersma, P. and D. Weenink. 2014. Praat: doing phonetics by computer. Version 5.4.06. [Computer programme]. Available from: http://www.praat.org/
Google Scholar

Collins, B. and I. M. Mees. 2013. Practical Phonetics and Phonology. Abingdon: Routledge.
Google Scholar

Cristie, A., Seidl, A., Vaughn, Ch., Schmale, R., Bradlow, A. and C. Floccia. 2012. Linguistic processing of accented speech across the lifespan. Frontiers in Psychology 3, 1–15.
Google Scholar

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

Derwing, T. M. and M. J. Rossiter. 2003. The Effects of Pronunciation Instruction on the Accuracy, Fluency, and Complexity of L2 Accented Speech. Applied Language Learning 13, 1–17.
Google Scholar

Field, J. 2005. Intelligibility and the Listener: The Role of Lexical Stress. TESOL Quarterly 39 (3), 399–423.
Google Scholar

Forster, K. I. and J. C. Forster. 2003. DMDX: A Windows Display Program with Millisecond Accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 35, 116–124.
Google Scholar

Galeone, D., Johnson, W. And J. Volín. 2015. Intonation contours in English Czech and Czech English. In Adamczyk, M. (ed.), Accents 2015. The Book of Abstracts, 12. Lodź: University of Lodź.
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, 107-136. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Google Scholar

Grant, L. 2014. Pronunciation Myths. Applying Second Language Research to Classroom Teaching. Ann Arbour: University of Michigan Press.
Google Scholar

Grosjean, F. and U. H. Frauenfelder. 1996. A Guide to Spoken Word Recognition Paradigms: Introduction. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11(6), 553–558.
Google Scholar

Gussenhoven, C. and P. van der Vliet. 1999. The phonology of tone and intonation in the Dutch dialect of Venlo. Journal of Linguistics 35, 99–135.
Google Scholar

Gussenhoven, C. 2004. Tone in Germanic: Comparing Limburgian with Swedish. In G. Fant, Fujisaki, H., Cao, J. and Y. Xu (eds.), From traditional phonology to modern speech processing: Festschrift for Professor Wu Zongji’s 95th birthday, 129–136. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research.
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

Jilka, M. 2000. Testing the contribution of prosody to the perception of foreign accent. Dissertationsschrift zur Dr. phil, Fakultät für Philosophie der Universtität Stuttgart.
Google Scholar

Kang, O., Rubin, D. and L. Pickering. 2010. Suprasegmental Measures of Accentedness and Judgments of Language Learner Proficiency in Oral English. The Modern Language Journal 94(4), 554 – 566.
Google Scholar

Keating, P. and G. Kuo. 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

Lippi-Green, R. 2012. English with an accent: language, ideology and discrimination in the United States. London, UK: Routledge.
Google Scholar

Major, R. C. 2007. Identifying a Foreign Accent in an Unfamiliar Language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29, 539–556.
Google Scholar

Munro, M. J. and T. M. Derwing. 1995. Processing Time, Accent, and Comprehensibility in the Perception of Native and Foreign-Accented Speech. Language and Speech 38 (3), 289–306.
Google Scholar

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

Munro, M. J. and T. M. Derwing. 2015. Pronunciation Fundamentals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Google Scholar

Peters, J. 2007. Tone and Quantity in the Limburgian Dialect of Neerpelt. In J. Trouvain and W. J. Barry (eds.), Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences: Saarbrücken, Germany, 1265-1268. Universität des Saarlandes.
Google Scholar

Racine, J. P. 2013. Reaction Time Methodologies and Lexical Access in Applied Linguistics. Vocabulary Learning and Instruction. Available from http://vli-journal.org/issues/onlinefirst/vli.v03.1.racine.pdf [Accessed: 10 November 2015].
Google Scholar

Reed, M. and T. Jones. 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

Van Engen, K. J. and J. E. Peelle. 2014. Listening Effort and Accented Speech. Frontiers In Human Neuroscience 8, 1–4.
Google Scholar

Volín, J., Poesová, K. and L. Weingartová. 2015. Speech Melody Properties in English, Czech and Czech English: Reference and Inteference. Research in Language 13(1), 107–123.
Google Scholar

Volín, J. and H. Bartůňková. 2015. Assets and Liabilities of Simple Descriptors of Fundamental Frequency Tracks. In O. Niebuhr and R. Skarnitzl (eds.), Tackling the Complexity in Speech, 147-161. Prague: Charles University.
Google Scholar

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

Wichmann, A., Dehé, N. and D. Barth-Weingarten. 2009. Where prosody meets pragmatics: research at the interface. In D. Barth-Weingarten, N. Dehé and A. Wichmann (eds.), Where prosody meets pragmatics, 1-20. Bingley: Emerald.
Google Scholar