Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T01:08:43.723Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Native language influences on the production of second-language prosody

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2015

Evia Kainada  and
Angelos Lengeris
Evia Kainada
Affiliation:
Department of Philology, University of Ioannina, Greece [email protected]
Angelos Lengeris
Affiliation:
Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examined native language (L1) transfer effects on the production of second-language (L2) prosody by intermediate Greek learners of English, specifically the set of tonal events and their alignment, speech rate, pitch span and pitch level in English polar questions. Greek uses an L* L+H- L% melody giving rise to a low–high–low f0 contour at the end of the polar question that does not resemble any of the contours used by native speakers in English polar questions. The results showed that the Greek speakers transferred the full set of Greek tonal events into English associating them with stressed syllables, and consistently placed the focus on the verb. The Greek speakers also anchored the peak of the phrase accent in polar questions around the midpoint of the stressed vowel across L1/L2 despite using longer vowel durations in L2. At the same time, their productions deviated from L1 forms in terms of speech rate (slower in L2), pitch span (narrower in L2) and pitch level (lower in L2), indicating that even when learners adopt an L1 prosodic feature in their L2, they still produce interlanguage forms that deviate from L1.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Phonetic Association , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , December 2015 , pp. 269 - 287
Copyright
Copyright © International Phonetic Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andreeva, Bistra, Demenko, Grażyna, Wolska, Magdalena, Möbius, Bernd, Zimmerer, Frank, Jόgler, Jeanin, Oleskowicz-Popiel, Magdalena & Trouvain, Jürgen. 2014. Comparison of pitch range and pitch variation in Slavic and Germanic languages. In Campbell et al. (eds.), 776–780.Google Scholar
Aoyama, Katsura, Flege, James E., Guion, Susan G., Akahane-Yamada, Reiko & Yamada, Tsuneo. 2004. Perceived phonetic dissimilarity and L2 speech learning: The case of Japanese /r/ and English /l/ and /r/. Journal of Phonetics 32, 233–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia. 2007. Greek phonetics: The state of the art. Journal of Greek Linguistics 8, 97–208.Google Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia. 2009. Greek intonation and the phonology of prosody: Polar questions revisited. In Giannakis, Giannis, Baltazani, Mary, Xydopoulos, Giorgos & Tsangalidis, Tasos (eds.), 8th International Conference on Greek Linguistics (ICGL8), Ioannina, 14–29.Google Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia & Baltazani, Mary. 2005. Intonational analysis and prosodic annotation of Greek spoken corpora. In Jun, Sun-Ah (eds.), Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing, 84–117. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia & Garding, Gina. 2007. Dialectal variation in the rising accents of American English. In Cole, Jenifer & Hualde, José H. (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology IX, 547–576. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia, Ladd, D. Robert & Mennen, Inneke. 2006. Tonal association and tonal alignment: Evidence from Greek polar questions and contrastive statements. Language and Speech 49, 421–450.Google Scholar
Atterer, Michaela & Ladd, D. Robert. 2004. On the phonetics and phonology of segmental anchoring of f0: Evidence from German. Journal of Phonetics 32, 177–197.Google Scholar
Backman, Nancy E. 1979. Intonation errors in second language pronunciation of eight Spanish speaking adults learning English. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin 42, 239–266.Google Scholar
Baker, Rachel E., Baese-Berk, Melissa M., Bonnasse-Gahot, Laurent, Kim, Midam, van Engen, Kristin & Bradlow, Ann. 2011. Word durations in non-native English. Journal of Phonetics 391, 1–17.Google Scholar
Baltazani, Mary. 2006. Characteristics of pre-nuclear pitch accents in statements and yes–no questions in Greek. In Botinis, Antonis (ed.), ISCA Workshop on Experimental Linguistics (ExLing 2006), Athens, 81–84.Google Scholar
Baltazani, Mary. 2007. Intonation of polar questions and the location of nuclear stress in Greek. In Gussenhoven, Carlos & Riad, Tomas (eds.), Tones and tunes, vol. II: Experimental studies in word and sentence prosody, 387–405. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Baltazani, Mary & Jun, Sun-Ah. 1999. Topic and focus intonation in Greek. 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XIV), Berkeley, University of California, vol. 2, 1305–1308.Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary E. & Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1986. Intonational structure in Japanese and English. In Ewen, Colin & Anderson, John (eds.), Phonology yearbook 3, 15–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Best, Catherine T. 1995. A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In Strange (ed.), 171–204.Google Scholar
Best, Catherine T., McRoberts, Gerald W. & Goodell, Elisabeth. 2001. Discrimination of non-native consonant contrasts varying in perceptual assimilation to the listener's native phonological system. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 109, 775–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, Catherine T. & Tyler, Michael D.. 2007. Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In Munro, Murray J. & Bohn, Ocke-Schwen (eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Flege, 13–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2012. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (version 5.3.8). http://www.praat.org/ (accessed 7 March 2012).Google Scholar
Busá, Grazia M. & Urbani, Martina. 2011. A cross linguistic analysis of pitch range in English L1 and L2. 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XVII), Hong Kong, 380–383.Google Scholar
Campbell, Nick, Gibbon, Dafydd & Hirst, Daniel (eds.), Speech Prosody 7: Social and Linguistic Speech Prosody, Dublin. http://www.speechprosody2014.org/.Google Scholar
Derwing, Tracey M., Munro, Murray J. & Wiebe, Grace. 1998. Evidence in favour of a broad framework for pronunciation instruction. Language Learning 48, 393–410.Google Scholar
Deschamps, Alain. 1980. The syntactical distribution of pauses in English spoken as a second language by French students. In Dechert, Hans W. & Raupach, Manfred (eds.), Temporal variables in speech: Studies in honor of Frieda Goldman-Eisler, 255–262. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Deutsch, Diana, Le, Jinghong, Shen, Jing & Henthorn, Trevor. 2009. The pitch levels of female speech in two Chinese villages. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1255, EL208–EL213.Google Scholar
Dilley, Laura C. 2010. Pitch range variation in English tonal contrasts: Continuous or categorical? Phonetica 67, 63–81.Google Scholar
Flege, James E. 1995. Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In Strange (ed.), 233–277.Google Scholar
Flege, James E. 2002. Interactions between the native and second-language phonetic systems. In Burmeister, Petra, Piske, Thorsten & Rohde, Andreas (eds.), An integrated view of language development: Papers in honor of Henning Wode, 217–244. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
Flege, James E. & Mackay, Ian R. A.. 2004. Perceiving vowels in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26, 1–34.Google Scholar
Gibbon, Dafydd. 1998. German intonation. In Hirst, Daniel J. & Cristo, Albert Di (eds.), Intonation systems: A survey of twenty languages, 78–95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grabe, Esther. 2004. Intonational variation in urban dialects of English spoken in the British Isles. In Gilles, Peter & Peters, Jörg (eds.), Regional variation in intonation, 9–31. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Grabe, Esther, Kochanski, Greg & Coleman, John. 2005. The intonation of native accent varieties in the British Isles: Potential for miscommunication? In Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Katarzyna & Przedlacka, Joanna (eds.), English pronunciation models: A changing scene, 311–337. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Grabe, Esther, Post, Brechtje & Nolan, Francis. 2001. Modelling intonational variation in English: The IViE system. In Puppel, Stanisław & Demenko, Grażyna (eds.), Prosody 2000, 51–57. Poznań: Adam Mickiewicz University.Google Scholar
Grabe, Esther, Post, Brechtje, Nolan, Francis & Farrar, Kimberley. 2000. Pitch accent realisation in four varieties of British English. Journal of Phonetics 28, 161–185.Google Scholar
Grabe, Esther, Rosner, Burton S., Garcia-Albea, José E. & Zhou, Xiaolin. 2003. Perception of English intonation by English, Spanish and Chinese listeners. Language and Speech 46(4), 375–401.Google Scholar
Grice, Martin, Ladd, D. Robert & Arvaniti, Amalia. 2000. On the place of phrase accents in intonational phonology. Phonology 17(2), 143–185.Google Scholar
Guion, Susan G., Flege, James E., Liu, Serena H. & Yeni-Komshian, Grace H.. 2000. Age of learning effects on the duration of sentences produced in a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics 21, 205–228.Google Scholar
Hahn, Laura D. 2004. Primary stress and intelligibility: Research to motivate the teaching of suprasegmentals. TESOL Quarterly 38, 201–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, Paul & Evans, Bronwen G.. 2007. Learning English vowels with different first-language vowel systems: Perception of formant targets, formant movement, and duration. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 122, 2842–2854.Google Scholar
Iverson, Paul, Kuhl, Patricia K., Akahane-Yamada, Reiko, Diesch, Eugen, Tohkura, Yoh'ich, Kettermann, Andreas & Siebert, Claudia. 2003. A perceptual interference account of acquisition difficulties for non-native phonemes. Cognition 87, 47–57.Google Scholar
Jilka, Matthias. 2000. The contribution of intonation to the perception of foreign accent. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah & Oh, Mira. 2000. Acquisition of second language intonation. In Yuan, Baozong, Huang, Taiyi & Tang, Xiaofang (eds.), International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Beijing, 76–79.Google Scholar
Kang, Okim. 2010. Relative salience of suprasegmental features on judgments of L2 comprehensibility and accentedness. System 38, 301–315.Google Scholar
Kang, Okim, Rubin, Don & Pickering, Lucy. 2010. Suprasegmental measures of accentedness and judgments of English language learner proficiency in oral English. Modern Language Journal 94, 554–566.Google Scholar
Keating, Patricia A. & Kuo, Grace. 2012. Comparison of speaking fundamental frequency in English and Mandarin. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 132, 1050–1060.Google Scholar
Kormos, Judit & Csizer, Kata. 2014. The interaction of motivation, self-regulatory strategies, and autonomous learning behavior in different learner groups. TESOL Quarterly 48(2), 275–299.Google Scholar
Kuhl, Patricia K. 2000. A new view of language acquisition. National Academy of Sciences USA 97, 11850–11857.Google Scholar
Kuhl, Patricia K., Conboy, Barbara T., Coffey-Corina, Sharon, Padden, Denise, Rivera-Gaxiola, Maritza & Nelson, Tobey. 2008. Phonetic learning as a pathway to language: New data and native language magnet theory expanded NLM-e. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B363, 979–1000.Google Scholar
Kuhl, Patricia K., Williams, Karen A., Lacerda, Francisco, Stevens, Kenneth N. & Lindblom, Björn. 1992. Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age. Science 255, 606–608.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 2008. Intonational phonology, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert, Schepman, Astrid, White, Laurence, Quarmby, Luise M. & Stackhouse, Rebekah. 2009. Structural and dialectal effects on pitch peak alignment in two varieties of British English. Journal of Phonetics 37, 145–161.Google Scholar
Lengeris, Angelos. 2009. Perceptual assimilation and L2 learning: Evidence from the perception of Southern British English vowels by native speakers of Greek and Japanese. Phonetica 66, 169–187.Google Scholar
Lengeris, Angelos & Hazan, Valerie. 2010. The effect of native vowel processing ability and frequency discrimination acuity on the phonetic training of English vowels for native speakers of Greek. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 128, 3757–3768.Google Scholar
Lennon, Paul. 1990. Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning 40, 387–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Majewski, Wojciech, Hollien, Harry & Zalewski, Jan. 1972. Speaking fundamental frequency of Polish adult males. Phonetica 25(2), 119–125.Google Scholar
Mennen, Ineke. 2004. Bi-directional interference in the intonation of Dutch speakers of Greek. Journal of Phonetics 32, 543–563.Google Scholar
Mennen, Ineke. 2006. Phonetic and phonological influences in non-native intonation: An overview for language teachers (QMUC Speech Science Research Centre Working Papers WP-9).Google Scholar
Mennen, Ineke. 2015. Beyond segments: Towards a L2 intonation learning theory (LILt). In Delais-Roussarie, Elisabeth, Avanzi, Mathieu & Herment, Sophie (eds.), Prosody and language in contact: L2 acquisition, attrition and languages in multilingual situations, 171–188. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Mennen, Ineke, Schaeffler, Felix & Docherty, Gerard. 2007. Pitching it differently: A comparison of the pitch ranges of German and English Speakers. 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XVI), Saarbrücken, 1769–1772.Google Scholar
Mennen, Ineke, Schaeffler, Felix & Docherty, Gerard. 2012. Cross-language difference in f0 range: A comparative study of English and German. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 131, 2249–2260.Google Scholar
Mücke, Doris, Grice, Martine, Hermes, Anne & Becker, Johannes. 2008. Prenuclear rises in Northern and Southern German. In Barbosa, Plinio, Madureira, Sandra & Reis, César (eds.), Speech Prosody 2008, Campinas, 245–248.Google Scholar
Munro, Murray J. 1995. Non-segmental factors in foreign accent. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17, 17–34.Google Scholar
Munro, Murray J. & Derwing, Tracey M.. 1998. The effects of speaking rate on listener evaluations of native and foreign-accented speech. Language Learning 48, 159–183.Google Scholar
Munro, Murray J. & Derwing, Tracey M.. 1999. Foreign accent, comprehensibility and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning 49, Supplement 1, 285–310.Google Scholar
Munro, Murray J. & Derwing, Tracey M.. 2001. Modelling perceptions of the comprehensibility and accentedness of L2 speech: The role of speaking rate. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23, 451–468.Google Scholar
Munro, Murray J., Flege, James E. & MacKay, Ian R. A.. 1996. The effect of age of second-language learning on the production of English vowels. Applied Psycholinguistics 17, 313–334.Google Scholar
Nolan, Francis. 2003. Intonational equivalence: An experimental evaluation of pitch scales. 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XV), Barcelona, 771–774.Google Scholar
Nolan, Francis. 2006. Intonation. In Aarts, Bas & McMahon, April (eds.), Handbook of English linguistics, 433–457. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet [B.]. 1980. The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Raupach, Manfred. 1980. Temporal variables in first and second language speech production. In Dechert, Hans W. & Raupach, Manfred (eds.), Temporal variables in speech, 49–60. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Rochet, Bernard. 1995. Perception and production of second-language speech sounds by adults. In Strange (eds.), 379–410.Google Scholar
Schepman, Astrid, Lickley, Robin & Ladd, D. Robert. 2006. Effects of vowel length and ‘right context’ on the alignment of Dutch nuclear accents. Journal of Phonetics 34, 1–28.Google Scholar
Shen, Xianonan S. 1990. Language by speakers of a tonal language: Chinese speakers learning French prosody. International Review of Applied Linguistics 28, 119–134.Google Scholar
Silverman, Kim & Pierrehumbert, Janet [B.]. 1990. The timing of prenuclear high accents in English. In Kingston, John & Beckman, Mary E. (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology I, 72–106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Strange, Winifred (eds.). 1995. Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language speech research. Baltimore, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Towell, Richard, Hawkins, Roger & Bazergui, Nives. 1996. The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. Applied Linguistics 17, 84–119.Google Scholar
Trofimovich, Pavel & Baker, Wendy. 2006. Learning second-language suprasegmentals: Effect of L2 experience on prosody and fluency characteristics of L2 speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28, 1–30.Google Scholar
Trofimovich, Pavel & Baker, Wendy. 2007. Learning prosody and fluency characteristics of second-language speech: Child learners’ acquisition of five suprasegmentals. Applied Psycholinguistics 28, 251–276.Google Scholar
Ueyama, Motoko & Jun, Sun-Ah. 1998. Focus realization in Japanese English and Korean English intonation. Japanese and Korean Linguistics 7, 629–645.Google Scholar
Ullakonoja, Riikka. 2007. Comparison of pitch range in Finnish L1 and Russian L2. 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XVI), Saarbrücken, 1701–1704.Google Scholar
Urbani Martina. 2012. Pitch range in L1/L2 English. An analysis of f0 using LTD and linguistic measures. In Busà, Maria G. & Stella, Antonio (eds.), Methodological perspectives on L2 prosody: Papers from ML2P 2012, 79–83. Padova: Cleup.Google Scholar
Willems, Nico J. 1982. English intonation from a Dutch point of view. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Zimmerer, Frank, Jügler, Jeanin, Andreeva, Bistra, Möbius, Bernd & Trouvain, Jürgen. 2014. Too cautious to vary more? A comparison of pitch variation in native and non-native productions of French and German speakers. In Campbell et al. (eds.), 1037–1041.Google Scholar