Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T05:06:35.835Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PROSODIC MARKING OF INFORMATION STRUCTURE BY MALAYSIAN SPEAKERS OF ENGLISH

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2014

Ulrike Gut  and
Stefanie Pillai
Ulrike Gut*
Affiliation:
University of Münster
Stefanie Pillai
Affiliation:
University of Malaya
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Ulrike Gut, English Department, Johannisstr. 12-20, Room 221, 48143 Münster, Germany. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Various researchers have shown that second language (L2) speakers have difficulties with marking information structure in English prosodically: They deviate from native speakers not only in terms of pitch accent placement (Grosser, 1997; Gut, 2009; Ramírez Verdugo, 2002) and the type of pitch accent they produce (Wennerstrom, 1994, 1998) but also with regard to the phonetic realization of these pitch accents (Atterer & Ladd, 2004; O’Brien & Gut, 2010). This study investigates the prosodic strategies of first language (L1) Malay speakers of English for marking given and new discourse elements. Ten Malay speakers of English were recorded reading out a 179-word story that contained six given and six new words. Additionally, 10 Malay speakers read aloud a 152-word story containing six given and six new words in Malay. The given-new word pairs were analyzed both auditorily and acoustically in terms of type of pitch accent, syllable duration, phonetic realization of the rise, and pitch peak alignment. The results show that the Malay speakers of English produce longer rises on new than on given discourse elements but do not show different pitch accents, syllable duration, pitch peak alignment, or steepness of rises on the two types of words. The average extent and steepness of the rises as well as the pitch peak alignment are almost identical in Malay and the L2 English of Malay speakers, which suggests direct influence from the L1. However, differences in the type of pitch accents produced and the similarities to the patterns produced by other L2 speakers suggest further influencing factors.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 36 , Issue 2: Beyond Segments: Prosody in SLA , June 2014 , pp. 283 - 302
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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.)

Footnotes

We would like to thank our two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.

This work was supported by a University of Malaya Research Grant (RG220-11HNE). Part of this article was written while the first author was a Senior External Research Fellow at the Freiburg Research Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS), whose support she gratefully acknowledges. Part of the research was carried out at the Faculty of Languages and Linguistics, University of Malaya, while the first author was a visiting professor there.

References

REFERENCES

Atterer, M., & Ladd, D. R. (2004). On the phonetics and phonology of “segmental anchoring” of F0: Evidence from German. Journal of Phonetics, 32, 177–197.Google Scholar
Baker, W., & Trofimovich, P. (2005). Interaction of native- and second-language vowel system(s) in early and late bilinguals. Language and Speech, 48, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumann, S., & Hadelich, K. (2003). Accent type and givenness: An experiment with auditory and visual priming. In Solé, M., Recasens, D., & Romero, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Conference of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 1811–1814). Barcelona: Futurgraphic.Google Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2011). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.3.03) [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://www.praat.org Google Scholar
Brown, G. (1983). Prosodic structure and the given/new distinction. In Cutler, A. & Ladd, D. R. (Eds.), Prosody: Models and measurements (pp. 67–77). Berlin: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, and topics. In Li, C. N. (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 27–55). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Clynes, A., & Deterding, D. (2011). Standard Malay (Brunei). Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 41, 259–268.Google Scholar
Féry, C., & Kügler, F. (2008). Pitch accent scaling on given, new and focused constituents in German. Journal of Phonetics, 36, 680–703.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, J. (2000). On intonational typology. Zeitschrift für Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF), 53, 88–96.Google Scholar
Flege, J. (1987). The production of “new” and “similar” phones in a foreign language: Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal of Phonetics, 15, 47–65.Google Scholar
Fowler, C., & Housum, J. (1987). Talkers’ signalling of “new” and “old” words in speech and listeners’ perception and use of the distinction. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 489–504.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1996). Second language acquisition and linguistic theory: The role of language transfer. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 317–345). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gil, D. (2003). Intonation does not differentiate thematic roles in Riau Indonesian. In Riehl, A. & Savella, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the ninth annual meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA), Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 19 (pp. 64–78). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Gil, D. (2006). Intonation and thematic roles in Riau Indonesian. In Lee, C., Gordon, M., & Büring, D. (Eds.), Topic and focus: Cross-linguistic perspectives on meaning and intonation: Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 82 (pp. 41–68). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Grosser, W. (1997). On the acquisition of tonal and accentual features of English by Austrian learners. In James, A. & Leather, J. (Eds.), Second language speech: Structure and process (pp. 211–228). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (2004). The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gut, U. (2000). On the acquisition of rhythmic structure. In Leather, J. & James, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of New Sounds 2000 (pp. 148–154). Klagenfurt, Austria: University of Klagenfurt.Google Scholar
Gut, U. (2005). Nigerian English prosody. English World-Wide, 26, 153–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gut, U. (2009). Non-native speech: A corpus-based analysis of phonological and phonetic properties of L2 English and German. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Gut, U., Pillai, S., & Mohd. Don, Z. (2013). The prosodic marking of information status in Malaysian English. World Englishes, 32, 185–197.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirst, D., & Di Cristo, A. (Eds.). (1998). Intonation systems: A survey of twenty languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ito, K., Speer, S. R., & Beckman, M. E. (2004). Informational status and pitch accent distribution in spontaneous dialogues in English. In Riehl, A. & Savella, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 279–282). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Juffs, A. (1990). Tone, syllable structure and interlanguage phonology: Chinese learners’ stress errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 28, 99–117.Google Scholar
Jun, S.-A. (Ed.). (2005a). Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jun, S.-A. (2005b). Prosodic typology. In Jun, S.-A. (Ed.), Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing (pp. 430–458). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlsson, A., House, D., Svantesson, J., & Tayanin, D. (2010). Influence of lexical tones on intonation in Kammu. In Hess, W. (Ed.), Proceedings of Interspeech 2010 (pp. 1740–1743). Makuhari, Japan. Retrieved from http://www.isca-speech.org/archive/interspeech_2010 Google Scholar
Kassin, T. A. (2000). The phonological word in Standard Malay (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Lam, T. Q., & Watson, D. G. (2010). Repetition is easy: Why repeated referents have reduced performance. Memory & Cognition, 38, 1137–1146.Google Scholar
Lim, L. (2009). Some New Englishes as tone languages? English World-Wide, 30, 218–239.Google Scholar
Low, E. L. (2006). A cross-varietal comparison of deaccenting and given information: Implications for international intelligibility and pronunciation teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 739–761.Google Scholar
Major, R. (2001). Foreign accent: The ontogeny and phylogeny of second language phonology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Maris, Y. (1980). The Malay sound system. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Fajar Bakti.Google Scholar
Mennen, I. (2004). Bi-directional interference in the intonation of Dutch speakers of Greek. Journal of Phonetics, 32, 543–563.Google Scholar
Mohd. Don, Z. (1996). Prosody in Malay discourse: An analysis of broadcast interviews (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.Google Scholar
Mohd. Don, Z., Knowles, G., & Yong, J. (2008). How words can be misleading: A study of syllable timing and “stress” in Malay. The Linguistics Journal, 3(2), 66–81.Google Scholar
O’Brien, M., & Gut, U. (2010). Phonological and phonetic realisation of different types of focus in L2 speech. In Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, K., Wrembel, M., & Kul, M. (Eds.), Achievements and perspectives in the acquisition of second language speech: New Sounds (pp. 205–215). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Odlin, T. (2003). Cross-linguistic influence. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 436–486). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Patil, U., Kentner, G., Gollrad, A., Kügler, F., Féry, C., & Vasishth, S. (2008). Focus, word order, and intonation in Hindi. Journal of South Asian Linguistics, 1, 53–70.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in discourse. In Cohen, P. R., Morgan, J., & Pollack, M. E. (Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 271–311). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pillai, S., Mohd. Don, Z., Knowles, G., & Tang, J. (2010). Malaysian English: An instrumental analysis of vowel contrasts. World Englishes, 29, 159–172.Google Scholar
Ramírez Verdugo, M. D. (2002). Non-native interlanguage intonation systems: A study based on a computerized corpus of Spanish learners of English. ICAME Journal, 26, 115–132.Google Scholar
Silverman, K., Beckman, M., Pitrelli, J., Ostendorf, M., Wightman, C., Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J. (1992). ToBI: A standard for labeling English prosody. In Hess, W. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Spoken Language Processing 2 (pp. 867–870). Banff, Alberta, Canada. Retrieved from http://www.isca-speech.org/archive/icslp_1992 Google Scholar
Swerts, M. (2007). Contrast and accents in Dutch and Romanian. Journal of Phonetics, 35, 380–397.Google Scholar
Swerts, M., Krahmer, E., & Avesani, C. (2002). Prosodic marking of information status in Dutch and Italian: A comparative analysis. Journal of Phonetics, 30, 629–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swerts, M., & Zerbian, S. (2010). Intonational differences between L1 and L2 English in South Africa. Phonetica, 67, 127–146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tadmor, U. (1999, August). Can word accent be reconstructed in Malay? Paper presented at the Third International Symposium on Malay/Indonesian Linguistics, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Trofimovich, P., & Baker, W. (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
Vallduví, E. (1992). The information component. New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
van der Hulst, H. (1999). Word prosodic systems in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wan Ahmad, W. A. S. (2012). Instrumental phonetic study of the rhythm of Malay ( Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Wennerstrom, A. (1994). Intonational meaning in English discourse: A study of non-native speakers. Applied Linguistics, 15, 399–420.Google Scholar
Wennerstrom, A. (1998). Intonation as cohesion in academic discourse: A study of Chinese speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 1–25.Google Scholar
Xu, J. (2003). Focus-marking in Chinese and Malay: A comparative perspective. In Dong, H. J. & Kim, T. L. (Eds.), Language, information and computation—Proceedings of the 17th Pacific Asia Conference (pp. 2–15). Sentosa, Singapore: Colips.Google Scholar
Zahid, I. (2009, June). Stresslessness of the Malay word-evidence from duration and F0. Invited talk presented at the Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.Google Scholar