1,745 research outputs found

    Fluency in dialogue: Turnโ€taking behavior shapes perceived fluency in native and nonnative speech

    No full text
    Fluency is an important part of research on second language learning, but most research on language proficiency typically has not included oral fluency as part of interaction, even though natural communication usually occurs in conversations. The present study considered aspects of turn-taking behavior as part of the construct of fluency and investigated whether these aspects differentially influence perceived fluency ratings of native and non-native speech. Results from two experiments using acoustically manipulated speech showed that, in native speech, too โ€˜eagerโ€™ (interrupting a question with a fast answer) and too โ€˜reluctantโ€™ answers (answering slowly after a long turn gap) negatively affected fluency ratings. However, in non-native speech, only too โ€˜reluctantโ€™ answers led to lower fluency ratings. Thus, we demonstrate that acoustic properties of dialogue are perceived as part of fluency. By adding to our current understanding of dialogue fluency, these lab-based findings carry implications for language teaching and assessmen

    Production, perception and online processing of prominence in the post-focal domain

    Get PDF
    This dissertation presents a fundamentally new and in-depth investigation of the distribution of prominence in different focal structures in two varieties of Italian (the one spoken in Udine and the one spoken in Bari), by means of the implementation of a categorical analysis with the continuous prosodic parameters related to F0 and periodic energy. Results provide evidence of the fact that prominence in these varieties of Italian is conveyed by both a categorical three-way distinction and a gradual modulation: absence or presence of pitch movement in the distinction between background (post-focal position) and the focal conditions, and a gradual modification of energy and duration. The degree of prominence of words occurring in different focal structures was also investigated in perception. The reportedly different distribution of prominence found in questions for the variety of Italian spoken in Bari is shown to have an influence in the degree of perceived prominence. This influence is found in the comparison between prominenceโ€™s ratings of Bari and Udine native speakers, as well as of Bari native speakers and German native speakers, with Italian as L2. Furthermore, the present dissertation tests the real-time processing of the pitch excursion registered in the post-focal region of questions in the Bari variety. Findings confirmed that the fine-grained changes in prominence are processed in real time. Moreover, results indicate that top-down expectations play a crucial role in modulating general cognitive processes. Overall, this thesis supports the view of prosodic prominence as characterised by a bundle of cues, probabilistically distributed in the listenerโ€™s perceptual space, which form top-down expectations that play a role both in offline perception and in online processing. Signal-based factors also play a role in perception and online processing, but can however be overridden by expectations

    English prosodic marking of Information Structure by L1-Japanese second language learners

    Get PDF
    Ph.D. Thesis. University of Hawaiสปi at Mฤnoa 2018

    The Pitch Range of Italians and Americans. A Comparative Study

    Get PDF
    Linguistic experiments have investigated the nature of F0 span and level in cross-linguistic comparisons. However, only few studies have focused on the elaboration of a general-agreed methodology that may provide a unifying approach to the analysis of pitch range (Ladd, 1996; Patterson and Ladd, 1999; Daly and Warren, 2001; Bishop and Keating, 2010; Mennen et al. 2012). Pitch variation is used in different languages to convey different linguistic and paralinguistic meanings that may range from the expression of sentence modality to the marking of emotional and attitudinal nuances (Grice and Baumann, 2007). A number of factors have to be taken into consideration when determining the existence of measurable and reliable differences in pitch values. Daly and Warren (2001) demonstrated the importance of some independent variables such as language, age, body size, speaker sex (female vs. male), socio-cultural background, regional accents, speech task (read sentences vs. spontaneous dialogues), sentence type (questions vs. statements) and measure scales (Hertz, semitones, ERB etc.). Coherently with the model proposed by Mennen et al. (2012), my analysis of pitch range is based on the investigation of LTD (long-term distributional) and linguistic measures. LTD measures deal with the F0 distribution within a speakerโ€™s contour (e.g. F0 minimum, F0 maximum, F0 mean, F0 median, standard deviation, F0 span) while linguistic measures are linked to specific targets within the contour, such as peaks and valleys (e.g. high and low landmarks) and preserve the temporal sequences of pitch contours. This investigation analyzed the characteristics of pitch range production and perception in English sentences uttered by Americans and Italians. Four experiments were conducted to examine different phenomena: i) the contrast between measures of F0 level and span in utterances produced by Americans and Italians (experiments 1-2); ii) the contrast between the pitch range produced by males and females in L1 and L2 (experiment 1); iii) the F0 patterns in different sentence types, that is, yes-no questions, wh-questions, and exclamations (experiment 2); iv) listenersโ€™ evaluations of pitch span in terms of ยฑinteresting, ยฑexcited, ยฑcredible, ยฑfriendly ratings of different sentence types (experiments 3-4); v) the correlation between pitch span of the sentences and the evaluations given by American and Italian listeners (experiment 3); vi) the listenersโ€™ evaluations of pitch span values in manipulated stimuli, whose F0 span was re-synthesized under three conditions: narrow span, original span, and wide span (experiment 4); vii) the different evaluations given to the sentences by male and female listeners. The results of this investigation supported the following generalizations. First, pitch span more than level was found to be a cue for non-nativeness, because L2 speakers of English used a narrower span, compared to the native norm. What is more, the experimental data in the production studies indicated that the mode of sentences was better captured by F0 span than level. Second, the Italian learners of English were influenced by their L1 and transferred L1 pitch range variation into their L2. The English sentences produced by the Italians had overall higher pitch levels and narrower pitch span than those produced by the Americans. In addition, the Italians used overall higher pitch levels when speaking Italian and lower levels when speaking English. Conversely, their pitch span was generally higher in English and lower in Italian. When comparing productions in English, the Italian females used higher F0 levels than the American females; vice versa, the Italian males showed slightly lower F0 levels than the American males. Third, there was a systematic relation between pitch span values and the listenersโ€™ evaluations of the sentences. The two groups of listeners (the Americans and the Italians) rated the stimuli with larger pitch span as more interesting, exciting and credible than the stimuli with narrower pitch span. Thus, the listeners relied on the perceived pitch span to differentiate among the stimuli. Fourth, both the American and the Italian speakers were considered more friendly when the pitch span of their sentences was widened (wide span manipulation) and less friendly when the pitch span was narrowed (narrow span manipulation). This happened in all the stimuli regardless of the native language of the speakers (American vs. Italian)

    A Sound Approach to Language Matters: In Honor of Ocke-Schwen Bohn

    Get PDF
    The contributions in this Festschrift were written by Ockeโ€™s current and former PhD-students, colleagues and research collaborators. The Festschrift is divided into six sections, moving from the smallest building blocks of language, through gradually expanding objects of linguistic inquiry to the highest levels of description - all of which have formed a part of Ockeโ€™s career, in connection with his teaching and/or his academic productions: โ€œSegmentsโ€, โ€œPerception of Accentโ€, โ€œBetween Sounds and Graphemesโ€, โ€œProsodyโ€, โ€œMorphology and Syntaxโ€ and โ€œSecond Language Acquisitionโ€.ย Each one of these illustrates a sound approach to language matters

    ํ•œ๊ตญ์ธ ์˜์–ด ํ•™์Šต์ž์˜ ๋ฌธ์žฅ ๊ฐ•์„ธ ์‚ฌ์šฉ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ: ์ œ2์–ธ์–ด ์ดํ•ด๋„์™€ ๋ฐœํ™”์ƒ์˜ ์ƒ๊ด€ ์Œํ–ฅ ์‹ ํ˜ธ๋ฅผ ์ค‘์‹ฌ์œผ๋กœ

    Get PDF
    ํ•™์œ„๋…ผ๋ฌธ (๋ฐ•์‚ฌ)-- ์„œ์šธ๋Œ€ํ•™๊ต ๋Œ€ํ•™์› : ์™ธ๊ตญ์–ด๊ต์œก๊ณผ(์˜์–ด์ „๊ณต), 2015. 8. ์•ˆํ˜„๊ธฐ.์ ์ ˆํ•œ ๋ฌธ์žฅ ๊ฐ•์„ธ์˜ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์€ ์˜์–ด ๋ชจ๊ตญ์–ด ์ฒญ์ž๋“ค์˜ ๋ฐœํ™” ์ดํ•ด๋ฅผ ์šฉ์ดํ•˜๊ฒŒ ํ•ด์ฃผ๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์œผ๋กœ ์•Œ๋ ค์ ธ ์žˆ๋‹ค. ๋ณธ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋Š” ํ•œ๊ตญ์ธ ์˜์–ด ํ•™์Šต์ž๋“ค์˜ ๋ฌธ์žฅ ๊ฐ•์„ธ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์ด ์›์–ด๋ฏผ๋“ค์ด ์ธ์‹ํ•œ ๋ฐœํ™”์˜ ์ดํ•ด๋„์— ์œ ์˜๋ฏธํ•˜๊ฒŒ ์˜ํ–ฅ์„ ์ฃผ๋Š” ์š”์†Œ๋ผ๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์„ ํ™•์ธํ•˜๊ณ , ํ•œ๊ตญ์ธ ํ•™์Šต์ž๋“ค์˜ ๋ฐœํ™”์ƒ์— ๋‚˜ํƒ€๋‚œ ์˜์–ด ๋ฌธ์žฅ ๊ฐ•์„ธ ์‚ฌ์šฉ ์–‘์ƒ์„ ๊ด€์ฐฐํ•˜์—ฌ ๋ฌธ์žฅ ๊ฐ•์„ธ ๊ต์œก์—์„œ ์ดˆ์ ์„ ๋‘์–ด์•ผ ํ•˜๋Š” ๋ถ€๋ถ„์„ ํƒ์ƒ‰ํ•˜๊ณ ์ž ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ์ฒซ ๋ฒˆ์งธ ์‹คํ—˜์—์„œ๋Š” ํ•œ๊ตญ์ธ ํ•™์Šต์ž์˜ ๋ฐœํ™”์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ์›์–ด๋ฏผ ์ดํ•ด๋„(์›์–ด๋ฏผ ์ฒญ์ž๋“ค์ด ์ธ์‹ํ•œ ๋ฐœํ™”์˜ ์ดํ•ด ์šฉ์ด๋„)์— ๋ฌธ์žฅ ๊ฐ•์„ธ ์ ์ ˆ์„ฑ์ด ์œ ์˜๋ฏธํ•œ ๊ธฐ์—ฌ๋ฅผ ํ•˜๋Š”์ง€๋ฅผ ํ™•์ธํ•˜๊ณ ์ž ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ์ด๋ฅผ ์œ„ํ•ด ๋จผ์ € 39๋ช…์˜ ํ•œ๊ตญ์ธ ๋Œ€ํ•™์ƒ์—๊ฒŒ ์˜์–ด๋Œ€ํ™”๋ฌธ์„ ์ฝ๋„๋ก ํ•˜์—ฌ ๋…น์Œํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๋‹ค์Œ์œผ๋กœ 10๋ช…์˜ ์›์–ด๋ฏผ ์ฒญ์ž๋“ค์ด ์•ž์„œ ๋…น์Œํ•œ ๊ฐ ๋ฐœํ™”๋ฅผ ๋“ฃ๊ณ  ์ดํ•ด๋„(comprehensibility)์™€ ์™ธ๊ตญ์ธ ๋งํˆฌ ์ •๋„(foreign-accentedness)๋ฅผ 7์  ์ฒ™๋„๋กœ ํ‰๊ฐ€ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๋˜ํ•œ ๊ฐ ๋ฐœํ™”์— ๋Œ€ํ•ด 1) ๋ฌธ์žฅ๊ฐ•์„ธ ์ ์ ˆ์„ฑ, 2) ๋ฌธ์žฅ ๊ฐ•์„ธ ๋นˆ๋„, 3) ๋ฐœํ™” ๊ณ ์ € ๋ฒ”์œ„, 4) ํœด์ง€ ๋นˆ๋„, 5) ์ด ํœด์ง€ ๊ธธ์ด, 6) ํ‰๊ท  ๋ฐœํ™” ๊ธธ์ด, 7) ์กฐ์Œ ์†๋„๋ฅผ ์ธก์ •ํ•œ ๋’ค, ๋‹ค์ค‘ํšŒ๊ท€๋ถ„์„์˜ ๋‹จ๊ณ„์  ์„ ํƒ๋ฒ•์„ ์ด์šฉํ•˜์—ฌ ์ดํ•ด๋„์™€ ์™ธ๊ตญ์ธ ๋งํˆฌ ์ •๋„๋ฅผ ์˜ˆ์ธกํ•˜๋Š” ๋ณ€์ธ์„ ์„ ๋ณ„ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๋ถ„์„ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ, ์ดํ•ด๋„ ์ ์ˆ˜๋Š” ํœด์ง€ ๋นˆ๋„, ๋ฌธ์žฅ ๊ฐ•์„ธ ์ ์ ˆ์„ฑ, ์กฐ์Œ ์†๋„๋ฅผ ์˜ˆ์ธก ๋ณ€์ธ์œผ๋กœ ์‚ผ์•˜์„ ๋•Œ ๋ชจํ˜•์ ํ•ฉ๋„์™€ ์„ค๋ช…๋ ฅ์ด ๊ฐ€์žฅ ์šฐ์ˆ˜ํ–ˆ๊ณ , ์™ธ๊ตญ์ธ ๋งํˆฌ ์ ์ˆ˜๋Š” ํ‰๊ท  ๋ฐœํ™” ๊ธธ์ด, ๋ฌธ์žฅ ๊ฐ•์„ธ ๋นˆ๋„, ์กฐ์Œ ์†๋„๊ฐ€ ์œ ์˜๋ฏธํ•œ ์˜ˆ์ธก์ธ์ž์ธ ๊ฒƒ์œผ๋กœ ๋“œ๋Ÿฌ๋‚ฌ๋‹ค. ํŠนํžˆ ๋ฌธ์žฅ ๊ฐ•์„ธ ์ ์ ˆ์„ฑ์ด ํœด์ง€ ๋นˆ๋„๋‚˜ ์กฐ์Œ ์†๋„์™€ ๋น„๊ตํ•ด ์ดํ•ด๋„ ์ ์ˆ˜์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ๊ธฐ์—ฌ๋„๊ฐ€ ์ ์ง€ ์•Š์Œ์ด ๋“œ๋Ÿฌ๋‚ฌ๋‹ค. ์ด๋Ÿฌํ•œ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๋Š” ์˜์‚ฌ์†Œํ†ต์  ๊ต์ˆ˜๋ฒ•์—์„œ ์˜์–ด ๋ฌธ์žฅ ๊ฐ•์„ธ๋ฅผ ๋” ์ค‘์š”ํ•˜๊ฒŒ ๋‹ค๋ฃฐ ํ•„์š”๊ฐ€ ์žˆ๋‹ค๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์„ ์‹œ์‚ฌํ•œ๋‹ค. ๋‘ ๋ฒˆ์งธ ์‹คํ—˜์—์„œ๋Š” ๋ฌธ์žฅ ๊ฐ•์„ธ์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ๊ต์ˆ˜-ํ•™์Šต์„ ํšจ๊ณผ์ ์œผ๋กœ ์‹œํ–‰ํ•˜๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•œ ๋ฐฉ์•ˆ์„ ํƒ์ƒ‰ํ•˜๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•ด ํ•œ๊ตญ์ธ ํ•™์Šต์ž๋“ค์˜ ๋ฌธ์žฅ ๊ฐ•์„ธ ๋ฐœํ™” ์–‘์ƒ๊ณผ ๊ทธ ํŠน์ง•์„ ๊ด€์ฐฐํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๋ถ„์„์„ ์œ„ํ•ด 39๋ช…์˜ ์ฐธ์—ฌ์ž๋“ค์„ ์˜์–ด๊ถŒ ๊ฑฐ์ฃผ ๊ธฐ๊ฐ„์— ๋”ฐ๋ผ ์ค€์›์–ด๋ฏผ(8~19๋…„), ์ƒ์œ„ ์ˆ˜์ค€ ํ•™์Šต์ž(1๊ฐœ์›” ๋ฐ˜~2๋…„), ํ•˜์œ„ ์ˆ˜์ค€ ํ•™์Šต์ž(๊ฒฝํ—˜ ์—†์Œ)์˜ ์„ธ ์ง‘๋‹จ์œผ๋กœ ๋ถ„๋ฅ˜ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ํ•œ๊ตญ์ธ ์ฐธ์—ฌ์ž๋“ค์ด ๋ฐœํ™”ํ•œ 10๊ฐœ์˜ ๋ฌธ์žฅ ๊ฐ•์„ธ๋ฅผ ์ดˆ์  ์œ ํ˜•(๊ด‘์˜ ์ดˆ์ ๊ณผ ํ˜‘์˜ ์ดˆ์ )๊ณผ ๋‹จ์–ด ์œ ํ˜•(๋‚ด์šฉ์–ด์™€ ๊ธฐ๋Šฅ์–ด)๋กœ ๋‚˜๋ˆ„์–ด ๋ฌธ์žฅ ๊ฐ•์„ธ ์Œ์ ˆ ๋ชจ์Œ๊ณผ ๋ฌธ์žฅ ๊ฐ•์„ธ ์•ž ๋‹จ์–ด ํ˜น์€ ๋’ค์˜ ๋‹จ์–ด์˜ ๊ฐ•์„ธ ๋ชจ์Œ์˜ ๊ธธ์ด, ๊ณ ์ €, ์„ธ๊ธฐ๋ฅผ ์ธก์ •ํ•˜์—ฌ ๊ฐ ์Œํ–ฅ ์‹ ํ˜ธ์˜ ๋ณ€ํ™”๋ฅผ ๊ด€์ฐฐํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๋˜ํ•œ 3๊ฐœ์˜ ๋ฌธ์žฅ ๊ฐ•์„ธ ๋‹จ์–ด์— ๋Œ€ํ•ด, ๋™์ผ ๋‹จ์–ด๊ฐ€ ๋ฌธ์žฅ ๊ฐ•์„ธ ์—†์ด ๋ฐ˜๋ณต๋˜๋Š” ๊ฒฝ์šฐ(์ฆ‰, ๊ตฌ์ •๋ณด๊ฐ€ ๋˜๋Š” ๊ฒฝ์šฐ)์—๋„ ๊ฐ ์Œํ–ฅ ์‹ ํ˜ธ์˜ ๋ณ€ํ™”๊ฐ€ ์žˆ๋Š”์ง€๋ฅผ ์‚ดํŽด๋ณด์•˜๋‹ค. ์‹คํ—˜ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ, ์˜์–ด๊ถŒ ๊ตญ๊ฐ€์—์„œ ์ƒ๋‹นํ•œ ๊ธฐ๊ฐ„ ๋™์•ˆ ์˜์–ด๋ฅผ ํ•™์Šตํ•œ ํ•œ๊ตญ์ธ ์ค€์›์–ด๋ฏผ ์ง‘๋‹จ์˜ ๊ฒฝ์šฐ ์›์–ด๋ฏผ ์ฐธ์—ฌ์ž์˜ ๋ฐœํ™”์™€ ํฌ๊ฒŒ ๋‹ค๋ฅด์ง€ ์•Š์•˜์œผ๋‚˜, ์˜์–ด๋ฅผ ์ฃผ๋กœ ์™ธ๊ตญ์–ด๋กœ์„œ ํ•™์Šตํ•œ ์ƒ์œ„ ์ˆ˜์ค€ ํ•™์Šต์ž์™€ ํ•˜์œ„ ์ˆ˜์ค€ ํ•™์Šต์ž์˜ ๊ฒฝ์šฐ ๋‹ค์Œ๊ณผ ๊ฐ™์€ ํŠน์ง•์„ ๋ณด์—ฌ์ฃผ์—ˆ๋‹ค. ์ฒซ์งธ, ์ƒ์œ„ ์ˆ˜์ค€ ํ•™์Šต์ž์™€ ํ•˜์œ„ ์ˆ˜์ค€ ํ•™์Šต์ž๋“ค์€ ๋ชจ๋‘ ํ˜‘์˜ ์ดˆ์  ๋ฐœํ™”๋Š” ์ƒ๋Œ€์ ์œผ๋กœ ์ž˜ ๋ฐœ์Œํ–ˆ์œผ๋‚˜ ๊ด‘์˜ ์ดˆ์  ๋ฐœํ™”์—์„œ๋Š” ์–ด๋ ค์›€์„ ๊ฒช๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์œผ๋กœ ๋‚˜ํƒ€๋‚ฌ๋‹ค. ์ƒ์œ„ ์ˆ˜์ค€ ํ•™์Šต์ž๋“ค์˜ ๊ฒฝ์šฐ ์ด๋Ÿฌํ•œ ํŠน์ง•์ด ํŠนํžˆ ๊ธฐ๋Šฅ์–ด๊ฐ€ ๊ด‘์˜ ์ดˆ์  ๋‚ด์—์„œ ๋ฌธ์žฅ ๊ฐ•์„ธ๋ฅผ ๊ฐ€์งˆ ๋•Œ ๋‘๋“œ๋Ÿฌ์ง€๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์œผ๋กœ ํ™•์ธ๋˜์—ˆ๋‹ค. ์ด๋“ค์€ ๊ธฐ๋Šฅ์–ด๊ฐ€ ์ฃผ๋กœ ์•ฝํ™”๋œ๋‹ค๋Š” ์‚ฌ์‹ค์„ ์•Œ๊ณ  ์žˆ๊ณ , ์ด์— ๋”ฐ๋ผ ๋ฌธ์žฅ ๊ฐ•์„ธ์˜ ์œ ๋ฌด์— ์ƒ๊ด€์—†์ด ์•ฝํ™”๋ฅผ ์‹œํ‚ค๋Š” ๊ฒฝํ–ฅ์„ ๋ณด์˜€๋‹ค. ๋ฐ˜๋ฉด, ํ•˜์œ„ ํ•™์Šต์ž๋“ค์˜ ๊ฒฝ์šฐ ๋‚ด์šฉ์–ด์™€ ๊ธฐ๋Šฅ์–ด์— ์ƒ๊ด€์—†์ด ๊ด‘์˜ ์ดˆ์ ์—์„œ ๋ฌธ์žฅ ๊ฐ•์„ธ๋ฅผ ์ž˜ ๋ฐœํ™”ํ•˜์ง€ ๋ชปํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๋‘˜์งธ, ์ƒ์œ„ ์ˆ˜์ค€ ํ•™์Šต์ž๋“ค์€ ์ค€์›์–ด๋ฏผ ์ง‘๋‹จ๊ณผ ์›์–ด๋ฏผ ํ™”์ž, ๊ทธ๋ฆฌ๊ณ  ํ•˜์œ„ ์ˆ˜์ค€ ํ•™์Šต์ž๋ณด๋‹ค ๋ชจ์Œ ๊ณ ์ €๋ฅผ ๊ณผ๋„ํ•˜๊ฒŒ ๋ณ€ํ™”์‹œํ‚ค๋Š” ๊ฒฝํ–ฅ์„ ๋ณด์˜€๋‹ค. ํ•œ๊ตญ์ธ๋“ค์˜ ๊ฒฝ์šฐ ๋ชจ์Œ ๊ธธ์ด๋ฅผ ๋ณ€ํ™”์‹œํ‚ค๋Š” ๋ฐ ์–ด๋ ค์›€์„ ๋Š๋ผ๋Š” ํƒ“์— ๊ทธ๋ณด๋‹ค ์ƒ๋Œ€์ ์œผ๋กœ ์‰ฌ์šด ๋ชจ์Œ ๊ณ ์ €์˜ ๋ณ€ํ™”๋ฅผ ํ†ตํ•ด ๋ฌธ์žฅ ๊ฐ•์„ธ๋ฅผ ๋ฐœ์Œํ•˜๋ ค ํ•˜๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์œผ๋กœ ํ•ด์„๋˜์—ˆ๋‹ค. ํ•˜์œ„ ์ˆ˜์ค€ ํ•™์Šต์ž์—๊ฒŒ์„œ๋Š” ๋ชจ์Œ ๊ณ ์ €์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ์˜์กด์€ ๊ด€์ฐฐ๋˜์ง€ ์•Š์•˜๋‹ค. ๋ชจ์Œ์˜ ๊ณ ์ €์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ๊ด€์ฐฐ์„ ์ด๋“ค์˜ ๋ชจ์Œ ๊ธธ์ด ์‚ฌ์šฉ๊ณผ ์—ฐ๊ด€์‹œ์ผœ ๋ณผ ๋•Œ, ํ•˜์œ„ ์ˆ˜์ค€ ํ•™์Šต์ž๋“ค์˜ ๊ฒฝ์šฐ ๋ฌธ์žฅ ๊ฐ•์„ธ ๋ถ€์—ฌ ๊ทœ์น™ ์ž์ฒด์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ์ง€์‹์ด ๋ถ€์žฌํ•œ ๊ฒƒ์œผ๋กœ ๋ณด์ด๊ณ , ์ƒ์œ„ ์ˆ˜์ค€ ํ•™์Šต์ž์˜ ๊ฒฝ์šฐ ๋ฌธ์žฅ ๊ฐ•์„ธ์˜ ์Œ์„ฑ ์‹คํ˜„์— ๋ฌธ์ œ๊ฐ€ ์žˆ๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์œผ๋กœ ํ•ด์„๋  ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ์—ˆ๋‹ค. ์ด๋Š” ๋˜ํ•œ ์™ธ๊ตญ์–ด๋กœ์„œ์˜ ์˜์–ด ํ™˜๊ฒฝ์—์„œ๋งŒ ์˜์–ด๋ฅผ ํ•™์Šตํ•˜๋Š” ๊ฒฝ์šฐ ๋ฌธ์žฅ ๊ฐ•์„ธ๋ฅผ ์Šต๋“ํ•˜๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์ด ๋งค์šฐ ์–ด๋ ต๋‹ค๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์„ ๋‚˜ํƒ€๋‚ด๊ธฐ๋„ ํ•œ๋‹ค. ์˜์–ด์˜ ๋ฌธ์žฅ ๊ฐ•์„ธ๊ฐ€ ์˜์–ด ์›์–ด๋ฏผ ์ฒญ์ž๋“ค์˜ ๋ฐœํ™” ์ดํ•ด์— ์ง์ ‘์ ์œผ๋กœ ์˜ํ–ฅ์„ ์ค€๋‹ค๋Š” ์ ์€ ์˜ค๋ž˜ ์ „๋ถ€ํ„ฐ ์‹คํ—˜์ ์œผ๋กœ ์ฆ๋ช…๋˜์–ด ์™”์ง€๋งŒ ์™ธ๊ตญ์–ด ๊ต์œก์—์„œ๋Š” ์ œํ•œ๋œ ์‹œ๊ฐ„๊ณผ ์–ธ์–ด ์ž…๋ ฅ ๊ทธ๋ฆฌ๊ณ  ๋ฌธ์žฅ ๊ฐ•์„ธ์˜ ๋‹ค์†Œ ๋ณตํ•ฉํ•œ ์‹คํ˜„ ๊ธฐ์ œ ํƒ“์— ๊ทธ ๋™์•ˆ ๊ต์œกํ˜„์žฅ์—์„œ ์šฐ์„ ์ ์œผ๋กœ ๋‹ค๋ฃจ์–ด ์ง€์ง€ ์•Š์•˜๋˜ ๊ฒƒ์œผ๋กœ ๋ณด์ธ๋‹ค. ๋ณธ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋Š” ์˜์‚ฌ์†Œํ†ต ๋งฅ๋ฝ์—์„œ ์˜์–ด๊ถŒ ์ฒญ์ž๊ฐ€ ๋น„์˜์–ด๊ถŒ ํ™”์ž์˜ ๋ฐœํ™”๋ฅผ ์ดํ•ดํ•  ๋•Œ ๋ฌธ์žฅ ๊ฐ•์„ธ๊ฐ€ ์ค‘์š”ํ•œ ์—ญํ• ์„ ํ•จ์„ ํ™•์ฆํ•˜์˜€์œผ๋ฉฐ ์ด๋ฅผ ํ†ตํ•ด ์™ธ๊ตญ์–ด๋กœ์„œ์˜ ์˜์–ด ํ™”์ž์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ์˜์–ด ๊ต์œก์—์„œ ๋ฌธ์žฅ ๊ฐ•์„ธ ๊ต์œก์ด ์ค‘์š”ํ•จ์„ ๊ฐ•์กฐํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๋˜ํ•œ ๋ณธ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋Š” ํ•œ๊ตญ์ธ ํ•™์Šต์ž๋“ค์ด ์˜์–ด ๋ฌธ์žฅ ๊ฐ•์„ธ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์—์„œ ์ฃผ๋กœ ์–ด๋ ค์›€์„ ๊ฒช๋Š” ๋ถ€๋ถ„์ด ์–ด๋””์ธ์ง€๋ฅผ ํ™•์ธํ•˜์˜€๊ณ , ์ด๋ฅผ ๋ฐ”ํƒ•์œผ๋กœ ํšจ์œจ์ ์ด๋ฉด์„œ๋„ ํšจ๊ณผ์ ์ธ ๋ฌธ์žฅ ๊ฐ•์„ธ์˜ ๊ต์ˆ˜ ๋ฐ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์„ ์œ„ํ•ด ์ด๋“ค์ด ์–ด๋ ค์›€์„ ๊ฒช๋Š” ๋ถ€๋ถ„์— ์ดˆ์ ์„ ๋‘” ๊ต์œก์  ์ฒ˜์น˜๊ฐ€ ์ด๋ฃจ์–ด์ ธ์•ผ ํ•จ์„ ์ฃผ์žฅํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ์ฆ‰, ํ•œ๊ตญ์ธ ํ•™์Šต์ž๋“ค์„ ์œ„ํ•ด์„œ๋Š” ๊ทธ๋“ค์ด ๊ด‘์˜ ์ดˆ์ ์— ์ ์šฉ๋˜๋Š” ๊ทœ์น™์„ ์ •ํ™•ํžˆ ํŒŒ์•…ํ•˜๊ณ , ๊ธฐ๋Šฅ์–ด๊ฐ€ ๋‹ดํ™”์ˆ˜์ค€์˜ ๋งฅ๋ฝ์— ๋”ฐ๋ผ์„œ๋Š” ๋ฌธ์žฅ ๊ฐ•์„ธ๋ฅผ ์ง€๋‹ ์ˆ˜๋„ ์žˆ์Œ์„ ์ธ์‹ํ•  ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ๋„๋ก ์ง€๋„๊ฐ€ ์ด๋ฃจ์–ด์งˆ ํ•„์š”๊ฐ€ ์žˆ๋‹ค. ๋์œผ๋กœ, ์ด๋Ÿฌํ•œ ๋ฌธ์žฅ ๊ฐ•์„ธ์˜ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์€ ๋ณธ์งˆ์ ์œผ๋กœ ๋Œ€๋ช…์‚ฌ ๋ฐ ์ง€์‹œํ‘œํ˜„์˜ ์‚ฌ์šฉ๊ณผ ๋ฐ€์ ‘ํ•œ ์—ฐ๊ด€์ด ์žˆ์œผ๋ฏ€๋กœ ๋‹ดํ™” ์ˆ˜์ค€์˜ ๋ฌธ๋ฒ•๊ณผ ๊ฒฐํ•ฉํ•˜์—ฌ ์ง€๋„๊ฐ€ ์ด๋ฃจ์–ด์ง€๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์ด ํšจ๊ณผ์ ์ผ ๊ฒƒ์œผ๋กœ ํŒ๋‹จ๋œ๋‹ค.It has been widely accepted that English sentence stress directly affects speech comprehension. The present study explored the contribution of English sentence stress to perceived comprehensibility of L2 speech, and revealed Korean learners use of English sentence stress. For this purpose, two experiments were conducted. First, speech samples of 39 Korean speakers reading an English dialogue were recorded. Each learners speech characteristics were examined to determine how they contributed to the L2 speech comprehensibility and foreign-accentedness perceived by native listeners. The speech characteristics consisted of sentence stress appropriacy, sentence prominence frequency, pitch range, the number of pauses, the total duration of pauses, the mean length of run, and the articulation rate. The relative contribution of each characteristic was examined by stepwise multiple regression with each pronunciation score as a dependent variable, and each suprasegmental measure as an independent variable. Comprehensibility was best predicted by the combination of the number of pauses, sentence stress appropriacy, and articulation rate. In addition, the strength of the relationship between each of the three variables and the comprehensibility score was more or less the same. In contrast, foreign-accentedness was mainly determined by sentence prominence frequency and speech rate factors. The results of the first experiment support the claim that sentence stress appropriacy is a significant factor for speech comprehension in the L2 context. Further, this study revealed that the importance of sentence stress is not negligible compared with other previously attested factors such as speech rate and pause use. In the second experiment, based on the importance of English sentence stress in L2 speech comprehensibility, the overall characteristics of Korean learners use of English sentence stress were examined. The investigation was conducted both syntagmatically and paradigmatically in terms of acoustic cues (vowel duration, f0, and intensity) used for 13 accented words. In syntagmatic observation, comparisons were made between two focus types (broad vs. narrow) and two word types (content vs. function). A total of 39 participants were divided into three groups based on their length of residence in an English speaking country: Long Residence Group (8 ~ 19 years), Experienced Group (one and a half months ~ two years), and Inexperienced Groups. The results showed that the Long Residence Group did not differ from a native speaker in their production of sentence stress. However, the Korean learners who learned English most of the time in an EFL context showed the following characteristics. First, narrow focus was more easily learned than broad focus by Korean learners of English. The accentuation in broad focus is especially problematic for Korean learners when it occurs on function words. It seemed that the Experienced Groups knowledge of function word reduction according to English rhythm hindered them from accenting words when they did need to be accented at the discourse-level. As for the Inexperienced Group, they showed a more consistent pattern regarding the accentuation in broad focus. The acoustic changes indicated that they failed to apply the sentence stress rule to the last lexical item in broad focus, and this failure was observed for both content and function words. This implies that knowledge of sentence stress placement is not easily obtainable without ample exposure to English. Second, Korean learners (especially the Experienced Group) marked the accented words by varying f0 cues with ease. In some cases, they delayed the declination in the transition from pre-accent to accent, while lowering the pitch more substantially from accent to post-accent than the other two groups and the native speaker. It seemed that the Experienced Group compensated for the lack of durational change by varying vowel pitch more. This partly shows that the participants in this group have some knowledge about accentuation but have a problem with the phonetic realization of it. The findings of this study support the importance of English sentence stress in communicative context. In a Communicative Language Teaching approach, more consideration of English sentence stress is needed in the instruction of English pronunciation. In addition, in teaching English sentence stress to Korean speakers, it should be considered important that Korean learners be taught not to reduce function words and not to rely on the f0 cues too heavily when accentuation is needed in the given context. Furthermore, given that English sentence stress operates at the discourse level and is inherently related to the use of anaphoric and referential expressions in English, sentence stress should be instructed along with the discourse level grammar in an integrated way.TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract i List of Tables ix List of Figures xii List of Abbreviations xiii Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Aims of the Study 1 1.2 Rationale for the Study 2 1.3 Research Questions 6 1.4 Organization of the Dissertation 8 Chapter 2 Theoretical Background 10 2.1 Focus Marking in English and Korean Prosody 10 2.1.1 Pragmatic Functions of English Intonation 11 2.1.2 English Sentence Stress 14 2.1.3 Givenness and Prosody in English and Korean 21 2.1.4 Sentence Stress and Speech Comprehension 29 2.1.5 Acoustic Correlates of English and Korean Focus 31 2.2 Prosody and L2 Speech Comprehensibility 35 2.2.1 L2 Pronunciation in Communicative Context 36 2.2.2 Comprehensibility and Foreign-Accentedness 38 2.2.3 Predictors of Comprehensibility and Foreign-Accentedness 40 2.3 Sentence Stress in L2 Speech 44 2.3.1 Sentence Stress and L2 Comprehensibility 45 2.3.2 Sentence Stress in L2 Production 49 Chapter 3 Sentence Stress and L2 Comprehensibility 52 3.1 Methodology 52 3.1.1 Speakers 53 3.1.2 Recordings 55 3.1.3 Listeners 57 3.1.4 Variables 59 3.1.5 Statistical Treatment 67 3.2 Predictions 68 3.3 Results 69 3.3.1 Rating Scores and Suprasegmental Measurements 69 3.3.2 Predictors of L2 Comprehensibility and Foreign-Accentedness 73 3.4 Summary and Discussion 77 Chapter 4 Sentence Stress Production by Korean Learners 85 4.1 Methodology 85 4.1.1 Speakers 86 4.1.2 Recordings and Measurements 88 4.2 Predictions 92 4.3 Results 94 4.3.1 Syntagmatic Observation 94 4.3.1.1 Comparing the Three Groups 95 4.3.1.2 Focus Type 100 4.3.1.3 Focus Type X Word Type 110 4.3.1.4 Transition from Accent to Post-accent 118 4.3.2 Paradigmatic Observation 127 4.4 Summary and Discussion 129 Chapter 5 Conclusion 136 5.1 Findings and Pedagogical Implications 136 5.2 Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Future Research 138 References 141 Appendices 155 Abstract in Korean 165Docto

    THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ACOUSTIC FEATURES OF SECOND LANGUAGE SPEECH AND LISTENER EVALUATION OF SPEECH QUALITY

    Get PDF
    Second language (L2) speech is typically less fluent than native speech, and differs from it phonetically. While the speech of some L2 English speakers seems to be easily understood by native listeners despite the presence of a foreign accent, other L2 speech seems to be more demanding, such that listeners must expend considerable effort in order to understand it. One reason for this increased difficulty may simply be the speakerโ€™s pronunciation accuracy or phonetic intelligibility. If a L2 speakerโ€™s pronunciations of English sounds differ sufficiently from the sounds that native listeners expect, these differences may force native listeners to work much harder to understand the divergent speech patterns. However, L2 speakers also tend to differ from native ones in terms of fluency โ€“ the degree to which a speaker is able to produce appropriately structured phrases without unnecessary pauses, self-corrections or restarts. Previous studies have shown that measures of fluency are strongly predictive of listenersโ€™ subjective ratings of the acceptability of L2 speech: Less fluent speech is consistently considered less acceptable (Ginther, Dimova, & Yang, 2010). However, since less fluent speakers tend also to have less accurate pronunciations, it is unclear whether or how these factors might interact to influence the amount of effort listeners exert to understand L2 speech, nor is it clear how listening effort might relate to perceived quality or acceptability of speech. In this dissertation, two experiments were designed to investigate these questions
    • โ€ฆ
    corecore