The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.1-29
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print)
Print publication date 31 Mar 2018
Received Jan 2018 Revised Feb 2018 Accepted Mar 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.18.1.201803.1

Pause-Tonic Stress Interaction in English L2 Speech of Korean Talkers with Different Proficiency Levels

In Young Yang
Seoul National University inyoung@snu.ac.kr

Abstract

Yang, I. Y. 2018. Pause-tonic stress interaction in English L2 speech of Korean talkers with different proficiency levels. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 18-1, 1-29. This study reports on the interaction of pause and tonic stress production in L2 English speech. Pause and tonic stress are important prosodic manifestations of information structures that are crucial in facilitating listeners’ speech comprehension. Examinations were conducted on the placement of tonic stress and pauses within each tonality of read speech by 35 Korean adult learners. The participants were separated into three groups based on their speech comprehensibility and foreign-accent scores, using a Hierarchical Cluster Analysis. Each cluster revealed distinctive-both quantitative and qualitative-uses of tonic stress and pauses. As pronunciation proficiency increased, learners produced more accurate tonic stress and less frequent pauses within a tonality. In particular, participants with lower proficiency levels frequently placed pauses before less informative words. It is recommended that pronunciation be taught in a way that incorporates information structure, with a focus on pauses and tonic stress.

Keywords:

English pronunciation, tonic stress, pauses, information structure

References

  • Birch, S. and C. Clifton. 1995. Focus, accent, and argument structure: Effects on language comprehension. Language and Speech 38(4), 365-391. [https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099503800403]
  • Bock, J. K. and J. R. Mazzella. 1983. Intonational marking of given and new information: Some consequences for comprehension. Memory & Cognition 11(1), 64-76. [https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197663]
  • Boersma, P. and D. Weenink. 2014. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer (version 5.3.82). [Computer program] Retrieved from http://www.praat.org/.
  • Boomer, D. S. 1965. Hesitation and grammatical encoding. Language and Speech 8, 148-158. [https://doi.org/10.1177/002383096500800302]
  • Boomer, D. S. 1978. The phonemic clause: Speech unit in human communication. In A. W. Siegman and S. Feldstein, eds., Nonverbal Behavior and Communication, 245-262. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Celce-Murcia, M., D. M. Brinton and J. M. Goodwin. 2010. Teaching Pronunciation: A Reference for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Choi, H-W. 1997. Topic and focus in Korean: The information partition by phrase structure and morphology. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 6, 545-561.
  • Cutler, A. 1976. Beyond parsing and lexical look-up. In R. J. Wales and E. C. T. Walkers, eds., New Approaches to Language Mechanisms: A Collection of Psycholinguistic Studies, 133-149. Amsterdam: North-Holland Pub.
  • Cutler, A. and J. Fodor. A. 1979. Semantic focus and sentence comprehension. Cognition 7(1), 49-59. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(79)90010-6]
  • Davenport, M. and S. J. Hannahs. 2010. Introducing Phonetics and Phonology. NY: Routledge.
  • Field, J. 2003. Psycholinguistics: A Resource Book for Students. Psychology Press.
  • Flege, J. E., M. J. Munro and L. Skelton. 1992. Production of the word-final English /t/-/d/ contrast by native speakers of English, Mandarin, and Spanish. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 92, 128-143. [https://doi.org/10.1121/1.404278]
  • Goldman-Eisler, F. 1958. Speech production and the predictability of words in context. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 10(2), 96-106. [https://doi.org/10.1080/17470215808416261]
  • Goldman-Eisler, F. 1972. Pauses, clauses, sentences. Language and Speech 15(2), 103-113. [https://doi.org/10.1177/002383097201500201]
  • Hahn, L. D. and W. B. Dickerson. 1999. Speech Craft: Discourse Pronunciation for Advanced Learners. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. [https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.8399]
  • Halliday, M. A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2. Journal of Linguistics 3(2), 199-244. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700016613]
  • Halliday, M. A. K. and W. S. Greaves. 2008. Intonation in the Grammar of English. CT: Equinox Pub.
  • Han, H. and J-K. Lee. 2008. Korean speakers’ phrasing patterns in English clauses. Modern English Education 9(3), 257-277.
  • Hawkins, P. R. 1971. The syntactic location of hesitation pauses. Language and Speech 14(3), 277-288. [https://doi.org/10.1177/002383097101400308]
  • Hirschberg, J. 2004. Pragmatics and intonation. In L. R. Horn and G. L. Ward, eds., The Handbook of Pragmatics, 515-537. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
  • Isaacs, T. and P. Trofimovich. 2012. Deconstructing comprehensibility. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 34(3), 475-505. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000150]
  • Jang, Y. 2010. Pedagogical effects of incorporating speech acts found in romantic comedy movies for college English listening class: Sociolinguistic implication for English education. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 10(4), 865-887. [https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.10.4.201012.865]
  • Jun, Y. 2013. Hangugeo Myeongsagu-ui Uimiron: Hanjeongseong/Teukjingseong, Chongchingseong, Boksuseong (A Semantics for Korean Noun Phrases: Definiteness/Specificity, Genericity, Plurality). Seoul: Seoul National University Press.
  • Kang, O. 2010. Relative salience of suprasegmental features on judgments of L2 comprehensibility and accentedness. System 38(2), 301-315. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.01.005]
  • Kang, S. 2007. A study on Korean students’ production and perception of English word-final stop voicing. Speech Sciences 14(1), 105-119.
  • Kennedy, S. and P. Trofimovich. 2017. Pronunciation acquisition. In M. Sato and S. Loewen, eds., The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 260-279. NY: Taylor & Francis.
  • Kim, I. 2014. On the meaning of Korean–i/ka. Language and Linguistics, 63, 1-26.
  • Kim, I. 2016. Can Korean-(n) un mark (contrastive) focus? Language Sciences 56, 105-117. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2016.04.002]
  • Kreidler, C. W. 1997. Describing Spoken English: An Introduction. NY: Routledge. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203278574]
  • Kreidler, C. W. 2004. The Pronunciation of English: A Course Book. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. [https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470759264]
  • Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents (Vol. 71). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607]
  • Laver, J. 1994. Principles of Phonetics. Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166621]
  • Mo, Y. 2010. Prosody Production and Perception with Conversational Speech (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA.
  • Munro, M. J. and T. M. Derwing. 1994. Evaluations of foreign accent in extemporaneous and read material. Language Testing 11(3), 253-266. [https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229401100302]
  • Munro, M. J. and T. M. Derwing. 1995a. Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning 45(1), 73-97. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00963.x]
  • Munro, M. J. and T. M. Derwing. 1995b. Processing time, accent, and comprehensibility in the perception of native and foreign-accented speech. Language and Speech 38(3), 289-306. [https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099503800305]
  • Munro, M. J., T. M. Derwing and A. K. Holtby. 2012. Evaluating individual variability in foreign accent comprehension. Proceedings of the 3rd Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference, 233-239.
  • O’Connell, D. C., S. Kowal and H. Hörmann. 1969. Semantic determinants of pauses. Psychological Research 33(1), 50-67. [https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00424616]
  • Park, S. and J-H. Lee. 2013. A study on the comprehensibility of Korean speakers’ English utterances and affecting factors for native and non-native English listeners. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 13(2), 265-286. [https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.13.2.201306.265]
  • Park, T. and J. Chang. 2017. A study on high school teachers’ opinions about issues of communicative English teaching and assessment. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 17(4), 839-863. [https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.17.4.201712.839]
  • Roach, P. 2009. English Phonetics and Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Silverman, K. E. A., M. Beckman, J. F. Pitrelli, M. Ostendorf, C. Wightman, P. Price, J. Pierrehumbert and J. Hirschberg. 1992. TOBI: A standard for labeling English prosody. Proceedings of the 1992 International Conference on Spoken Language Processing 2,867-870.
  • Sohn 1999. The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Terken, J. and S. G. Nooteboom. 1987. Opposite effects of accentuation and deaccentuation on verification latencies for given and new information. Language and Cognitive Processes 2(3-4), 145-163. [https://doi.org/10.1080/01690968708406928]
  • Trofimovich, P. and W. Baker. 2006. Learning second language suprasegmentals: Effect of L2 experience on prosody and fluency characteristics of L2 speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28(1), 1-30. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060013]
  • Um, H., H. Lee and K. Kim. 2001. Korean speakers’ realization of focus and information structure on English intonation in comparison with English native speakers. Speech Sciences 8(2), 133-148.
  • Wells, J. C. 2006. English Intonation: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Appendix

Appendix

A Recording Material

From Kreidler (2004, pp. 149–151)

(The locations of tonic stress and tonality are underlined and separated with slashes)

Female: / Have you taken your family to the zoo yet, / John? /

Male: No, but my kids have been asking me to. I’ve heard this city has a pretty big one.

Female: / Yes, / it doesn’t have a lot of animals, / but it has quite a variety of animals2. / I think3 your kids / would enjoy seeing the pandas./

Male: I’m sure they would. I’d like to see them, too.

Female: / Also, / the tigers are worth looking at. /

Male: Is it okay to feed them?

Female: / No, / they’re not used to being fed. /

Male: What bus do you take to get there?

Female: / Number Twenty-eight. / But don’t you have a car? /

Male: We used to have one, but we had to sell it.


Notes

2 “animal” is also accentable in this context, if we assume that the speaker is planning the speech, according to Wells (2006).
3 “think” is also accentable, according to Kreidler (2004).