The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics

Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 22

[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 22, No. 0, pp. 153-168
Abbreviation: KASELL
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2022
Received 10 Jan 2022 Revised 21 Feb 2022 Accepted 27 Feb 2022

Influence of Acoustic Cues on the Perception of Lexical Stress by Korean Learners of English and English Listeners
Eunkyung Sung
Professor, Department of English, Cyber Hankuk University of Foreign Studies 107 Imun-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, Korea, Tel: 02) 2173-8761 (

© 2022 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Funding Information ▼


The purpose of the present study was to examine how listeners’ native language affected the use of four different acoustic cues (duration, F0, intensity, and vowel quality) in identifying lexical stress in English. Native Korean and English listeners judged lexical stress placement in nonce words in which the first or the second syllable was varied systematically regarding the four acoustic cues. The results of proportions of trochaic responses and statistical analyses showed that all four cues were important predictors of the listeners’ stress perception. However, the two listener groups performed differently when considering response patterns for four acoustic cues separately. Specifically, the Korean listeners were significantly more sensitive to F0 and intensity cues than the English listeners. There were no statistically significant differences between the two listener groups in terms of duration and vowel quality cues. Also, there were significant effects of interaction between acoustic cues and listener groups for duration and F0 cues. The Korean listeners relied more on F0 and less on duration than the English listeners. These findings imply that L2 listeners’ perception of lexical stress is not entirely predicted by L1 prosody. Furthermore, for both groups of listeners the cue shift from iambic to noncontrastive stress patterns induced less changes in trochaic stress responses than that from noncontrastive to trochaic stress patterns. This preference for trochaic stress perception over iambic stress needs to be further investigated in the future study.

Keywords: acoustic cues, duration, F0, intensity, vowel quality, lexical stress, perception, Ko rean listeners, English listeners


This work was supported by the Cyber Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund of 2021.

1. Beckman, M. E. 1986. Stress and Non-stress Accent. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
2. Beckman, M. E. and J. B. Pierrehumbert. 1986. Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology 3, 255-309.
3. Boersma, P. and D. Weenink. 2019. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 6.1.03) [Computer program]. Retrieved from
4. Chrabaszcz, A., M. Winn, C. Y. Lin and W. J. Idsardi. 2014. Acoustic cues to perception of word stress by English, Mandarin, and Russian speakers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 57(4), 1468-1479.
5. Chung, Y-H. 2013. Effects of L1 Prosodic system on the perception of English stress: A case study of Korean EFL learners. Language Research 49, 383-398.
6. Cutler, A. and D. M. Carter. 1987. The predominance of strong initial syllables in the English vocabulary. Computer Speech and Language 2(3-4), 133-142.
7. Dupoux, E., S. Peperkamp and N. Sebastián-Gallés. 2001. A robust method to study stress “deafness”. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 110(3), 1606-1618.
8. Dupoux, E., N. Sebastián-Gallés, E. Navarrete and S. Peperkamp. 2008. Persistent stress ‘deafness’: The case of French learners of Spanish. Cognition 106(2), 682-706.
9. Flege, J. E. and O. S. Bohn. 1989. An instrumental study of vowel reduction and stress placement in Spanish-accented English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11(1), 35-62.
10. Fokes, J. and Z. S. Bond. 1989. The vowels of stressed and unstressed syllables in nonnative English. Language Learning 39(3), 341-373.
11. Frost, D. 2011. Stress and cues to relative prominence in English and French: A perceptual study. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 41(1), 67-84.
12. Fry, D. B. 1965. The dependence of stress judgments on vowel formant structure. In X. Zwerner and W. Bethge, eds., Proceedings of the 5th International Congress of Phonetics Sciences, 306-311. Munster: Karger/Basel.
13. Fry, D. B. 1958. Experiments in the perception of stress. Language and Speech 1 (1958), 126-152.
14. Guion, S. G. 2005. Knowledge of English word stress patterns in early and late Korean-English bilinguals. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27(4), 503-533.
15. Hammond, R. H. 1986. Error analysis and the natural approach to teaching foreign languages. Lenguas Modernas 13, 129-139.
16. Hart, J., R. Collier and A. Cohen. 1990. A perceptual study of intonation: an experimental-phonetic approach to speech melody. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. Jun, S. A. 2005. Korean intonational phonology and prosodic transcription. In S. Jun, ed., Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing, 201-229. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18. Jun, S. A. 2014. Prosodic typology: by prominence type, word prosody, and macro-rhythm. In S-A. Jun, ed., Prosodic Typology II: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing, 520-540. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19. Kang, H. and H. J. Kim. 2016. Acoustic correlates of English stress in Korean L2 learners’ perception. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 16(2), 169-196.
20. Kang, Y. J. 2014. Voice Onset Time merger and development of tonal contrast in Seoul Korean stops: A corpus study. Journal of Phonetics 45, 76-90.
21. Kim, H. and A. Tremblay. 2021. Korean listeners’ processing of suprasegmental lexical contrasts in Korean and English: A cue-based transfer approach. Journal of Phonetics 87, 1-15.
22. Kim, M, R., P. S. Beddor and J. Horrocks. 2002. The contribution of consonantal and vocalic information to the perception of Korean initial stops. Journal of Phonetics 30(1), 77-100.
23. Liberman, M. Y. 1975. The Intonational System of English. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
24. Mattys, S. L. 2000. The perception of primary and secondary stress in English. Perception and Psychophysics 62, 253-265.
25. Meng, Y., J. Zhang, S. Liu. and C. Wu. 2020. Influence of different acoustic cues in L1 lexical tone on the perception of L2 lexical stress using principal component analysis: An ERP study. Experimental Brain Research 238, 1489-1498.
26. Montero, D. 2007. The Perception of the Acoustic Correlates of Stress: A Cross-linguistic Study on English, French and Spanish. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Washington.
27. Morton, J. and W. Jassem. 1965. Acoustic correlates of stress. Language and Speech, 8, 159-181.
28. Oh, J. 2011. A study on prosodic cue determining syntactic moods in Korean. Korean Linguistics 51, 117-140.
29. Okobi, A. 2006. Acoustic Correlates of Word Stress in American English. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
30. Peirce, J. W. 2007. PsychoPy - psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 62(1-2), 8-13.
31. Roach, P. 2009. English Phonetics and Phonology Fourth Edition: A Practical Course. Ernst Klett Sprachen.
32. Sluijter, A. and V. Heuven. 1996. Spectral balance as an acoustic correlate of linguistic stress. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 100, 2471-2485.
33. Silva, D. J. 2006. Acoustic evidence for the emergence of tonal contrast in contemporary Korean. Phonology 23(2), 287-308.
34. Tremblay, A., M. Broersma, Y. Zeng, H. Kim, J. Lee and S. Shin. 2021. Dutch listeners’ perception of English lexical stress: A cue-weighting approach. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 149(6), 3703-3714.
35. van Heuven, V. J. and L. Menert. 1996. Why stress position bias? The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 100(4), 2439-2451.
36. Wang, Q. 2008. Perception of English Stress by Mandarin Chinese Learners of English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Victoria.
37. Zhang, Y. and A. Francis. 2010. The weighting of vowel quality in native and non-native listeners’ perception of English lexical stress. Journal of Phonetics 38(2), 260-271.
38. Zhang, Y., S. Nissen and A. L. Francis. 2008. Acoustic characteristics of English lexical stress produced by native Mandarin speakers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 123(6), 4498-4513.