Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Perception of prosodic cues by Japanese EFL learners

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Loading in …3
×

Check these out next

1 of 23 Ad
Advertisement

More Related Content

Slideshows for you (20)

Similar to Perception of prosodic cues by Japanese EFL learners (20)

Advertisement

Recently uploaded (20)

Perception of prosodic cues by Japanese EFL learners

  1. 1. JALT2013 Kobe 28.10.2013  @ Kobe Convention Center Room #304 #784 Perception of prosodic cues by Japanese EFL learners Kazuhito Yamato yamato@port.kobe-u.ac.jp Shinobu Mizuguchi mizuguti@kobe-u.ac.jp ! Graduate School of Intercultural Studies, Kobe University !1
  2. 2. acknowledgment • This study was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 24520542. ! • Project members • Project leader: Shinobu Mizuguchi • Project members: Gábor Pintér, Koichi Tateishi, Kazuhito Yamato !2
  3. 3. Outline 1. Intro 2. Previous studies 3. Research Question 4. Survey: Method/Procedure 5. Results & Discussion 6. Implications for teaching !3
  4. 4. 1. Intro 1.1 Background • Lack of / Need for teaching prosody to Japanese EFL learners(JEFLLs) (listening/ speaking) • Few studies dealing with JELLLs’ perceiving natural speed English !5
  5. 5. 1. Intro 1.2 Purpose • to investigate how Japanese EFL learners perceive prosodic cues in spoken English using Rapid Prosody Transcription task. • a replication study of Mo et al.(2008) (an approximate replication cf. Porte, 2012) !6
  6. 6. 2. Previous Studies 2.1 Mo et al.(2008) • Mo et al. (2008): whether naïve listeners can detect boundary and prominence or not • consistent in their perception of prosodic boundaries and prominence !10
  7. 7. 2. Previous Studies 2.1.1 Rapid Prosody Transcription • impressionistic perceptual transcription of prosodic structure (Mo et al., 2008) • a real-time listening task • phrase boundary (chunk): to place slashes in the script • prominence: to underline the script !11
  8. 8. Outline 1.Intro 2.Previous Studies 3.Research Question 3.1. Issues from Previous Studies 3.2. Research Questions in this study 4.Survey 5.Results & Discussion 6.Implication for teaching !12
  9. 9. 3. Research Question 3.1 Issues from Previous Studies • Listeners • mainly by native speakers of English • non-native speakers? Japanese EFL learners? • RPT • naïve listeners like language learners? !13
  10. 10. 3. Research Question 3.2 Research Questions in this study • Do non-native speakers (i.e. Japanese learners of English) perceive prosody differently from native speakers of English? If so, how? • Any difference according to learners’ proficiency levels? • Any implication for teaching English? !14
  11. 11. 4. Survey 4.1 Materials • Audio stimuli • excerpts from Buckeye corpus (Pitt et al., 2007) • spontaneous speech; monologue (interview) • duration: around 10 seconds (cf. 20 sc in Cole et al. 2010) • Printed materials • audio transcript • no punctuation, no capital letters !16
  12. 12. 4. Survey 4.2 Transcription procedure • Rapid Prosody Transcription • phrase boundary: mark “/“ between words that belong to different “chunks” • prominence: underline a word that highlights for the listener and stands out from other words. • audio played: twice for each transcription !17
  13. 13. 4. Survey 4.3 Participants • 38 Japanese EFL learners (JEFLLs) • TOEFL PBT score: avg. 483.5 (SD 25.86) • H-JEFLLs (n=10; x>mean+0.5 SD) • L-JEFLLs (n=11; x>mean-0.5 SD) !18
  14. 14. 4. Survey 4.4 Analysis • b-score: boundary mark / participants (ranges 0-1) • p-score: prominence mark / participants (ranges 0-1) • inter-listener agreement: Fleiss’ kappa • comparison with Mo et al.(2008) !19
  15. 15. 5. Results & Discussion 5.1 Results • inter-listener agreement H-JEFLLs L-JEFLLs boundary (κ) .704 .670 prominence (κ) .260 .277 • cf. Mo et al.(2008) group 1 group 2 group 3 group 4 boundary (κ) .612 .544 .621 .575 prominence (κ) .373 .421 .394 .407 • agreement • NS > JEFFLs • boundary > prominence !21
  16. 16. 5. Results & Discussion 5.1 Results 5.1.1 Phrase Boundary • high agreement in both groups • H-JEFLLs: κ= .704 • L-JEFLLs: κ= .670 • pauses: the most important cue for boundary detection • fillers, slow tempo: important cues • syntactic cues: less important (cf. Cole et al., 2010) !22
  17. 17. 5. Results & Discussion 5.1 Results 5.1.1 Phrase Boundary • high correlation with silent pauses • syntactic cues: relevant in NS perception !23
  18. 18. 5. Results & Discussion 5.1 Results 5.1.2 Prominence • low agreement in both groups • H-JEFLLs: = .260 • L-JEFLLs: = .277 • not so high in Mo et al. (2008), though high consistency in nuclear accent perception than in pre-nucleus accent • L1 interference? !24
  19. 19. 5. Results & Discussion 5.1 Results 5.1.2 Prominence • low agreement in both groups • not relying on prominence or not knowing about prominence? !25
  20. 20. 5. Results & Discussion 5.2 Discussion • regardless of proficiency levels... • high agreement on phrase boundary • pauses, fillers and slow tempo > syntactic cues. • low agreement on prominence • → JEFLLs rely on the more frequent minorphrase boundaries (cf. Kawahara & Shinya, 2008) !26
  21. 21. 6. Implication for teaching teaching listening & pronunciation • teaching listening • relation bet syntactic structure and prosody • prominence as prosodic cues (Celce-Murcia et al. 2010) • teaching pronunciation • relation bet syntactic structure and prosody • prominence as prosodic cues • practice one nucleus in a phrase boundary (Saito & Ueda, 2011; Nanjo, 2010) !28
  22. 22. Summary findings and remaining issues • RPT can be used to non-native speakers of English • phrase boundary perception • high inter-listener agreement among JEFLLs (H- and L-) • pauses are the primary source of boundary perception • prominence perception • low inter-listener agreement among JEFLLs (H- and L-) • NS > JEFLLs • implications • need more attention to prosodic cues / nucleus in a boundary • further research • on relationships with syntactic structure and on production !29
  23. 23. References • Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Goodwin, J. M. (with Griner, B.). 2010. Teaching pronunciation: A course book and reference guide. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press. • Cole, J., Mo, Y., & Baek, S. (2010). The role of syntactic structure in guiding prosody perception with ordinary listeners and everyday speech. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 1141-1177. • Mo, Y., Cole, J. & Lee, E. (2008). Naïve listeners’ prominence and boundary perception. In P. A. Barbosa, S. Madureira, & C. Reis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Speech Prosody (pp. 735-736). Campinas, Brazil, May 69, 2008. Available from ISCA Archive: http://www.isca-speech.org/ archive/sp2008. • Mo, Y., & Cole, J. (2010). Perception of prosodic boundaries in spontaneous speech with and without silent pauses. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 127, 1956. • Kawahara, S., & Shinya, T. (2008). The intonation of gapping and coordination in Japanese: Evidence for intonational phrase and utterance. Phonetica, 65, 62-105. • Pitt, M.A., Dilley, L., Johnson, K., Kiesling, S., Raymond, W., Hume, E. and Fosler-Lussier, E. 2007. Buckeye Corpus of Conversational Speech (2nd release) [www.buckeyecorpus.osu.edu] Columbus, OH: Department of Psychology, Ohio State University (Distributor). • Porte, G. (ed). (2012). Replication research in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • 斎藤弘子・上田功 (2011) 「英語学習者によるイントネーション核の誤配置」 『音声研究』 15, 8795. • 南條健助 (2010) 「音声学・音韻論と発音指導」 大学英語教育学会(監) 岡田伸夫・南出康世・ 梅咲敦子(編) (2010) 『英語教育学大系 第8巻 英語研究と英語教育 −ことばの研究を教育 に活かす』東京: 大修館書店 pp. 3-21. !30

×