Startseite Discrepancy in prosodic disambiguation strategies between Chinese EFL learners and native English speakers
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Discrepancy in prosodic disambiguation strategies between Chinese EFL learners and native English speakers

  • Liya Xue ORCID logo EMAIL logo und Ming Yue ORCID logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 31. Januar 2023
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching
Aus der Zeitschrift International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching Band 62 Heft 2

Abstract

Previous studies on prosodic disambiguation have found Chinese EFL learners capable of using prosodic cues for both boundary marking and focus encoding in English, but somewhat differently from native English speakers. No clear understanding has yet been obtained about their overall use of prosodic strategies in speech production for disambiguation. In this study, we conducted a contextualized production task followed by perception judgments and acoustic analyses to investigate their prosodic disambiguation, with native English speakers as the contrast group. We considered three types of prosodic cues (duration, pitch, and intensity), and examined ambiguities in both syntactic structure and information structure. We found that Chinese EFL learners did alter their prosodic cues to disambiguate two readings, but differently from native English speakers in both cue number and cue combination. Specifically, they used a narrower range of cues and provided insufficient prosodic information, consequently leading to poor perception by native listeners. Our findings argue for prosodic disambiguation training in foreign language teaching.

Keywords: Chinese EFL learners; prosodic cues; prosodic disambiguation; prosodic strategy; speech production
Corresponding author: Liya Xue, Department of Linguistics, SIS, Zhejiang University, Yuhangtang Road No. 388, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China, E-mail:

Funding source: National Office for Philosophy and Social Sciences

Award Identifier / Grant number: Grant No. 19BYY013

Acknowledgments

We thank LetPub (www.letpub.com) for editorial assistance during the preparation of this manuscript. Thanks to the G17 staff in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Pittsburgh for technical support in laboratory experiment. Special thanks are given to Dr. Shelome Gooden who provided mentorship during the material preparation, data collection and analysis phase and provided feedback on early versions of the manuscript, to Dr. Tessa Warren’s psycholinguistic group who gave constructive advice and to Biostatistics Consulting Center in the Graduate School of Public Health of the University of Pittsburgh who provided statistical support. We also thank our colleagues, Dr. Yunqi Wang, Dr. Junying Liang, and Dr. Kevin Tang, for providing feedback. Any remaining errors are our sole responsibility. Finally, we would like to thank all the participants at both Zhejiang University and the University of Pittsburgh.

  1. Research funding: The studies presented in the paper were partly financed by National Social Science Fund of China, Grant No. 19BYY013.

  2. Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

A complete list of 12 short passages in a pseudo-random sequence as the production materials

  1. Phil and Susan were gossiping about who they had seen together at last night’s party.

  2. “Did you see who Ben was with?” Phil asked.

  3. “Yeah, I can’t believe he and Laura are back together,” Susan said.

  4. Then Phil asked, “What about Sandy? Who did she come with?”

  5. “ Sandy came with Manny ,” Susan replied.

  6. “I think they make a nice couple.”

  7. The old woman had a pet dog. The dog likes biscuits very much, so every morning she gave her dog biscuits .

  8. There were two girls. One of them had a sense of humor and the other did not. The man talked to the girl with a sense of humor .

  9. David’s roommates, Pat and Bob, really don’t get along. In fact, they usually try to avoid each other, as much as that’s possible for roommates. Whenever there’s a party in the house, David will come, and Pat or Bob will come, but you won’t see them all together. Therefore, for our parties, we invite David and Pat or Bob, but not all three.

  10. A boy was stuck by accident in a mountain cave. The policeman asked his mother to bring some food to the boy. The mother only brought some milk to the boy .

  11. A man was asking a girl to explain what had happened. The girl was too nervous to speak. In order to make her feel easy, the man talked to the girl with a sense of humor .

  12. Phil and Susan were gossiping about who they had seen together at last night’s party.

  13. “Did you see who Ben was with?” Phil asked.

  14. “Yeah, I can’t believe he and Laura are back together,” Susan said.

  15. Then Phil asked, “What about Manny? Who came with him?”

  16. “ Sandy came with Manny ,” Susan replied.

  17. “I think they make a nice couple”.

  18. The call of the wild was his favorite book. He read the book many times and he also translated the book .

  19. A mother had four daughters and one son. She loved the son much more than the daughters. Every morning the mother only brought some milk to the boy .

  20. A little girl asked for some biscuits from an old woman to feed the fish in the lake. The old woman happened to have some dog biscuits in her bag, so she gave her dog biscuits .

  21. David and Pat really don’t get along with their roommate Bob. In fact, they usually try to avoid him, as much as that’s possible for roommates. Whenever there’s a party in the house, David and Pat will come, or Bob will come, but you won’t see them all together. Therefore, for our parties, we invite David and Pat or Bob , but not all three.

  22. Two professors were talking about the translation of a best seller. One said that there were three versions of translation of the book. The other told him that he also translated the book .

Note: The target sentences are shown in bold for the convenience of the readers, but were not shown in production tasks.

Appendix B

Tests of normality of measures in S2

Tests of normality
Context Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
maxfOher 1 0.103 49 0.200* 0.953 49 0.049
2 0.134 49 0.027 0.935 49 0.009
maxfOdog 1 0.097 49 0.200* 0.961 49 0.100
2 0.148 49 0.009 0.931 49 0.007
maxfObiscuits 1 0.112 49 0.163 0.949 49 0.033
2 0.150 49 0.008 0.934 49 0.009
minfOher 1 0.088 49 0.200* 0.979 49 0.540
2 0.145 49 0.012 0.956 49 0.063
minfOdog 1 0.117 49 0.091 0.963 49 0.129
2 0.148 49 0.009 0.947 49 0.028
minfObiscuits 1 0.143 49 0.014 0.903 49 0.001
2 0.144 49 0.013 0.902 49 0.001
risesizeher 1 0.182 49 0.000 0.860 49 0.000
2 0.180 49 0.000 0.842 49 0.000
risesizedog 1 0.192 49 0.000 0.809 49 0.000
2 0.232 49 0.000 0.806 49 0.000
risesizebiscuits 1 0.174 49 0.001 0.859 49 0.000
2 0.194 49 0.000 0.885 49 0.000
durationher 1 0.166 49 0.002 0.907 49 0.001
2 0.178 49 0.000 0.921 49 0.003
pause 1 1 0.286 49 0.000 0.539 49 0.000
2 0.228 49 0.000 0.749 49 0.000
durationdog 1 0.075 49 0.200* 0.965 49 0.151
2 0.109 49 0.199 0.960 49 0.090
pause 2 1 0.246 49 0.000 0.667 49 0.000
2 0.128 49 0.042 0.777 49 0.000
durationbiscuits 1 0.093 49 0.200* 0.924 49 0.004
2 0.073 49 0.200* 0.990 49 0.939
intensityher 1 0.082 49 0.200* 0.960 49 0.094
2 0.087 49 0.200* 0.978 49 0.479
intensitydog 1 0.088 49 0.200* 0.967 49 0.185
2 0.068 49 0.200* 0.976 49 0.409
intensitybiscuits 1 0.113 49 0.151 0.938 49 0.012
2 0.135 49 0.025 0.949 49 0.033

  1. aLilliefors significance correction. *This is a lower bound of the true significance.

Appendix C

Tests of normality of measures in S5

Tests of normality
Context Kolmogorov-Smirnovaa Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
maxf0Sandy 1 0.116 49 00.096 0.940 49 0.015
2 0.101 49 0.200* 0.941 49 0.017
minf0Sandy 1 0.125 49 0.054 0.938 49 0.012
2 0.126 49 0.052 0.940 49 0.015
risesizeSandy 1 0.173 49 0.001 0.791 49 0.000
2 0.163 49 0.002 0.858 49 0.000
maxf0Manny 1 0.159 49 0.003 0.930 49 0.006
2 0.094 49 0.200* 0.951 49 0.039
minf0Manny 1 0.200 49 0.000 0.896 49 0.000
2 0.202 49 0.000 0.903 49 0.001
risesizeManny 1 0.164 49 0.002 0.918 49 0.002
2 0.139 49 0.018 0.924 49 0.004
durationSandy 1 0.074 49 0.200* 0.982 49 0.660
2 0.159 49 0.003 0.869 49 0.000
durationManny 1 0.150 49 0.008 0.949 49 0.034
2 0.075 49 0.200* 0.978 49 0.468
intensitySandy 1 0.158 49 0.004 0.905 49 0.001
2 0.078 49 0.200 0.963 49 0.132
intensityManny 1 0.117 49 0.092 0.947 49 0.028
2 0.076 49 0.200* 0.975 49 0.363

  1. aLilliefors significance correction. *This is a lower bound of the true significance.

Appendix D

p values of Scheirer-Ray-Hare test on 17 measures in S2

Measures Effects
Context Group Context*Group
1. maxf0her 0.901 0.823 0.712
2. maxf0dog 0.373 0.056 0.660
3. maxf0biscuits 0.234 0.017* 0.570
4. minf0her 0.484 0.654 0.419
5. minf0dog 0.572 0.002** 0.547
6. minf0biscuits 0.441 0.000*** 0.521
7. Risesizeher 0.720 0.299 0.042*
8. Risesizedog 0.516 0.049* 0.473
9. Risesizebiscuits 0.553 0.322 0.862
10. Durationher 0.086 0.000*** 0.009**
11. pause 1 0.023* 0.000*** 0.102
12. Durationdog 0.017* 0.377 0.569
13. pause 2 0.047* 0.000*** 0.106
14. Durationbiscuits 0.693 0.002** 0.684
15. Intensityher 0.667 0.000*** 0.931
16. Intensitydog 0.606 0.000*** 0.787
17. Intensitybiscuits 0.484 0.000*** 0.419

  1. Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Appendix E

p values of Scheirer-Ray-Hare test on 10 measures in S5

Measures Effects
Context Group Context*Group
1. maxf0sandy 0.667 0.088 0.967
2. minf0sandy 0.380 0.559 0.258
3. risesizesandy 0.090 0.013* 0.463
4. maxf0manny 0.308 0.499 0.791
5. minf0manny 0.376 0.000*** 0.377
6. Risesizemanny 0.817 0.048* 0.479
7. durationsandy 0.000*** 0.001** 0.344
8. durationmanny 0.174 0.000*** 0.945
9. intensitysandy 0.812 0.000*** 0.464
10. intensitymanny 0.449 0.000*** 0.366

  1. Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Appendix F

Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Tests on cue changes between two contexts in S2

Pair no. Paired-measures M (p25, p75) Z Asymp. sig. (2-tailed)
CELs NESs CELs NESs CELs NESs
1 Bmaxf0her- 165 (125, 234) 197 (141, 225) −2.179 −1.004 0.028* 0.316
Amaxf0her 164 (130, 242) 197 (149, 222)
2 Bmaxf0dog- 162 (128, 222) 160 (107, 203) −2.248 −0.487 0.025* 0.627
Amaxf0dog 193 (131, 238) 173 (114, 204)
3 Bmaxf0biscuits- 165 (132, 237) 127 (98, 211) −3.34 −1.977 0.001** 0.048*
Amaxf0biscuits 179 (140, 253) 157 (100, 256)
4 Bminf0her- 136 (113, 185) 117 (102, 181) −0.343 −1.46 0.732 0.144
Aminf0her 132 (110, 193) 154 (103, 189)
5 Bminf0dog- 131 (115, 191) 108 (83, 187) −1.384 −0.243 0.166 0.808
Aminf0dog 148 (118, 190) 102 (91, 167)
6 Bminf0biscuits- 105 (83, 128) 56 (44, 77) −0.19 −1.125 0.849 0.26
Aminf0biscuits 100 (90, 142) 53 (49, 89)
7 Brisesizeher- 28 (14, 46) 37 (24, 77) −1.46 −2.403 0.144 0.016*
Arisesizeher 34 (20, 49) 27 (18, 46)
8 Brisesizedog- 17 (11, 37) 25 (17, 49) −0.724 0.061 0.469 0.951
Arisesizedog 20 (13, 51) 29 (18, 47)
9 Brisesizebiscuits- 57 (35, 90) 62 (40, 152) −1.511 −0.791 0.131 0.429
Arisesizebiscuits 66 (37, 86) 76 (34, 132)
10 Bdurationher- 239 (199, 338) 202 (140, 307) −1.029 −3.133 0.304 0.002**
Adurationher 272 (220, 317) 144 (131, 161)
11 Bpause1- 79 (61, 124) 23 (8, 92) −0.927 −3.072 0.354 0.002**
Apause1 66 (42, 129) 11 (8, 17)
12 Bdurationdog- 216 (194, 252) 213 (193, 221) −1.867 −2.768 0.062 0.006**
Adurationdog 232 (208, 273) 230 (201, 261)
13 Bpause2- 70 (54, 79) 43 (28, 64) −3.213 −0.426 0.001** 0.67
Apause2 88 (74, 111) 45 (25, 64)
14 Bdurationbiscuits- 655 (583, 680) 576 (542, 619) −0.241 −0.03 0.809 0.976
Adurationbiscuits 625 (568, 688) 582 (535, 620)
15 Bintensityher- 63 (59, 65) 53 (47, 56) −1.13 −1.399 0.258 0.162
Aintensityher 62 (59, 64) 53 (48, 55)
16 Bintensitydog- 65 (63, 68) 56 (50, 60) −1.029 −1.551 0.304 0.121
Aintensitydog 66 (61, 68) 55 (50, 59)
17 Bintensitybiscuits- 59 (57, 63) 46 (42, 50) −0.292 −3.984 0.77 0.000***
Aintensitybiscuits 60 (58, 62) 50 (45, 54)

  1. Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Appendix G

Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Tests on cue changes between two contexts in S5

Pair no. Paired-measures M (p25, p75) Z Asymp. sig. (2-tailed)
CELs NESs CELs NESs CELs NESs
1 Bmaxf0Sandy- 203 (159, 292) 259 (204, 309) −1.537 −0.852 0.124 0.394
Amaxf0Sandy 189 (149, 277) 242 (214, 300)
2 Bminf0Sandy- 165 (127, 224) 178 (129, 217) −0.14 −2.555 0.889 0.011*
Aminf0Sandy 150 (132, 216) 198 (156, 239)
3 BrisesizeSandy 36 (25, 60) 70 (30, 118) −0.902 −2.585 0.367 0.01*
ArisesizeSandy 33 (16, 53) 50 (23, 74)
4 Bmaxf0Manny- 165 (134, 236) 179 (115, 211) −1.74 −1.794 0.082 0.073
Amaxf0Manny 186 (138, 249) 188 (138, 246)
5 Bminf0Manny- 105 (94, 164) 88 (72, 95) −0.241 −2.281 0.809 0.023*
Aminf0Manny 107 (89, 190) 89 (75, 115)
6 BrisesizeManny- 52 (35, 68) 92 (34, 128) −0.546 −0.091 0.585 0.927
ArisesizeManny 56 (37, 93) 99 (36, 145)
7 BdurationSandy- 456 (408, 484) 376 (354, 418) −4.33 −3.072 0.000*** 0.002**
AdurationSandy 390 (344, 425) 368 (326, 383)
8 BdurationManny- 443 (396, 494) 391 (320, 430) −2.095 −1.916 0.036* 0.055
AdurationManny 456 (411, 517) 402 (369, 441)
9 BntensitySandy- 65 (60, 69) 58 (55, 62) −2.095 −0.365 0.036* 0.715
AintensitySandy 63 (60, 67) 60 (55, 63)
10 BntensityManny- 62 (60, 65) 52 (47, 56) −1.333 −3.741 0.182 0.000***
AintensityManny 62 (59, 65) 54 (48, 59)

  1. Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

References

Akker, Evellen & Anne Cutler. 2003. Prosodic cues to semantic structure in native and nonnative listening. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 6(2). 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728903001056.Suche in Google Scholar

Allbritton, David, Gail McKoon & Roger Ratcliff. 1996. Reliability of prosodic cues for resolving ambiguity in syntactic structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22(3). 714–735. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.22.3.714.Suche in Google Scholar

Aoyama, Katsura & Susan G. Guion. 2007. Prosody in foreign language acquisition: An acoustic analysis on duration and F0 range. In Ocke-Schwen Bohn & Murray J. Munro (eds.), The role of language experience in second-language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege, 281–297. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.17.24aoySuche in Google Scholar

Atoye, Raphael O. 2005. Non-native perception and interpretation of English intonation. Nordic Journal of African Studies 14(1). 26–42.Suche in Google Scholar

Baek, Hyunah. 2019. A cross-linguistic comparison on the use of prosodic cues for ambiguity resolution. In Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, vol. 36, 060005.10.1121/2.0001094Suche in Google Scholar

Beckman, Mary E. & Jennifer J. Venditti. 2000. Tagging prosody and discourse structure in elicited spontaneous speech. In Proceedings of the Science and Technology Agency Priority Program Symposium on Spontaneous Speech: Corpus and Processing Technology, Tokyo, 87–98. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229055683.Suche in Google Scholar

Bent, Tessa. 2012. Hot topics in speech communication: Listening to foreign-accented speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 132(3). 2012. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4755446.Suche in Google Scholar

Bi, Ran. 2018. Perception effect of audiovisual input on the prosodic boundary in foreign language learners. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 50(5). 78–89.Suche in Google Scholar

Birch, Stacy & Charles Clifton. 1995. Focus, accent, and argument structure: Effects on language comprehension. Language and Speech 38(4). 365–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099503800403.Suche in Google Scholar

Birch, Stacy & Charles Clifton. 2002. Effects of varying focus and accenting of adjuncts on the comprehension of utterances. Journal of Memory and Language 47(4). 571–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-596x(02)00018-9.Suche in Google Scholar

Bock, Kathryn J. & Joanne 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.Suche in Google Scholar

Calvin, Dytham. 2003. Choosing and using statistics: A biologist’s guide. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.Suche in Google Scholar

Carlson, Katy. 2009. How prosody influences sentence comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(5). 1188–1200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818x.2009.00150.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Checa-Garcia, Irene. 2016. Prosodic cues in relative clauses disambiguation: Bilinguals vs. l2 learners. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research 5(2). 74–80. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2016.7.168.Suche in Google Scholar

Chen, Hu. 2006. English and Chinese intonational phonology: A contrastive study. Kaifeng: Henan University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Chen, Hua. 2008. On Chinese EFL learner’s English intonation patterns. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Chien, Hui-Yu & Janice Fon. 2019. Are nuclear accents easier to acquire than prenuclear accents? – using peak alignment in advanced Mandarin EFL learners as an example. In Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 456–459.Suche in Google Scholar

Cho, Taehong & Doris Mücke. 2020. Articulatory measures of prosody. In Carlos Gussenhoven & Aoju Chen (eds.), The Oxford handbook of language prosody, 15–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198832232.013.2Suche in Google Scholar

Cooper, William E. & Jeanne Paccia-Cooper. 1980. Syntax and speech. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674283947Suche in Google Scholar

Cruttenden, Alan. 1997. Intonation, 2nd edn. Beijing: Peking University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139166973Suche in Google Scholar

Cutler, Anne. 2012. Native listening: Language experience and the recognition of spoken words. Cambridge: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9012.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Cutler, Anne & Donald J. Foss. 1977. On the role of sentence stress in sentence processing. Language and Speech 20(1). 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383097702000101.Suche in Google Scholar

Duanmu, San. 2000. The phonology of standard Chinese. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Espinal, Teresa M. & Xavier Villalba. 2015. Ambiguity resolution and information structure. The Linguistic Review 32(1). 61–85. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2014-0015.Suche in Google Scholar

Fujimori, Atsushi, Noriko Yoshimura & Noriko Yamane. 2016. Japanese learners’ acquisition of English L2 prosody: L1 transfer and effects of classroom instruction. Ars Linguistica 22. 105–118.Suche in Google Scholar

Gennari, Silvia P., Luisa Meroni & Stephen Crain. 2004. Rapid relief of stress in dealing with ambiguity. In John Trueswell & Michael Tanenhaus (eds.), Approaches to studying world-situated language use: Bridging the language-as-product and language-as-action traditions, 245–259. Cambridge: MIT Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Guo, Xing-Rong, Xiao-Xiang Chen, & Yi-Ming Guo. 2017. Prosodic transfer in the beginning-and advanced-level Chinese learners’ production of English word stress. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Humanities & Social Science, Atlantis Press, 18–22.10.2991/hss-17.2017.4Suche in Google Scholar

Hwang, Hyekyung. 2007. Prosodic phrasing in sentence comprehension: Evidence from native English speakers and native Korean-speaking foreign language learners of English. Honolulu: University of Hawaii dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar

Ip, Martin Ho Kwan & Anne Cutler. 2016. Cross-language data on five types of prosodic focus. In Jonathan Barnes, Alejna Brugos & Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel (eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2016, 330–334. Boston, MA.10.21437/SpeechProsody.2016-68Suche in Google Scholar

Ip, Martin Ho Kwan & Anne Cutler. 2017. Intonation facilitates prediction of focus even in the presence of lexical tones. Paper presented at Interspeech 2017, 1218–1222. Stockholm.10.21437/Interspeech.2017-264Suche in Google Scholar

Ip, Martin Ho Kwan & Anne Cutler. 2018a. Asymmetric efficiency of juncture perception in L1 and L2. In Katarzyna Klessa, Jolanta Bachan, Agnieszka Wagner, Maciej Karpiński & Daniel Śledziński (eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2018, 289–296. Baixas, France: ISCA.10.21437/SpeechProsody.2018-59Suche in Google Scholar

Ip, Martin Ho Kwan & Anne Cutler. 2018b. Cue equivalence in prosodic entrainment for focus detection. In Julien Epps, Joe Wolfe, John Smith & Caroline Jones (eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Australasian International Conference on Speech Science and Technology, 153–156.Suche in Google Scholar

Ip, Martin Ho Kwan & Anne Cutler. 2020. Universals of listening: Equivalent prosodic entrainment in tone and non-tone languages. Cognition 202. 104311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104311.Suche in Google Scholar

Jackson, Carrie N. & Mary Grantham O’Brien. 2011. The interaction between prosody and meaning in foreign language speech production. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 44(1). 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-1221.2011.00087.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Lehiste, Ilse. 1973. Phonetic disambiguation of ambiguity in syntactic structure. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 53(1). 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1982702.Suche in Google Scholar

Lin, Hsin-Yi & Janice Fon. 2010. Perception on pitch reset at discourse boundaries. Paper presented at Interspeech 2010, 11th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Makuhari, Chiba, Japan.10.21437/Interspeech.2010-388Suche in Google Scholar

Lu, Yu-An & Miran Kim. 2016. Prosody transfer in second language acquisition: Tonal alignment in the production of English pitch accent by Mandarin native speakers. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies 46(4). 785–816.Suche in Google Scholar

Mo, Yoonsook. 2008. Duration and intensity as perceptual cues for naïve listeners’ prominence and boundary perception. In Proceedings of the Speech Prosody 2008 Conference, 739–742. Campinas, Brazil.10.21437/SpeechProsody.2008-164Suche in Google Scholar

O’Brien, Mary G., Carrie Jackson & Christine Gardner. 2014. Cross-linguistic differences in prosodic cues to syntactic disambiguation in German and English. Applied Psycholinguistics 35(1). 27–70.10.1017/S0142716412000252Suche in Google Scholar

Odlin, Terence. 1989. Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning, 1st pub. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524537Suche in Google Scholar

Orrico, Riccardo, Violetta Cataldo, Renata Savy & Linda Barone. 2016. Transfer, fossilization and prosodic drift in Foreign Language Learning. In Renata Savy & Iolanda Alfano (eds.), Phonetics and language learning, 117–132. Milano: AISV, Milano, ITA.Suche in Google Scholar

Ou, Jinghua & Sam-Po Law. 2016. Individual differences in processing pitch contour and rise time in adults: A behavioral and electrophysiological study of Cantonese tone merging. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 139(6). 3226–3237. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4954252.Suche in Google Scholar

Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1999. Prosody and intonation. In Robert A. Wilson & Frank Keil (eds.), The MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences, 479–482. Cambridge: MIT Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Price, Patti, Mari Ostendorf, Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel & Cynthia Fong. 1991. The use of prosody in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 90(6). 2956–2970. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.401770.Suche in Google Scholar

Reed, Marnie & Christina Michaud. 2014. Intonation in research & practice: The importance of metacognition. In Marnie Reed & John M. Levis (eds.), The handbook of English pronunciation. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118346952.ch25Suche in Google Scholar

Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie & Alice Turk. 1996. A prosody tutorial for investigators of auditory sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25(2). 193–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01708572.Suche in Google Scholar

Snedeker, Jesse & John Trueswell. 2003. Using prosody to avoid ambiguity: Effects of speaker awareness and referential context. Journal of Memory and Language 48(1). 103–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-596x(02)00519-3.Suche in Google Scholar

Takahashi, Chikako, Sophia Kao, Hyunah Baek, Alex Hong-Lun Yeung, Jiwon Hwang & Ellen Broselow. 2018. Native and non-native speaker processing and production of contrastive focus prosody. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 3(35). 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v3i1.4323.Suche in Google Scholar

Viera, Anthony J. & Joanne M. Garrett. 2005. Understanding interobserver agreement: The kappa statistic. Family Medicine 37(5). 360–363.Suche in Google Scholar

Wagner, Michael & Duane G. Watson. 2010. Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: A review. Language & Cognitive Processes 25(7–9). 905–945. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690961003589492.Suche in Google Scholar

Xu, Yi. 2013. ProsodyPro — a tool for large-scale systematic prosody analysis. In Proceedings of tools and resources for the analysis of speech prosody, 7–10. Aix-en-Provence: Laboratoire Parole et Langage.Suche in Google Scholar

Yamane, Noriko, Noriko Yoshimura & Atsushi Fujimori. 2016. Prosodic transfer from Japanese to English: Pitch in focus marking. Phonological Studies 19. 97–105.Suche in Google Scholar

Yang, Pi-Lan. 2010. English language proficiency and production of prosodic disambiguation: A preliminary study of Taiwanese English learners. Journal of English Teaching 34(3). 51–84.Suche in Google Scholar

Yenkimaleki, Mahmood & Vincent J. van Heuven. 2016. The effect of prosody teaching on developing word recognition skills for interpreter trainees: An experimental study. Journal of Advances in Linguistics 7(1). 1101–1107. https://doi.org/10.24297/jal.v7i1.5158.Suche in Google Scholar

Ying, H. G. Ian. 1996. Multiple constraints on processing ambiguous sentences: Evidence from adult L2 learners. Language Learning 46(4). 681–711. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01356.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Zhang, Yuanyuan & Hongwei Ding. 2017. A preliminary study of prosodic disambiguation by Chinese EFL learners. Paper presented at Interspeech 2017, 374–378. Stockholm.10.21437/Interspeech.2017-1210Suche in Google Scholar

Zhang, Yuanyuan & Hongwei Ding. 2020. The effect of ambiguity awareness on second language learners’ prosodic disambiguation. Frontiers in Psychology 11. 573520. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.573520.Suche in Google Scholar

Zhang, Yuanyuan, Hongwei Ding, Peter Zelchenko, Xin Cui & Yi Lin. 2018. Prosodic disambiguation by Chinese EFL learners in a cooperative game task. Paper presented at 9th International Conference on Speech Prosody 2018, 979–983. Poznań, Poland.10.21437/SpeechProsody.2018-198Suche in Google Scholar
Received: 2022-01-06
Accepted: 2023-01-10
Published Online: 2023-01-31
Published in Print: 2024-06-25

© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Consolidating EFL content and vocabulary learning via interactive reading
  4. Understanding salient trajectories and emerging profiles in the development of Chinese learners’ motivation: a growth mixture modeling approach
  5. Multilingual pedagogies in first versus foreign language contexts: a cross-country study of language teachers
  6. Classroom assessment and learning motivation: insights from secondary school EFL classrooms
  7. Interculturality and Islam in Indonesia’s high-school EFL classrooms
  8. Collaborative writing in an EFL secondary setting: the role of task complexity
  9. Spanish heritage speakers’ processing of lexical stress
  10. Effectiveness of second language collocation instruction: a meta-analysis
  11. Understanding the Usefulness of E-Portfolios: Linking Artefacts, Reflection, and Validation
  12. Syntactic prediction in L2 learners: evidence from English disjunction processing
  13. The cognitive construction-grammar approach to teaching the Chinese Ba construction in a foreign language classroom
  14. The predictive roles of enjoyment, anxiety, willingness to communicate on students’ performance in English public speaking classes
  15. Speaking proficiency development in EFL classrooms: measuring the differential effect of TBLT and PPP teaching approaches
  16. L2 textbook input and L2 written production: a case of Korean locative postposition–verb construction
  17. What does the processing of chunks by learners of Chinese tell us? An acceptability judgment investigation
  18. Comparative analysis of written corrective feedback strategies: a linear growth modeling approach
  19. Enjoyment in language teaching: a study into EFL teachers’ subjectivities
  20. Students’ attitude and motivation towards concept mapping-based prewriting strategies
  21. Pronunciation pedagogy in English as a foreign language teacher education programs in Vietnam
  22. The role of language aptitude probed within extensive instruction experience: morphosyntactic knowledge of advanced users of L2 English
  23. The impact of different glossing conditions on the learning of EFL single words and collocations in reading
  24. Patterns of motivational beliefs among high-, medium-, and low-achieving English learners in China
  25. The effect of linguistic choices in note-taking on academic listening performance: a pedagogical translanguaging perspective
  26. A latent profile analysis of Chinese EFL learners’ enjoyment and anxiety in reading and writing: associations with imaginative capacity and story continuation writing performance
  27. Effects of monolingual and bilingual subtitles on L2 vocabulary acquisition
  28. Task complexity, task repetition, and L2 writing complexity: exploring interactions in the TBLT domain
  29. Expansion of verb-argument construction repertoires in L2 English writing
  30. Immediate versus delayed prompts, field dependence and independence cognitive style and L2 development
  31. Aural vocabulary, orthographic vocabulary, and listening comprehension
  32. The use of metadiscourse by secondary-level Chinese learners of English in examination scripts: insights from a corpus-based study
  33. Scoping review of research methodologies across language studies with deaf and hard-of-hearing multilingual learners
  34. Exploring immediate and prolonged effects of collaborative writing on young learners’ texts: L2 versus FL
  35. Discrepancy in prosodic disambiguation strategies between Chinese EFL learners and native English speakers
  36. Exploring the state of research on motivation in second language learning: a review and a reliability generalization meta-analysis
  37. Japanese complaint responses in textbook dialogues and ordinary conversations: learning objects to expand interactional repertoires
https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2022-0004
Schlagwörter für diesen Artikel
Chinese EFL learners; prosodic cues; prosodic disambiguation; prosodic strategy; speech production

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Consolidating EFL content and vocabulary learning via interactive reading
  4. Understanding salient trajectories and emerging profiles in the development of Chinese learners’ motivation: a growth mixture modeling approach
  5. Multilingual pedagogies in first versus foreign language contexts: a cross-country study of language teachers
  6. Classroom assessment and learning motivation: insights from secondary school EFL classrooms
  7. Interculturality and Islam in Indonesia’s high-school EFL classrooms
  8. Collaborative writing in an EFL secondary setting: the role of task complexity
  9. Spanish heritage speakers’ processing of lexical stress
  10. Effectiveness of second language collocation instruction: a meta-analysis
  11. Understanding the Usefulness of E-Portfolios: Linking Artefacts, Reflection, and Validation
  12. Syntactic prediction in L2 learners: evidence from English disjunction processing
  13. The cognitive construction-grammar approach to teaching the Chinese Ba construction in a foreign language classroom
  14. The predictive roles of enjoyment, anxiety, willingness to communicate on students’ performance in English public speaking classes
  15. Speaking proficiency development in EFL classrooms: measuring the differential effect of TBLT and PPP teaching approaches
  16. L2 textbook input and L2 written production: a case of Korean locative postposition–verb construction
  17. What does the processing of chunks by learners of Chinese tell us? An acceptability judgment investigation
  18. Comparative analysis of written corrective feedback strategies: a linear growth modeling approach
  19. Enjoyment in language teaching: a study into EFL teachers’ subjectivities
  20. Students’ attitude and motivation towards concept mapping-based prewriting strategies
  21. Pronunciation pedagogy in English as a foreign language teacher education programs in Vietnam
  22. The role of language aptitude probed within extensive instruction experience: morphosyntactic knowledge of advanced users of L2 English
  23. The impact of different glossing conditions on the learning of EFL single words and collocations in reading
  24. Patterns of motivational beliefs among high-, medium-, and low-achieving English learners in China
  25. The effect of linguistic choices in note-taking on academic listening performance: a pedagogical translanguaging perspective
  26. A latent profile analysis of Chinese EFL learners’ enjoyment and anxiety in reading and writing: associations with imaginative capacity and story continuation writing performance
  27. Effects of monolingual and bilingual subtitles on L2 vocabulary acquisition
  28. Task complexity, task repetition, and L2 writing complexity: exploring interactions in the TBLT domain
  29. Expansion of verb-argument construction repertoires in L2 English writing
  30. Immediate versus delayed prompts, field dependence and independence cognitive style and L2 development
  31. Aural vocabulary, orthographic vocabulary, and listening comprehension
  32. The use of metadiscourse by secondary-level Chinese learners of English in examination scripts: insights from a corpus-based study
  33. Scoping review of research methodologies across language studies with deaf and hard-of-hearing multilingual learners
  34. Exploring immediate and prolonged effects of collaborative writing on young learners’ texts: L2 versus FL
  35. Discrepancy in prosodic disambiguation strategies between Chinese EFL learners and native English speakers
  36. Exploring the state of research on motivation in second language learning: a review and a reliability generalization meta-analysis
  37. Japanese complaint responses in textbook dialogues and ordinary conversations: learning objects to expand interactional repertoires
Jetzt anmelden und 20% sparen
Institutioneller Zugang
Wie funktioniert Authentifizierung?
Haben Sie eine Idee, wie wir unsere Website verbessern können?
Bitte schreiben Sie uns.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Heruntergeladen am 28.9.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/iral-2022-0004/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen