The timing of tone group constituents in the advanced Polish learner's English pronunciation

Andrzej Porzuczek

Uzyskaj dostęp

Zakup książkę

ISBN/ISSN:

978-83-8012-552-0

DOI:

Wydawnictwo:

Uniwersytet Śląski

Rok wydania:

2012

Liczba stron:

210

XML:ISBN/ISSN:

ONIX MARC21

Bibliografia:

Porzuczek, Andrzej. The timing of tone group constituents in the advanced Polish learner's English pronunciation. Red. . Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski, 2012, 210 s. ISBN 978-83-8012-552-0

Bibliografia refWorks:

RT Book, Whole

SR Electronic(1)

A1 Porzuczek, A.

T1 The timing of tone group constituents in the advanced Polish learner's English pronunciation

PB Uniwersytet Śląski

PP Katowice

YR 2012

SN 978-83-8012-552-0

Bibliografia BibTex:

@Book{ 145183, author = "Porzuczek, Andrzej", editor = "", title = "The timing of tone group constituents in the advanced Polish learner's English pronunciation", publisher = "Uniwersytet Śląski", year = "2012", address = "Katowice", isbn = "978-83-8012-552-0" }

Bibliografia endNote:

TY - BOOK

AU - Porzuczek, Andrzej

ED -

TI - The timing of tone group constituents in the advanced Polish learner's English pronunciation

PB - Uniwersytet Śląski

CY - Katowice

PY - 2012

SN - 978-83-8012-552-0

ER -

Netografia (standard APA):

Porzuczek, Andrzej. The timing of tone group constituents in the advanced Polish learner's English pronunciation [baza danych online] Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski, 2012 [dostęp: 12 09 2024]. Dostęp w Ibuk Libra: https://libra.ibuk.pl/reader/the-timing-of-tone-group-constituents-in-the-advanced-polish-learners-andrzej-porzuczek-145183.

wymowa, EFL, prozodia mowy, rytm

Książka Andrzeja Porzuczka poświęcona jest analizie relacji czasowych pomiędzy elementami frazy intonacyjnej w wymowie angielskiej zaawansowanego ucznia polskiego. Celem autora było wykazanie i opisanie różnic w tym zakresie między polskim uczniem...

Więcej

ISBN/ISSN:

978-83-8012-552-0

DOI:

Wydawnictwo:

Uniwersytet Śląski

Rok wydania:

2012

Liczba stron:

210

XML:ISBN/ISSN:

ONIX MARC21

CHAPTER1
CHAPTER2
CHAPTER3
CHAPTER4
CHAPTER5
CHAPTER6
CHAPTER7
CONTENTSINTRODUCTION /9
1.1 The structure of utterances for prosodic analysis /15
1.1.1 Higher-level utterance constituents /15
SPEECH UNITS AND THEIR DURATION /15
1.1.2 Relations between the word (lexical or functional) and the foot /19
1.1.3 The status of lower level units — syllables and segments /20
1.1.4 Conclusion /22
1.2 Segmental length and its determinants /22
1.2.1 Intrinsic segmental length /22
1.2.1.1 Universal segmental duration determinants /23
1.2.1.2 Language-specific intrinsic segmental length /23
1.2.2 Phonetic context as a segmental duration determinant /25
1.2.3 The effect of syllable structure /26
1.3 Temporal relations within and across utterance units /27
1.3.1 Universal domain-edge processes /27
1.3.2 Domain-specific processes /29
1.3.2.1 The foot /29
1.3.2.2 The word /30
1.3.2.3 The intonational phrase and the utterance /31
1.3.3 The pauses /31
1.4 IP-level duration determinants /32
1.4.1 Intonation /32
1.4.2 Speech rate /32
1.4.3 Speaking style /33
1.5 Conclusion /33
2.1 Introduction /34
PROMINENCE AS THE MAIN SPEECH TIMING FACTOR /34
2.2 Acoustic correlates of prominence /35
2.3 Types of prominence. Stress vs. accent /38
2.4 Focus and prominence /38
2.5 Prominence — a phonological category or gradient property of syllables? /39
2.6 Domain lengthening under accent and stress /41
2.6.1 The domain and locus of lengthening /41
2.6.2 The scale of lengthening /42
2.6.3 Accentual lengthening in Polish and other languages /43
2.7 Lack of prominence as a duration determinant /44
2.7.1 The locus of reduction /44
2.7.2 Reasons for vowel reduction /45
2.7.3 Vowel reduction in English and Polish /46
3.1 Introduction /47
SPEECH TIMING AND THE NOTION OF RHYTHM /47
3.2 Rhythm Class Hypothesis /48
3.2.1 Stress-timing and syllable-timing /48
3.2.2 The criticism of RCH /48
3.2.3 Alternative approaches to rhythm typology /49
3.2.4 Recent rhythm/timing measures /50
3.2.5 Summary /52
3.3 English and Polish speech timing /52
3.3.1 The rhythms of English and Polish /52
3.3.2 Timing differences between English and Polish /53
3.4 Polish learners’ timing problems /53
3.4.1 Long and short vowels /54
3.4.2 Unstressed vowel and syllable reduction /54
3.4.3 Accentual lengthening /55
3.4.4 Stress timing /55
3.5 The relevance of timing problems for EFL communication /56
3.5.1 Long and short vowels /56
3.5.2 Vowel reduction /57
3.5.3 Accentual lengthening /57
3.5.4 Stress-timing /58
3.6 Conclusion /59
4.1 Introduction /60
THE DIAGNOSTIC STUDY OF POLISH LEARNERS’ ENGLISH SPEECH TIMING /60
4.2 General assumptions and hypotheses /61
4.3 Method /62
4.3.1 The subjects and data collection procedure /62
4.3.2 Tested units and contexts /63
4.3.3 Acoustic signal analysis and the structure of tested phrases /69
4.3.3.1 General domain-related principles /69
4.3.3.2 Specific boundary-related principles /70
4.3.3.3 Additional remarks /71
4.3.4 Statistical analysis /71
5.1 Introduction /72
ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE DURATION OF VOCALIC SEGMENTS — RESULTS AND DISCUSSION /72
5.2 Stressed vowel duration /73
5.2.1 Intrinsic vowel length /75
5.2.2 Final lengthening /76
5.2.3 Accentual lengthening /76
5.2.4 Foot complexity effect /78
5.2.5 Pre-fortis clipping /80
5.2.6 Within-phrase relations /80
5.2.7 Summary /82
5.3 Unstressed vowel duration /84
5.3.1 Unstressed vowels in monosyllabic function words /84
5.3.2 Unstressed vowels in trochaic content words /89
5.3.3 Relative schwa duration /92
5.3.4 Segmental contribution to unstressed function word duration /94
5.3.5 Summary /95
5.4 Vowel duration variability in individual native speakers and Polish learners /96
5.4.1 Stressed vowel duration variability /96
5.4.2 Vowel duration variability in non-phrase-final syllables /98
5.4.3 General vowel duration variability /101
5.4.4 Polish learners’ vowel timing diversity and development /102
5.5 Conclusion /109
6.1 Introduction /111
6.2 Word/foot-level timing relations /111
6.2.1 Syllable duration in content words /111
TIMING RELATIONS WITHIN THE TONE GROUP — RESULTS AND DISCUSSION /111
6.2.2 The duration of unstressed function words /114
6.2.3 The duration of content words /116
6.2.4 The effect of nuclear accent and phrase position /121
6.2.5 Individual learners’ results and progress /125
6.2.6 Summary /129
6.3 Tone-group level relations /129
6.3.1 Preheads /129
6.3.2 Heads /131
6.3.3 Prehead:Head relations /132
6.3.4 Head:Head relations /134
6.3.5 Head:Nucleus (non-phrase-final) relations /139
6.3.6 Prehead:Head:Nucleus relations /139
6.4 Conclusion /144
7.1 Limitations of the present study /146
CONCLUSIONS AND PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS /146
7.2 General conclusions: The Polish learner’s English speech timing characteristics /147
7.2.1 Hypothesis 1: Stressed vowel duration /148
7.2.2 Hypothesis 2: Unstressed unit duration /149
7.2.3 Hypothesis 3: Nuclear accent effect on timing /152
7.2.4 Hypothesis 4: IP constituent timing /155
7.2.5 Hypothesis 5: Foot timing /155
7.2.6 Hypothesis 6: The Polish learner’s development /162
7.3 Directions for further research /164
7.4 Pedagogical implications /165
APPENDIX A /167
APPENDIX B /168
APPENDIX C /169
REFERENCES /171
INDEX OF NAMES /193
SUBJECT INDEX /199
STRESZCZENIE /203
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG /205

Chapter11Speechunitsandtheirduration

Ahierarchicstructurecandisplaylayerednessorrecursivity.Inthecaseof

prosodichierarchy,argumentsarepresentedforbothapproaches.StrictLayer

Hypothesis(SLH)postulatesthateachprosodicconstituentiscontainedin

aconstituentoftheadjacenthigherlevel(Selkirk1984).However,some

linguisticevidence(pitchandboundarystrength)questionsSLH,pointingat

thepossibilityofnestingconstituentswithinconstituentsofthesamerankin

prosodichierarchy,thusallowingrecursivephrasing(Ladd1986).

Prosodicdomainsarealsotosomeextentrelatedtosyntacticconstituents.

Selkirk(2005),inherSyntacticGroundingHypothesis,proposesthefollowing

correspondence:

Table1020Syntacticallydeterminedprosodicconstituents(Selkirk2005)

commaphrase(CmmP)

lexicalmaximalprojection(lexP)

branchingsyntacticconstituent

lexicalword(lex)

Syntacticconstituent

intonationalphrase(IP)

majorphonologicalphrase(MaP)

minorphonologicalphrase(MiP)

prosodicword(PWd)

Prosodicconstituent

However,althoughthecorrespondencebetweensyntacticandprosodic

constituentsisfairlystrong,syntacticboundariesarecodedinprosodic

structureinnotmorethan65184%(Fach1999).Thesesyntactically

determinedconstituentscanbeidentifiedonthebasisofsegmental

phonologicalruleapplication(NesporandVogel1986,Jun1993)and

intonation(BeckmanandPierrehumbert1986).AnIntonationalPhrase,for

instance,bearsacompleteintonationcontour.Becauseitoftencomprisesafull

sentence,itcanbecoextensivewiththeutterance.NesporandVogel(1986)

foundsomedifferencesintheapplicationofcertainphonologicalrules,but

Wightmanetal.(1992)observednodifferenceinfinallengthening,aprocess

dependingonthedomain’srankinprosodichierarchy(tobediscussedin

section1.3.1).

Differencesinproposedprosodichierarchymodelsarealsocausedby

differencesbetweenlanguages.Certainlanguagesmightrequirespecific

phrasing,whichmustbereflectedintheprosodichierarchy.Forinstance,

theAccentualPhrase1aunitbetweenIPandPhonologicalPhraseis

introducedforprosodicdescriptionofKoreanandFrench(Jun1998).

Asmentionedbefore,apartfromlexicalandsyntacticinformation,

thephrasingofspeechdependsonstressandaccent,whichhighlightimportant

elementsofthespokenmessage.2BothBritishSchoolandAMtheories

recognisenuclearaccent,butinPierrehumbert’sview,prenuclearaccent

2Theproblemsofprominencewillbediscussedinsection1.4.

Brak wyników

The timing of tone group constituents in the advanced Polish learner's English pronunciation

Treść książki

Znajdź bibliotekę blisko siebie, i uzyskaj dostęp do ebooka w systemie IBUK Libra