The Prosody of Discourse Structure and Content in the Production of Persian EFL Learners

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Imam Khomeini International University

2 Payame Noor University

Abstract

The present research addressed the prosodic realization of global and local text structure and content in the spoken discourse data produced by Persian EFL learners. Two newspaper articles were analyzed using Rhetorical Structure Theory. Based on these analyses, the global structure in terms of hierarchical level, the local structure in terms of the relative importance of text segments and the rhetorical relations between text segments were identified. The texts were read aloud by 18 high-proficient Persian learners of English. We measured pause durations preceding segments, F0-maxima (as a correlate of pitch range) and speech rates of the segments. Results suggested that speakers give prosodic indications about hierarchical level by means of variations in pause duration but not pitch range or speech rate. Furthermore, it was found that speakers articulate causally related segments with shorter in between pauses and at faster rate than non-causally related segments. However, they did not vary any of the prosodic measures to distinguish between important vs. unimportant segments. Overall, the results suggest that (1) variations in pause duration and speech rate are not used systematically by Persian EFL speakers as fully structured cuing devices to indicate organization of spoken discourse, importance of sentences and meaning relations between sentences; (2) pitch change structuring as a cue to discourse prosodic prominence is completely absent in Persian learners' text production. The results are not consistent with earlier findings of prosodic realization of text structure and content in English native speakers' discourse data, but are in line with those obtained for non-native spoken discourse.   

Keywords

References

Anderson-Hsieh, J., Johnson, R., & Koehler, K. (1992). The relationship between native speaker judgments of nonnative pronunciation and deviance in segmentals, prosody and syllable structure. Language Learning, 42, 529–555.
Anderson-Hsieh, J., & Venkatagiri, H. (1995). Syllable duration and pausing in the speech of Chinese ESL speakers. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 807–812.
Andreeva, B., Barry, W., & Koreman, J. (2014). A Cross-Language Corpus for Studying the Phonetics and Phonology of Prominence. Reykjavik, The 9th Edition of the Language  Resources and Evaluation Conference, 26-31.
Andreeva, B., Barry, W., & Koreman, J. (2016). Local and Global Cues in the Prosodic Realization of Broad and Narrow Focus in Bulgarian. Phonetica, 73, 256-278.
Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of Conversation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UPress.
Bateman, J. A., & Rondhuis, K. J. (1997). Coherence relations: Towards a general specification. Discourse Processes, 24, 3–49.
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2005). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 4.3.01) [Computer program]. http://www.praat.org/.
Braun, B. (2015). What causes the activation of contrastive alternatives, the size of focus domain or pitch accent type? Proceedings of the 18th ICPhS, Glasgow, UK.
Calhoun, S. (2010). How does informativeness affect prosodic prominence?. Lang Cogn Process, 25, 1099-1140.
Davis, C. (2004). Developing awareness of crosscultural pragmatics: The case of           American/German sociable interaction. Multilingua, 23, 207-231.
den Ouden, H. (2004). Prosodic Realizations of Text Structure (PhD Dissertation). University of Tilburg.
den Ouden, H., & Terken, J. (2001). Measuring pitch range. In Proc. 7th Eur. Confer. Speech Commun. Technol., Aalborg, Danmark, 91–94.
den Ouden, H., Noordman, L., & Terken, J. (2009). Prosodic realizations of global and local structure and rhetorical relations in read aloud news reports. Speech Communication, 51, 116–129.
Hirschberg, J., & Grosz, B. (1992). Intonational features of local and global discourse structure. Proceedings Speech and Natural Language Workshop. Harriman, New York, pp. 441–446.
Hirschberg, J., & Nakatani, C. (1996). A prosodic analysis of discourse segments in direction-giving monologues. 34th Proceedings of the Annual Meeting Association for Computational Linguistics, Santa Cruz, 286–293.
Jilka, M. (2007). Different manifestations and perceptions of foreign accent in intonation. In J. Trouvain & U. Gut (Eds). Non-native prosody: Phonetic description & Teaching  Practice. (pp.77-96). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lehiste, I. (1975). The phonetic structure of paragraphs. In Cohen, A., Nooteboom, S. (Eds.), Structure and Process in Speech Perception (pp. 195–203). Springer, Berlin.
Lochwyn, T. (1999). Theater exercises in the ESL classroom. Unpublished paper.
Mann, B., & Thompson, S. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8, 243–281.
Mennen, I. (1998). Can language learners ever acquire the intonation of a second language?. Proceedings of the ESCA workshop on speech technology in language learning (pp. 17–20). Marholmen, Sweden: International Speech Communication Association.
Noordman, L., Dassen, I., Swerts, M., Terken, J. (1999). Prosodic markers of text structure. In van Hoek, K., Kibrik, A., Noordman, L. (Eds.), Discourse Studies in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 133–145). Benjamins, Amsterdam,
Pickering, L. (2001). The role of tone choice in improving ITA communication in the classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 233–255.
Pickering, L. (2004). The structure and function of intonational paragraphs in native and non-native speaker instructional discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 19–43. 
Prince, E. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. 223–255). Academis Press, New York,
Riggenbach, H. (1991). Toward an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of nonnative speaker conversations. Discourse Processes, 14, 423–441.
Rounds, P. (1987). Characterizing successful classroom discourse for NNS teaching assistant training. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 643–672.
Sanders, T., Noordman, L. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes 29, 37–60.
Sanders, T., Spooren, W., Noordman, L. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15, 1–35.
Schilperoord, J. (1996). It’s About Time. Dissertation, Utrecht University.
Silverman, K. E. A. (1987). The structure and processing of fundamental frequency contours (Doctoral dissertation). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
Swerts, M. (1997). Prosodic features at discourse boundaries of different strength. J. Acoust. Soc.  Am. 101, 514–521.
Sweetser, E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Thorsen, G., & N. Gronnum, (1985). Intonation and text in standard Danish. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 80, 1205–1216.
Tyler, A., & Davies, C. (1990). Cross-linguistic communication missteps. Text, 10, 385–411.
Tyler, A., Jefferies, A., & Davies, C. (1988). The effect of discourse structuring devices on listener perceptions of coherence in nonnative university teachers’ spoken discourse. World Englishes, 7, 101–110.
van Bezooijen, R. (1995). Sociocultural aspects of pitch differences between Japanese and Dutch women. Language & Speech, 38, 253–265.
van Donzel, M. (1999). Prosodic Aspects of Information Structure in Discourse. PhD  dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
Wennerstrom, A. (1994). Intonational meaning in English discourse. Applied Linguistics, 15, 399–421.
Wessels, C., & Lawrence, K. (1992). Using drama voice techniques in the teaching of  pronunciation. In A. Brown (Ed.), Approaches to pronunciation teaching (pp. 29–37). London: McMillan.
Wrembel, M. (2007). Metacompetence-based approach to the teaching of L2 prosody: Practical implications. In J. Trouvain & U. Gut (Eds). Non-native prosody: Phonetic description & Teaching Practice. (pp. 189-210). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Yule, G. (1980). Speakers’ topics and major paratones. Lingua, 52, 33–47.
Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies
Volume 9, Issue 2
November 2017
Pages 111-138

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics