Lanaguage Research
Language Education Institute, Seoul National University
Article

Information Status and Prosodic Prominence as Perceived by Korean Learners of English

Suyeon Im1,
*Corresponding Author : Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Chinese and Bilingual Studies The Hong Kong Polytechnic University AG 522, Core A, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, E-mail: suyeon.im@polyu.edu.hk

ⓒ Copyright 2019 Language Education Institute, Seoul National University. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Jun 29, 2019 ; Revised: Aug 14, 2019 ; Accepted: Aug 18, 2019

Published Online: Aug 31, 2019

ABSTRACT

This study investigates the relationship between information status and prosodic prominence perceived by Korean learners of the English language, compared to English native speakers, in a complete public speech. Both groups of speakers were asked to mark words that they perceived as being prominent, while listening to a speech in real time. The information status of a word was annotated as a function of referential and lexical information, as well as focus. The results show that Korean native speakers perceive prosodic prominence in a similar manner to that of English native speakers. Both groups are more likely to perceive prominence for new or focused words than for given or non-focused words. The two groups, however, differ in that Korean native speakers tend to more frequently perceive prominence for words carrying lexical information than English native speakers. This bias seems to be influenced by parts-of-speech, in alignment with the findings of previous studies.

Keywords: prosodic prominence; information status; Rapid Prosody Transcription; The RefLex Scheme; Korean learners of English

References

1.

Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker and Steve Walker. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1), 1-48 .

2.

Baumann, Stefan and Martine Grice. (2006). The intonation of accessibility. Journal of Pragmatics 38(10), 1636-1657 .

3.

Baumann, Stefan and Arndt Riester. (2013). Coreference, lexical givenness and prosody in German. Lingua 136, 16-37 .

4.

Beckman, Mary E. (1986). Stress and Non-Stress Accent (Netherlands Phonetic Archives Series). Dordrecht: Fortis .

5.

Beckman, Mary E. and Jan Edwards. (1994). Articulatory evidence for differentiating stress categories. In P. A. Keating, ed., Papers in Laboratory Phonology 3: Phonological Structure and Phonetic Form, 7-33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .

6.

Büring, Daniel. (2007). Intonation, semantics and information structure. In G. Ramchand and C. Reiss, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, 445-474. Oxford: Oxford University Press .

7.

Calhoun, Sasha. (2006). Information Structure and the Prosodic Structure of English: A Probabilistic Relationship. Doctoral dissertation. University of Edinburgh .

8.

Cangemi, Francesco and Martine Grice. (2016). The importance of a distributional approach to categoriality in autosegmental-metrical accounts of intonation. Laboratory Phonology 7(1), 1-20 .

9.

Chafe, Wallace. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In C. Li, ed., Subject and Topic, 25-55. New York: Academic Press .

10.

Chodroff, Eleanor and Jennifer Cole. (2018). Information structure, affect, and prenuclear prominence in American English. Proceedings of Interspeech 2018, 1848-1852 .

11.

Cole, Jennifer. (2015). Prosody in context: A review. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30(1-2), 1-31 .

12.

Cole, Jennifer, Heejin Kim, Hansook Choi and Mark Hasegawa-Johnson. (2007). Prosodic effects on acoustic cues to stop voicing and place of articulation: Evidence from radio news speech. Journal of Phonetics 35, 180-209 .

13.

Cole, Jennifer, Yoonsook Mo and Mark Hasegawa-Johnson. (2010). Signal-based and expectation-based factors in the perception of prosodic prominence. Laboratory Phonology 1(2), 425-452 .

14.

Cruttenden, Alan. (1986). Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .

15.

Cutts, Matt. (2011). Try Something New for Thirty Days. TED. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/matt_cutts_try_something_new_for_30_days .

16.

De Ruiter, Laura E. (2015). Information status marking in spontaneous vs. read speech in story-telling tasks-Evidence from intonation analysis using GToBI. Journal of Phonetics 48, 29-44 .

17.

Gussenhoven, Carlos. (2004). The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .

18.

Hirschberg, Julia. (1993). Pitch accent in context predicting intonational prominence from text. Artificial Intelligence 63(1-2), 305-340 .

19.

Im, Suyeon, Jennifer Cole and Stefan Baumann. (2018). The probabilistic relationship between pitch accents and information status in public speech. Proceedings of Speech Prosody 9, 508-511 .

20.

Ladd, Robert D. (2008). Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .

21.

Lee, Gary Geunbae, Ho-Young Lee, Jieun Song, Byeongchang Kim, Sechun Kang, Jinsik Lee and Hyosung Hwang. (2017). Automatic sentence stress feedback for non-native English learners. Computer Speech & Language 41, 29-42 .

22.

Lee, Ho-Young. (2011). Evaluation of Korean learners' English accentuation. Proceedings of the 16th National Conference of the English Phonetic Society of Japan and the Second International Congress of Phoneticians of English, 23-25 .

23.

Lee, Ho-Young and Jieun Song. (in press). Evaluating Korean learners' English rhythm proficiency with measures of sentence stress. Applied Psycholinguistics .

24.

Lee, Joo-Kyeong. (2005). The problems with Korean speakers' L* production in English and their implications for teaching English intonation. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 11(2), 177-190 .

25.

Mahrt, Tim. (2013). Language Markup and Experimental Design Software. Retrieved from http://www.timmahrt.com/lmeds.html .

26.

Mücke, Doris and Martine Grice. (2014). The effect of focus marking on supralaryngeal articulation-Is it mediated by accentuation? Journal of Phonetics 44, 47-61 .

27.

Pierrehumbert, Janet and Julia Bell Hirschberg. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. E. Pollack, eds., Intentions in Communication, 271-311. Cambridge: MIT Press .

28.

Prince, Ellen F. (1981). Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole, ed., Radical Pragmatics, 223-256. New York: Academic Press .

29.

R Core Team. (2019). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria .

30.

Riester, Arndt and Stefan Baumann. (2017). The RefLex scheme-annotation guidelines. SinSpeC 14, 1-31 .

31.

Rooth, Mats. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1), 75-116 .

32.

Sityaev, Dmitry. (2000). The relationship between accentuation and information status of discourse referents: A corpus-based study. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 12, 285-304 .

33.

Taylor, Ann, Mitchell P. Marcus and Beatrice Santorini. (2003). The Penn Treebank: An overview. In A. Abeillé, ed., Treebanks: Building and Using Parsed Corpora, 5-22. Dordrecht: Kluwer .

34.

Um, Hye-Young, Hye-suk Lee and Kee-Ho Kim. (2001). Korean speakers' realization of focus and information structure on English intonation in comparison with English native speakers. Speech Sciences 8(2), 133-148 .

35.

Yi, So Pae. (2011). An analysis of H* production by Korean learners of English according to the focus of English sentences in comparison with native speakers of English and its pedagogical implications. Phonetics and Speech Sciences 3(3), 57-62 .