Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
An Experimental Study on the Teachability and Learnability
of English Intonational Aspect: Acoustic Analysis on F0
and Native-Speaker Judgment Task
Toshinobu Nagamine
Indiana University of Pennsylvania, USA
Abstract
The present article reports on data collected to investigate the validity of the
previously proposed pedagogical practices, a hyper-pronunciation training method
with
the
current
materials
designed
to
teach
English
intonation.
Pronunciation-training sessions were carried out to teach English intonation
intensively to Japanese college students. Acoustic analysis on F0 (fundamental
frequency) and native-speaker judgment task were conducted to present authentic
data to validate instructional procedures applied in the study. The efficacy of the
instructional procedures was verified in the study: all students showed dramatic
improvement in a F0 range and a target F0 contour (a list-reading intonation pattern).
However, a discrepancy was observed between the acoustic data and the results of
the native-speaker judgment of perceived comprehensibility. Based on the overall
results, pedagogical implications for English teachers are discussed. This article is
an argument in support of the possibility of teaching and learning of English
intonational aspect as a step towards the teaching of intelligible pronunciation.
1. Introduction
Since the early 1980s, overall intelligibility1 has become a primary goal in pronunciation
pedagogy (Celce-Murcia, Brinton, & Goodwin, 1996; Morley, 1987, 1994). In the last
decade,
the
important
role
of
suprasegmentals
in
determining
perceived
362
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
comprehensibility or intelligibility of L2 speech has come to be recognized among many
scholars in the area of applied phonetics (e.g., Anderson-Hsieh, Johnson, & Koehler,
1992; Celce-Murcia et al., 1996; Monro & Derwing, 1995). Consequently, higher-level
features (prosody or suprasegmentals) and voice quality features receive much attention
in current pronunciation pedagogy (Celce-Murcia et al., 1996; Cross, 2002; Jones &
Evans, 1995; Todaka, 1995). Despite this fact, however, most ESL/EFL instructors today
tend
to
focus
on
foreign-accent
reduction
or
elimination in
instructional
activities/exercises, with a tendency to emphasize such lower-level features as discrete
units or segmentals (see Dalton & Seidlhofer, 1994; Riney & Anderson-Hsieh, 1993).
Thus, it is worthwhile reconsidering pronunciation teaching in relation to intelligibility in
L2 speech.
Suprasegmental features of English include stress, pitch, rhythm, intonation, and juncture
(cf., Cross, 2002; Jenkins, 1998; Roach, 2000).
Among these features, intonation
performs important functions in English (Brazil, 1985; Celce-Murcia et al., 1996; Levis,
1999). For instance, intonation functions as a signal of grammatical structure in English;
this is most obvious in marking sentence, clause, and other boundaries. It also functions
to clarify the contrasts between different question types (yes/no questions or information
questions) and the ways in which questions differ from statements.
In addition,
intonation is used to express speakers’ personal attitude or emotion along with other
363
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
prosodic and paralinguistic features.
ISSN 1475 - 8989
Furthermore, it gives turn-taking clues in
conversation and may also reveal social backgrounds of the speaker as well. In spite of
these important functions, however, intonation and its functions are not systematically
taught to Japanese learners of English (Todaka, 1993).
In fact, a number of suggestions or recommendations on teaching English intonation have
been proposed (e.g., Bradford, 2000; Cross, 2002; Levis, 1999; Levis, 2001; Morgan,
1997), but most of them lack authentic data to show the reliability of recommended
approaches and procedures.
To prevail on English teachers who want to apply
recommendations, it is necessary to show supporting evidence provided by further
experimental studies. In this regard, scientific studies conducted by second or foreign
language researchers on the learnability and teachability of English intonation should be
encouraged (see Bot, 1986; Els & Bot, 1987). This article, therefore, reports on data
collected to investigate the validity of the previously proposed pedagogical practices, a
hyper-pronunciation training method2 with the current materials designed to teach
English intonation. In the present study, pronunciation-training sessions were conducted
to teach English intonation intensively to Japanese L2 learners; before and after the
pronunciation training, acoustic analysis on F0 (fundamental frequency) that is the
acoustic correlate of pitch was conducted to present authentic data to validate
instructional procedures applied in the study. In addition, native-speaker judgment of
364
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
perceived comprehensibility was conducted to examine the effects of pronunciation
training on the perception of native speakers of English. The present article is an
argument in support of the possibility of teaching and learning of English intonational
aspect as a step towards the teaching of intelligible pronunciation.
2. Literature Review
Monro and Derwing (1995) examined the relationships among intelligibility, perceived
comprehensibility, and foreign accent in Mandarin L2 learners’ extemporaneous speech
of English.
Intelligibility was assessed on the basis of exact word matches of
transcriptions made by eighteen native speakers of English; the degree of foreign accent
and comprehensibility were rated on 9-point scales. They found that although the
strength of foreign accent is indeed correlated with intelligibility and perceived
comprehensibility, a strong foreign accent does not necessarily cause L2 speech to be low
in intelligibility or comprehensibility. From the pedagogical point of view, their study
suggests that foreign-accent reduction or elimination should not be focused, if
intelligibility and comprehensibility are regarded as the most important goals of
pronunciation teaching. It should also be noted here that Munro and Derwing reported
the important role of intonation3 in native-speaker judgment of comprehensibility and
foreign accent.
365
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
Anderson-Hsieh et al. (1992) investigated the relationship between native-speaker
judgment of nonnative pronunciation and actual deviance in segmentals, suprasegmentals,
and syllable structure. SPEAK Test tapes of speakers from eleven language groups were
rated impressionistically on pronunciation and then analyzed statistically.
Their
investigation showed that among specific elements (i.e., subsegmental, segmental, and
suprasegmentals) of pronunciation, the suprasegmentals have a greater influence on the
native-speaker judgment on intelligibility of L2 speech than the other elements. This
finding is in line with Halle and Stevens (1962) and Stevens (1960) who claim that errors
in segmental phoneme production are less significant to overall intelligibility than
higher-level features (i.e., errors in the suprasegmental domain). Accordingly, it is
worthwhile reconsidering the priority of teaching suprasegmentals (Celce-Murcia et al.,
1996; Cross, 2002; Esling, 1994; Esling & Wong, 1983; Gilbert, 1987, 1994).
Fry (1955, 1958) examined the acoustic and perceptual correlates of lexical stress in
English and confirmed the existence of a hierarchy of acoustic cues to the stressed status
of a syllable in English. According to Fry, the perceptually most influential cue was
dynamic change of pitch, that is, ‘intonation.’ Moreover, Ohala and Gilbert (1987)
investigated the teachability and learnability of intonation in terms of perception. The
participants of their study were trained to listen only to the intonation of the three
different spoken languages (Japanese, English, and Cantonese). Their study verified that
366
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
it is possible to train people to identify languages on the basis of intonation through
practice.
Todaka (1993) investigated Japanese students’ English intonation on the basis of the
study of Beckman and Pierrehumbert (1986). He categorized eight major types of errors
made by Japanese speakers of English: (a) the same vowel length between stressed and
unstressed words in an utterance; (b) one distinct pitch shape for pitch accents: a sharp
rise followed by a sharp fall; (c) smaller pitch excursions than native speakers of English;
(d) no tone-spreading phenomenon in required contexts; (e) no secondary accent in
multi-syllable words; (f) no deaccenting phenomenon in contrastive situations; (g)
excessive use of boundaries in long phrases; and (h) delayed final rise for a question
contour. Some of these intonational or rhythmic errors were also reported by many other
scholars (Browne & Huckin, 1987; Celce-Murcia et al., 1996; Kanzaki, 1996; Nakaji,
1993; Nicoll & Todaka, 1995; Takefuta, 1982; Todaka, 1990). According to Todaka,
even though many similarities between Japanese and English intonation systems had
been found, “there are still many differences which lead one to expect L1 intonational
interference” (p. 24). Although it is difficult to determine whether the errors observed in
his study were due solely to L1 interference, he assumed that most of these errors
discussed above were probably stemmed from Japanese speakers’ L1 interference.
Moreover, such errors might also be made due to interlanguage effects as well (cf.,
367
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
Lepetit, 1990).
3. Methods
3.1. Participants
Fifteen Japanese students, three males and twelve females, voluntarily participated in the
study. The participants were students of Miyazaki Municipal University (MMU). The
ratio of female to male was 4 to 1; this figure reflects the recent population of MMU
students. None of them had had prior English pronunciation training. In addition, two
native English speakers (American), one male and one female, provided model
recordings for data comparison. Finally, four native speakers, three males (one Irish, one
British, and one American) and one female (American), participated in the native-speaker
judgment task.
3.2. Study Period
The present study was conducted during the spring semester of MMU. A total of twelve
pronunciation-training sessions were conducted in order to reflect the actual conditions
under which English conversation classes at MMU were taught: one ninety-minute
session a week for one thirteen-week semester, with a final session devoted to a final
examination. Each pronunciation-training session was limited to thirty to forty minutes;
this was assumed to be the maximum time available for teaching the pronunciation aspect
368
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
of the target language in a regular ninety-minute class.
3.3. Speech Material
The participants were asked to read a diagnostic passage offered by Prator and Robinett
(1985) twice, before and after the pronunciation-training sessions (see Appendix A).
Although all eleven sentences in the diagnostic passage were audio-recorded, sentence
(6) “At first it is not easy for him to be casual in dress, informal in manner, and confident
in speech,” was selected for our examination before the study without any announcement
for the participants. Sentence (6) was chosen because the target intonation pattern in the
present study was a list-reading intonation contour; the expected pitch contour was,
therefore, rising intonation followed by rising-falling intonation.
A total of 15 utterances (15 participants x 1 sentence) were investigated for each
recording (i.e., before/after the pronunciation-training sessions).
In addition, their
productions were randomly paired on a tape as instances of pre-training data (T1) versus
post-training data (T2) for native-speaker judgment of comprehensibility.
The
randomization procedure used in the study is discussed in the Native-Speaker Judgment
Task section.
369
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
3.4. Experimental Procedures
Speech materials read by the participants were audio-recorded in a recording room using
a Panasonic microphone before and after the pronunciation-training sessions. The
spoken material was pre-amplified and recorded on a Panasonic tape-recorder. The
participants read the diagnostic passage once at normal speaking rate. Before the actual
recording, the participants practiced their readings twice silently. Recordings were also
made of two native speakers of American English (one male and one female). Their
productions were digitized at a 10-kHz sampling rate that automatically set the low-pass
filter to a cutoff frequency of 4-kHz using Kay Computerized Speech Lab (CSL).
Intonation consists of the occurrence of recurring pitch patterns (Cruttenden, 1986). The
phonetic correlate of the pitch of the voice is the frequency (or rate) of vibration of the
vocal folds during the voicing of segments; its acoustic correlate is fundamental
frequency (F0) measured in cycles per second. The modern notation of F0 is Hz (Hertz).
In general, F0 for a male and a female is known to be about 120 Hz and 220 Hz
respectively. Since voiceless sounds do not have F0, auditory perception of pitch and the
supplementary use of intonation in waveform displayed on CSL were also employed for
acoustic analysis (see Figure 1). Furthermore, CSL pitch-program4 was also utilized to
investigate the F0 contours of the participants.
370
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
Figure 1: Sample CSL Screen
3.5. Native-Speaker Judgment Task
As previously noted, intelligibility of nonnative pronunciation is usually assessed on the
basis of exact word matches of transcriptions made by native speakers (cf., Brodkey,
1972; Fayer & Krasinski, 1987; Munro & Derwing, 1995). Since the same spoken
materials were used in the study, it was not possible to have native speakers transcribe the
recorded utterances to assess intelligibility. Therefore, we focused on native-speaker
judgment to determine whether or not each pronunciation of Japanese participant was
perceived to be better at post-training than at pre-training. That is, an attempt to assess
comprehensibility in terms of pronunciation aspect of the recorded utterances was made
in the native-speaker judgment task.
The audio-recorded productions were edited utilizing CSL. A Pioneer stereo cassette
371
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
deck (T-075) was used to play back the recordings. The productions of the Japanese
participants were randomly paired on a tape as instances of pre-training data (T1) versus
post-training data (T2) for the native-speaker judgment of comprehensibility. The pairs
were randomized such that a T1/T2 contrast appeared as: (a) T1 followed by T2, once as;
(b) T2 followed by T1; and (c) a third time randomly as either T1 followed by T2 or T2
followed by T1. Thus, for each Japanese participant, there were three occurrences of a
pair, contrasting T1 performance with T2 performance.
Four native speakers participated in the native-speaker judgment task were asked to listen
to a number of those pairs and to determine whether or not each pronunciation of
Japanese participant was perceived to be better at post-training than at pre-training in a
forced-choice discrimination task. Each native speaker was to listen individually to the
utterances as they appeared in pairs and to circle either A or B on a response sheet to
indicate their judgments. Checking A indicated a judgment of the first occurrence of an
utterance in a pair as most comprehensible, whereas checking B indicated a judgment of
the second occurrence in a pair as most comprehensible. Each native speaker listened to
the tape in a small room; each completed a separate response sheet.
3.6. Instructional Procedures
Characteristics of voicing have been reported to be different among languages;
372
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
differences in voicing may be attributed to language-specific breathing manner. For
instance, the problematic foreignness of English spoken by Japanese speakers are
stemmed from the lack of awareness of breathing-manner differences or the lack of
knowledge of the effective use of the pulmonic air pressure (e.g., Ishiki & Matsui, 1993;
Nagamine & Todaka, 1996; Tateno, 1984; Todaka, 1995). Japanese speakers’ speech
characteristics as reported by Tateno (1984) are: (a) to tighten the throat so that the root of
the tongue is raised. As a result, the pharynx is narrowed; (b) the opening of the mouth is
narrow; (c) rather strained voice; (d) bad resonance; (e) bad glottal efficiency; (f) more
inspiratory noise; (g) when uttering a loud voice, they tend to yell and cannot project the
voices appropriately; and (h) less expiratory pressure. Among these characteristics, (d)
bad resonance and (h) less expiratory pressure have often been described as
characteristics of English spoken by Japanese L2 learners. Therefore, it can be assumed
that abdominal breathing training may be beneficial for Japanese L2 learners to utilize the
resonance of the vocal organ fuller and enhance the effectiveness of fundamental
pronunciation training (Maeda & Imanaka, 1995).
Todaka (1995, 1996) advocated a hyper-pronunciation training method to help L2
learners to understand the effective use of the source of acoustic energy and to increase
awareness of English-specific sound/acoustic features (cf., Celce-Murcia et al., 1996;
Cross, 2002; Nagamine & Todaka, 1996). In the present study, the hyper-pronunciation
373
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
training method was applied to teach the English intonational aspect on the prime
assumption that the effective use of the pulmonic air and the proper understanding of the
functions of articulators enable the learner to produce English sounds adequately.
Furthermore, since it has been reported that the overall maneuvering of the speech
production organs are different (Honikman, 1964), and that the L1 settings imposed on
L2 settings may make the acquisition of the target sounds difficult (Esling & Wong, 1983),
the participants were instructed to gain awareness of the general setting differences
between L1 and L2 (Japanese and English) at the beginning of the pronunciation-training
sessions.
Prator and Robinett’s (1985) intonation system described in Manual of American English
Pronunciation was applied in the training sessions. There were a few reasons for
applying their system. First, the target pronunciation of the present study was American
English. Second, their system was originally designed for pedagogical purpose, namely,
the instructional priorities and descriptions were well considered.
Based on their
intonation system, fundamental functions of English intonation were taught and
practiced.
Teaching materials used in the pronunciation-training sessions were designed based on
the above pedagogical outline with references to Handschuh and Simounet’s (1985) oral
374
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
practice exercises, Evans’s (1993) communicative lesson exercises, Gilbert’s (1987, 1993,
1994) exercise prototypes, and Ishiki and Matsui’s (1993) exercises and descriptions.
Each session was devoted mostly to pair work. Since it is crucial for learners to be able to
apply the principles learned in the sessions, instructions to modify their speech from
exaggerated-level to natural discourse-level were made at the end of each session (for
further detail on instructional procedures, please consult the sample lesson in Appendix
B). Finally, all participants were asked to report their daily practice.
4. Results and Discussions
In the present study, F0 of an English sentence from the diagnostic passage was examined
acoustically and auditorily in order to test the efficacy of the pronunciation-training
sessions. For the target sentence, a list-reading intonation contour (i.e., rising intonation
on all members of the series followed by rising-falling intonation on the last member) was
expected.
Since two of the fifteen participants were absent from the
pronunciation-training sessions, the results presented here are based on the data gathered
from the thirteen participants. The results are discussed in the following order: (a) native
speakers’ data collected; (b) pre-training data of Japanese participants; (c) post-training
data of Japanese participants; (d) comparison of the data collected; (e) native-speaker
judgment on comprehensibility.
375
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
4.1. Native Speakers’ Data
F0 shapes of two native speakers were approximately the same (see details of F0 contours
in Figure 2a and 2b), with F0 ranges of 112 Hz (a male) and 137 Hz (a female)
respectively. A female participant had a wider F0 range than a male participant (see Table
1).
Figure 2a: American Male Participant
Figure 2b American Female Participant
The typical characteristic of a list-reading F0 contour was found on ‘dress,’ ‘manner,’ and
the last word ‘speech’; they showed rising contours on the first two items in the list and a
rising-falling contour on the last, as expected. Their rising or sustained contours were
also observed at ‘him.’ In addition, both showed a gradual fall to the lowest point on the
376
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
last word ‘speech.’ This complete fall of the voice to a low tone at the end of a sentence is
quite important in that the complete fall at the end of a sentence indicates that the speech
is finished (see Table 1).
Both put the highest peaks on ‘first.’ Actual peaks occurred at ‘easy,’ ‘casual,’ ‘dress,’
‘informal,’ ‘manner,’ ‘confident,’ and ‘speech.’ Because these words are all content
words that carry important meanings, the participants put sentence-stress on each of them
in order to make them prominent; as a result, their pitch was raised. Such a regular
occurrence of the sentence-stress in the utterance plays an important role to specific
rhythm in English. This specific rhythm (stress-timed rhythm) is a backbone for English
intonation.
Thus, English is generally described as an intonation or stress- timed
language; Japanese, on the other hand, is described as syllable-timed or pitch accent
language (see Cruttenden, 1986). Finally, pauses between ‘dress’ and ‘informal’ were a
little longer than the other intermediate pauses.
4.2. Pre-Training Data of Japanese Participants
Average F0 ranges for the male and female participants were 75 Hz and 97.73 Hz
respectively (see Table 2); individual participants’ F0 rages (both pre-and post-training
data) are presented in Table 4. The female participants had a tendency to use wider F0
ranges than those of the male participants. All the participants showed a tendency to use
377
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
smaller F0 excursions than those of the native participants before the training sessions.
This finding coincides with the results reported previously (Kanzaki, 1996; Nakaji, 1993;
Takefuta, 1982; Todaka, 1993).
The Japanese participants, unlike the native speakers, displayed inconsistent peaks in the
utterances; only four of them put the highest peaks on ‘first’ as observed in the native
speakers. One possible explanation for this finding, though speculative, may be that the
participants did not fully grasp the content of the diagnostic passage and thus, they might
not have been able to understand which word they should emphasize in context. In
addition, it is also assumed that they did not have sufficient knowledge on sentence-stress,
and that they might not have been taught how to stress English sentences adequately.
Regarding this issue, it is useful to cite Watanabe’s (1988) report here:
Japanese students, not having been taught how to stress English sentences
properly, tend to read or speak English without a proper sense of English
rhythm. As a result, they often stress not only almost every content word but
also some function words, regardless of the meaning of the sentence (181).
F0 contours of the participants were quite different from those of the native speakers (see
Figure 3a and 3b). None of the participants had an adequate intonation pattern (a
list-reading intonation contour). In addition, all the participants used falling intonation or
378
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
unsustained F0 contours on the first two series (‘dress’ and ‘manner’) and nine out of
thirteen participants did not show a complete fall to the lowest point on the last word
‘speech.’ Moreover, the participants, as a whole, tended to use more pauses than the
native speakers; some of these pauses seemed to have been generated as the results of the
participants’ clumsiness of articulation or hesitation. This tendency was previously
reported by Kanzaki (1996) and Todaka (1993).
Figure 3a: Pre-Training Data (A Male Participant)
Figure 3b: Pre-Training Data (A Female Participant)
4.3. Post-Training Data of Japanese Participants
Average F0 ranges of the male and female participants were 108.5 Hz and 132.55 Hz
respectively (see Table 3); Table 4 shows individual participants’ F0 ranges (both pre-and
379
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
post-training data). The figures of their average F0 ranges closely matched those of the
native speakers (i.e., 112 Hz for a male and 137 Hz for a female) although dispersion of
the highest peaks was observed. Seemingly, most of the participants might not have been
able to grasp the meaning of the diagnostic passage, or they had not learned English
sentence-stress.
The expected list-reading F0 contour was found in eleven out of thirteen participants (see
Figure 4a and 4b); only two participants did not raise or sustain their F0 contour on at
least one of the series of the list. All the participants showed a complete fall to the lowest
point on the last word ‘speech.’ In addition, the participants were observed to have more
pauses than the native speakers (Kanzaki, 1996; Todaka, 1993). Furthermore, four
female participants made errors in word-stress and segmental phoneme production even
though these types of errors were not found in the pre-training data.
Figure 4a: Post-Training Data (A Male Participant)
380
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
Figure 4b: Post-Training Data (A Female Participant)
4.4. Data Comparison (Pre-Training Data vs. Post-Training Data)
In the pre-training data, the Japanese participants showed a narrower F0 range (i.e., a
smaller F0 excursion) than native speakers of English examined in the present study.
Compared to the post-training data, however, the F0 of the Japanese participants showed
a much broader rage (see Table 4). As for the F0 shapes of all participants, none showed
an adequate list-reading F0 contour prior to the training sessions, while eleven out of
thirteen participants showed a proper F0 shape after the training sessions. Additionally,
although two participants did not raise or sustain their F0 contour on at least one of the
series of the list, all the participants showed improvement in a complete fall on the last
word after the training sessions. Moreover, the native speakers put the highest peaks on
‘first,’ but most of the Japanese participants put the highest peaks on different words in
the pre-and-post training data. Finally, inconsistency in putting longer pauses as well as
dispersion of the highest peaks was found in the present study.
In summary, the data discussed above shows that the Japanese participants made dramatic
381
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
improvement in a F0 range and an adequate use of F0 contour through the training
sessions. As for the two participants who did not show the adequate F0 shapes, though
their rising-falling intonation at the end of the sentence clearly improved, they might be
unable to acquire the use of expected list-reading F0 contour during the term of the
investigation; as one of the natural effects of pronunciation instruction, however, it is
possible to speculate that the participants’ improvement in English intonational aspect is
under way and subsequent improvement (or deterioration) is likely to take place after the
study period (Yule & Macdonald, 1994).
4.5. Native-Speaker Judgment Task on Comprehensibility
4.5.1. Native-Speaker Preference Scores
As previously noted, the comprehensibility of the recorded utterances was rated three
times in random T1 and T2 pairings by four different native speakers of English (one Irish,
one British, and two American). Thus, there were 12 (3 x 4) judgments of T1 and T2
contrasts in total. As the judgment task required listeners to choose either T1 or T2 as
being closer to the target form, and as the focus of this task was to examine the perceived
change in performance after the training sessions, the numbers presented as results reflect
native-speaker choices of T2 over T1. Table 5 presents the results of the judgment task,
and column headed T2 presents the percentage scores of the native-speaker judgment for
the post-instructional recordings: 50% represents no preference by the native-speaker
382
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
perception judges for T1 or T2; when percentage scores are below 50%, they indicate the
extent to which T1 utterances were chosen in preference to T2 for each participant; and
when percentage scores are over 50%, they represent the extent to which T2 utterances
were chosen in preference to T1 (cf., Macdonald, Yule, & Powers, 1994).
As can be seen from Table 5, six participants’ T2 utterances (FP1, FP2, FP3, FP5, FP7,
and FP8) were judged to have improved in terms of comprehensibility, and the other six
participants’ T2 utterances (FP6, FP9, FP10, FP11, MP1, and MP2) were judged to have
less comprehensibility than T1 utterances. In addition, one participant’s T2 utterances
(FP4) were judged to be no change from T1 utterances.
4.5.2. Inter-Participant Variability Examination
In order to examine the collected data in the native-speaker judgment task to see if
inter-participant variability exists, the following factors were taken into account in
addition to the improvements in a F0 contour (list-reading F0 shape and complete fall on
the last word) and a F0 range: (a) position of the highest peak; (b) errors in word-stress;
(c) errors in segmental phoneme production; (d) inconsistency in the use of longer pauses;
and (e) time for daily practice at home. The results of this examination are shown in
Table 6, in which all the participants were sorted out in accordance with their percentage
scores of the native-speaker preference.
383
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
FP4 and MP2 showed the same changes in position of the highest peaks (from ‘first’ to
‘not’). Despite this fact, however, percentage scores for T2 utterances were different
(50% for FP4 and 16.7% for MP2).
FP4 made an error in word-stress, but this
participant’s T2 utterances were judged to have no progress in terms of perceived
comprehensibility. Namely, the word-stress error of FP4 did not affect the percentage
scores of the perceived comprehensibility. MP2 showed an inadequate list-reading F0
contour and was judged to have less comprehensibility in his T2 utterances. Moreover,
even though FP1 showed exactly the same word-stress error as did FP4, T2 utterances of
FP1 were judged to have more comprehensibility than T1 utterances with the maximum
percentage score of 83.3%. Taken all together, it can be assumed that F0 shape is more
important factor than word-stress error to cause L2 speech to be low in perceived
comprehensibility.
FP6 and MP1 showed the same changes in position of the highest peaks (from ‘first’ to
‘manner’). Figures of the percentage of preference for T2 were 41.7% for FP6 and 16.7%
for MP1. What is interesting here is that FP6’s percentage score is higher than that of
MP1 even though FP6 did not show a proper list-reading F0 shape. MP1, unlike the other
participants, put excessive use of pauses in T2 utterances. Most of the pauses found in
MP1 seemed to have been generated as the results of the participant’s clumsiness of
articulation or hesitation; Fayer and Kransinski (1987) reported that “pronunciation and
384
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
hesitation were the most frequent distractions to the message reported by both native and
nonnative listeners” (p. 324). Accordingly, extra pauses due to the result of hesitation or
clumsiness of articulation can be assumed to cause L2 speech to be low in perceived
comprehensibility. It is, therefore, speculated that excessive use of phrase boundaries or
pauses is more important factor than an appropriate use of F0 shape to affect the
comprehensibility of L2 speech.
FP9 was judged to have less comprehensibility in T2 with the percentage of preference
for T2 of 25%. This participant showed two types of errors in both segmental and
suprasegmental domains (segmental phoneme production and sentence-stress).
Regarding the sentence-stress error, this participant put the highest peak on ‘confident,’
content word, in T1, and on ‘at,’ function word, in T2. As mentioned earlier, putting
sentence stress on proper content word plays a crucial role in English. Thus, the highest
peak on function word (sentence-stress error) and errors in segmental phoneme
productions might have caused the T2 utterances to be low in perceived
comprehensibility.
FP10 was judged to have less comprehensibility in T2 with the percentage of preference
for T2 of 33.3%. There seem to be no factors that might have affected the percentage
score (see Table 6), but the inter-rater variability examination revealed that there was a
385
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
factor that might have influenced the result of this participant. In the native-speaker
judgment task, every participant was considered to have more comprehensibility when
each native speaker checked T2 more than twice on a response sheet (see Table 7). As for
FP10, unlike the other participants, only two native-speakers who had Irish and British
backgrounds checked FP10’s T2 utterances more than twice while two American
native-speakers did not. Therefore, though speculative, it is assumed that FP10 had a
British accent, and that there might be a discrepancy in the dimension of target accent
among the native speakers (i.e., American accent vs. British accent).
4.5.3. Inter-Rater Variability Examination
Table 7 shows which Japanese participant’s T2 utterance was selected over twice by each
native speaker in the judgement task. The inter-rater variability examination revealed
that the American male rater judged the utterances consistently in terms of English
intonational aspect. This rater might have been tolerant of the word-stress errors, but not
of the errors in segmental phoneme production. On the other hand, the American female
rater was observed to be intolerant of the errors in lower-level features (word-stress and
segmental phoneme production). In addition, this rater might have changed her criterion
from higher-level features to lower-level features to judge the utterances during the
judgment session.
386
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
As for the Irish male rater, he showed the same tendency of conversion (from higher-level
to lower-level features) in criterion as did the American female rater. This rater might
have been less tolerant of the errors in segmental phoneme production than of the errors
in word-stress. Finally, compared to the other raters, the British male rater judged the
utterances inconsistently.
This rater, though speculative, might have judged the
utterances with a different criterion (higher-level or lower-level features) on each
Japanese participant.
4.5.4. Summary
Overall results indicate that although some deterioration in comprehensibility of the
Japanese participants was perceived in the native-speaker judgment task, the efficacy of
pronunciation training in which English intonation was intensively taught was verified in
at least a half of the Japanese participants. Moreover, it was found that although the
judgments of the native speakers were made from different criteria or perspective, the
errors in a F0 shape and excessive use of phrase boundaries may be the most influential
factors to affect perceived comprehensibility.
As for the deterioration in
comprehensibility indicated in the study, it is important to keep in mind that a less stable
performance with increased non-target-like forms is likely to take place before
improvement (Macdonald et al., 1994). Finally, no relationship was found between the
reported time length of daily practice and the overall data examined in the present study.
387
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
5. Concluding Remarks and Implications for ESL/EFL Teachers
The present article is an argument in support of the possibility of teaching and learning of
English intonational aspect in L2 learners as a step towards the teaching of intelligible
pronunciation.
Acoustic analysis on F0 and native-speaker judgment task were
conducted
validate
to
the
previously
proposed
pedagogical
practices,
a
hyper-pronunciation training method with the current materials designed to teach English
intonation. The results of the present study imply that the improvement in a F0 range and
F0 contour acoustically observed in acoustic analysis does not mean the similar effects on
the improvement of comprehensibility judged by the native speakers.5 Nonetheless, as
the study clearly shows, it is worthwhile to pay attention to the finding that the errors in a
F0 shape and excessive use of phrase boundaries (i.e., errors in suprasegmentals) are the
most influential factors that affect perceived comprehensibility of L2 speech. In what
follows, some implications for ESL/EFL teachers are presented on the basis of the
research findings.
a) English intonation may be best taught if it is instructed and practiced with
the appropriate use of phrase boundaries. In addition, since the use of phrase
boundaries is closely related to speakers’ pausing manner, teachers are also
recommended to help students learn when and how they should pause their
speech, using correct intonation patterns.
388
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
b) Learners who tend to have difficulty in stressing content words adequately
may be likely to make problematic intonational errors in their speech. Thus,
they should be able to distinguish content words from function words before
starting to learn how to put sentence-stress properly (cf., Levis, 1999).
c) Since English intonation is closely linked with learners’ semantic (and
pragmatic) understanding (both sentential and sprasentential/discourse
levels), ESL/EFL teachers are encouraged to teach English intonation with
much emphasis on communicative purposes and functions in social
interaction (see Brazil, 1985; Levis, 1999; Morgan, 1997). In addition,
teachers are also encouraged to teach English intonation not only in
pronunciation/conversation classes but also in other types of English classes
(e.g., reading/listening comprehension classes).
d) Comprehensibility or intelligibility is, indeed, crucial in L2 speech, but as
the present study implies, such objective measures as acoustic analysis on F0
do not necessarily reflect the native-speakers’ perceptions of L2 speech. Thus,
more subjective, holistic measures (e.g., interview sessions with native
speakers) should be used, especially, when nonnative English teachers
evaluate students’ improvement of pronunciation in terms of perceived
comprehensibility or overall intelligibility.
e) The instructional procedures applied in the study may be helpful for
389
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
ESL/EFL teachers who teach L2 learners showing narrow pitch excursions
(or monotonous intonation patterns); such teachers are encouraged to
examine learners’ voicing manners and speech characteristics and incorporate
some voicing and abdominal breathing training into instructional activities.
Finally, it is important to note the limitation of the study due to the numbers of the
participants and the term of the investigation. The participants were restricted to only
Japanese L2 speakers; hence, the findings of the study may not extend to English L2
learners from other L1 backgrounds. Furthermore, the empirical condition of the study
does not reflect real-life communication situations. Bearing these cautionary notes in
mind, I nevertheless suggest that this kind of empirical study does provide some
important insights and some valid pedagogical possibilities in the teaching and learning
of intelligible pronunciation.
About the Author
Toshinobu Nagamine is a doctoral candidate in Composition and TESOL at Indiana
University of Pennsylvania, USA. He is also a teaching associate in the English
department.
Email: tn_73@yahoo.co.jp
390
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
Tables
Table 1 F0 Ranges of Native Speakers of English (Hz)
Male
Female
Average
Range
112
137
124.5
Minimum
92
189
140.5
Maximum
204
326
265
Table 2 Average F0 Ranges of Japanese Participants: Pre-Training Data (Hz)
Male
Female
Range
75
97.73
Minimum
96
187.82
Maximum
171
285.55
Table 3 Average F0 Ranges of Japanese Participants: Post-Training Data (Hz)
Male
Female
Range
108.5
132.55
Minimum
98
190.36
Maximum
206.5
322.91
Table 4 F0 Ranges of Individual Japanese Participants: Pre-and Post-Training Data (Hz)
Participant
MP1-Pre
MP1-Post
MP2-Pre
MP2-Post
FP1-Pre
FP1-Post
FP2-Pre
FP2-Post
FP3-Pre
FP3-Post
FP4-Pre
FP4-Post
FP5-Pre
FP5-Post
FP6-Pre
FP6-Post
FP7-Pre
FP7-Post
FP8-Pre
FP8-Post
FP9-Pre
Minimum
100
97
92
99
188
196
178
189
167
193
200
227
183
164
193
172
185
182
200
196
173
Maximum
175
205
167
208
270
346
244
286
270
333
286
345
278
301
263
294
301
323
263
313
294
Rage
75
108
75
109
82
150
66
97
103
140
86
118
95
137
70
122
116
141
63
117
121
391
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
FP9-Post
FP10-Pre
FP10-Post
FP11-Pre
FP11-Post
ISSN 1475 - 8989
182
217
200
182
193
345
324
333
348
333
163
107
133
166
140
FP=Female Participant MP=Male Participant
Table 5 Percentage Score of Preference for T2 (vs. T1)
Participant
FP1
FP2
FP3
FP4
FP5
FP6
FP7
FP8
FP9
FP10
FP11
MP1
MP2
T2 (%)
83.3
75
83.3
50
83.3
41.7
58.3
66.7
25
33.3
41.7
16.7
16.7
FP=Female Participant MP=Male Participant
Table 6 Inter-Participant Variability
FP1
FP3
FP5
FP2
FP8
FP7
FP4
FP6
FP11
FP10
FP9
MP1
MP2
Preference
for T2 (%)
83.3
83.3
83.3
75
66.7
58.3
50
41.7
41.7
33.3
25
16.7
16.7
Highest Peak
Pre
Post
him
not
at
easy
informal
not
confident
confident
confident
first
informal
dress
first
not
first
manner
confident
informal
manner
first
confident
at
first
manner
first
not
Error Types found in T2 Utterances
word-stress
word-stress
F0 shape
word-stress
sentence-stress, segmental phoneme productions
excessive use of pauses (phrase boundaries)
F0 shape
392
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
Table 7 Inter-Rater Variability
Participant
FP1
FP2
FP3
FP4
FP5
FP6
FP7
FP8
FP9
FP10
FP11
MP1
MP2
American (male)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
American (female)
x
x
x
x
Irish (male)
x
x
x
x
x
English (male)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
‘X’ indicates that the rater checked the T2 over twice on a response sheet.
Acknowledgment
I thank Dr. Yuichi Todaka for his insightful comments and suggestions throughout the
research process. My deep appreciation goes to Hitomi Saso and Todd Miller who
generously offered helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.
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.
Beckman, M., & Pierrehumbert, J. (1986). Intonational structure in Japanese and
English. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 255-309.
Bot, K.D. (1986). The transfer of intonation and the missing data base. In E.
Kellerman & M.S. Smith (Eds.), Crosslinguistic influence in second language
acquisition (pp. 110-119). New York: Pergamaon Press.
Bradford, B. (2000). Intonation in context – Student’s book. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
393
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
Brazil, D. (1985). The communicative value of intonation in English. Birmingham,
England: English Language Research.
Brodkey, D. (1972). Dictation as a measure of mutual intelligibility. Language
Learning, 22, 203-220.
Browne, S.C., & Huckin, T.N. (1987). Pronunciation tutorials for nonnative
technical professionals: A program description. In J. Morley (Ed.), Current
perspectives on pronunciation: Practices anchored in theory (pp. 45-57).
Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D., & Goodwin, J. (1996). Teaching pronunciation: A
reference for teachers of English to speakers of other languages. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cross, J. (2002). A comparison of Japanese and English suprasegmental
pronunciation as an aid to raising learner awareness. The Language Teacher,
26 (4), 9-13.
Cruttenden, A. (1986). Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dalton, C., & Seidlhofer, B. (1994). Pronunciation. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Els, T.V., & Bot, K.D. (1987). The role of intonation in foreign accent. The
Modern Language Journal, 71, 147-154.
Esling, J.H. (1994). Some perspectives on accent: Range of voice quality variation,
the periphery, and focusing. In J. Morley (Ed.), Pronunciation pedagogy and
theory: New views, new directions (pp. 51-63). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Esling, J.H., & Wong, R.F. (1983). Voice quality settings and the teaching of
pronunciation. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 89-95.
Evans, D. (1993). Rightside-up pronunciation for the Japanese: Preparing top-down
communicative lessons. JALT Journal, 15 (1), 39-52.
Fayer, J.M., & Krasinski, E. (1987). Native and nonnative judgments of
intelligibility and irritation. Language Learning, 37, 313-326.
Fry, D.B. (1955). Duration and intensity as physical correlates of linguistic stress.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 27, 765-768.
394
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
Fry, D.B. (1958). Experiments in the perception of stress. Language and Speech,
1, 126-152.
Gass, S.M., & Varonis, E.M. (1984). The effect of familiarity on the
comprehensibility of nonnative speech. Language Learning, 34 (1), 65-89.
Gilbert, J.B. (1987). Pronunciation and listening comprehension. In J. Morley
(Ed.), Current perspectives on pronunciation: Practices anchored in theory
(pp. 33-39). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Gilbert, J.B. (1993). Clear speech: Pronunciation and listening comprehension in
North American English. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gilbert, J.B. (1994). Intonation: A navigation guide for the listener (and gadgets to
help teach it). In J. Morley (Ed.), Pronunciation pedagogy and theory: New
views, new directions (pp. 38-48). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Halle, M., & Stevens, K. (1962). Speech recognition: A model and a program for
research. IRE Transactions of the Professional Group on Information Theory,
IT-8, 155-159.
Handschuh, J., & Simounet, d.G.A. (1985). Improving oral communication. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Honikman, B. (1964). Articulatory settings. In D. Abercrombie, D.B. Fry, P.A.D.
MacCarthy, N.C. Scott and J.L. Trim (Eds.), In honor of Daniel Jones (pp.
73-84). London: Longman.
Ishiki, M., & Matsui, C. (1993). Eigo onseigaku: Nihongotono hikakuniyoru
[English phonetics: In comparison with Japanese]. Tokyo: Asahi Shuppansha.
Jenkins, J. (1998). Which pronunciation norms and models for English as an
International Language? English Language Teaching Journal, 52 (2),
119-126.
Jones, R.H., & Evans, S. (1995). Teaching pronunciation through voice quality.
ELT Journal, 49 (3).
Kanzaki, K. (1996). Some prosodic features observed in the passage reading by
Japanese learners of English. Proceedings of the First Seoul International
Conference on Phonetic Science, 37-42. The Phonetic Society of Korea.
395
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
Lepetit, D. (1990). The F0 learner: A phonologically deaf. The Bulletin of the
Phonetic Society of Japan, 195, 11-17.
Levis, J.M. (1999). Intonation in theory and practice, revisited. TESOL Quarterly,
33 (1), 37-63.
Levis, J. (2001). Teaching focus for conversational use. English Language Teaching
Journal, 55 (1), 44-51.
Ludwig, J. (1982). Native-speaker judgments of second-language learners’ efforts at
communication: A review. Modern Language Journal, 66, 274-283.
Macdonald, D., Yule, G., & Powers, M. (1994). Attempts to improve English L2
pronunciation: The variable effects of different types of instruction. Language
Learning, 44 (1), 75-100.
Maeda, H., & Imanaka, M. (1995). Pilot study on the acquisition of speech
breathing in English. The Bulletin of the Phonetic Society of Japan, 210, 3541.
Morgan, B. (1997). Identity and intonation: Linking dynamic processes in an ESL
classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 31 (3), 431-450.
Morley, J. (Ed.) (1987). Current perspectives on pronunciation: Practices anchored
in theory. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Morley, J. (Ed.) (1994). Pronunciation pedagogy and theory: New views, new
directions. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Munro, M.J., & Derwing, T.M. (1995). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and
intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning,
45 (1), 73-97.
Nagamine, T., & Todaka, Y. (1996). An experimental study on English aspiration by
Japanese students. Bulletin of Miyazaki Municipal University, 4 (1), 39-52.
Nakaji, N. (1993). Nihonjin no eigo: Sono inritsuteki tokucho ni kansuru ichi
kousatsu [A study on the prosodic features of English spoken by native
speakers of Japanese]. Bulletin of Nagoya Junior College, 31, 103-112
Nicoll, H., & Todaka, Y. (1995). A pilot study on computer-assisted pronunciation
teaching. Bulletin of Miyazaki Municipal University, 3 (1), 1-15.
396
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
Ohala, J., & Gilbert, J. (1987). Listeners’ ability to identify languages by their
prosody. Report of the Phonology Lab II, 126-132. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Prator, C.H., & Robinett, B.W. (1985). Manual of American English
pronunciation. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Riney, T., & Anderson-Hsieh, J. (1993). Japanese pronunciation of English. JALT
Journal, 15 (1), 21-35.
Roach, P. (2000). English phonetics and phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Stevens, K.N. (1960). Toward a model for speech recognition. Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 32, 47-55.
Takefuta, Y. (1982). Nihonjin eigo no kagaku [Science of English spoken by the
Japanese]. Tokyo: Kenkyusha Shuppan.
Tateno, K. (1984). Characteristic of Japanese voices: Compared with westerners’.
The Bulletin of the Phonetic Society of Japan, 176, 4-9.
Todaka, Y. (1990). An error analysis of Japanese students’ intonation and its
pedagogical applications. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of
California, Los Angeles.
Todaka, Y. (1993). Japanese students’ English intonation. Bulletin of Miyazaki
Municipal University, 1 (1), 23-47.
Todaka, Y. (1995). A preliminary study of voice quality differences between
Japanese and American English: Some pedagogical suggestions. JALT
Journal, 17 (2), 261-268.
Watanabe, K. (1988). Sentence stress perception by Japanese students. Journal of
Phonetics, 16, 181-186.
Yule, G., & Macdonald, D. (1994). The effects of pronunciation teaching. In J.
Morley (Ed.), Pronunciation pedagogy and theory: New views, new directions
(pp. 111-118). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
397
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
Appendix A: Diagnostic Passage
(1) When a student from another country comes to study in the United States, he has to find out for
himself the answers to many questions, and he has many problems to think about. (2) Where
should he live? (3) Would it be better if he looked for a private room off campus or if he stayed in
a dormitory? (4) Should he spend all of his time just studying? (5) Shouldn’t he try to take
advantage of the many social and cultural activities which are offered? (6) At first it is not easy
for him to be casual in dress, informal in manner, and confident in speech. (7) Little by little he
learns what kind of clothing is usually worn here to be casually dressed for classes. (8) He also
learns to choose the language and customs that are appropriate for informal situations. (9) Finally
he begins to feel sure of himself. (10) But let me tell you, my friend, this long-awaited feeling
doesn’t develop suddenly, does it? (11) All of this takes will power.
(Taken from Manual of American English Pronunciation, 1985: 236-237)
Appendix B: Sample Lesson
Target Intonation Pattern: Rising Intonation
1. Greetings, warm-up free conversation
2. Vocal training (voice projection practice)
a. Abdominal breathing training
b. Hyper-training method with Evans’s (1993) exercise for communicative practice
Ex., A sentence written on a black board: ‘Tom went to the park by bus this morning.’
The instructor asks WH-questions (who, where, when, how) to students.
Students read the sentence on the board, shifting the position of intonation
focus each time in an exaggerated way.
3. The focus of the lesson is described to raise students’ awareness of the target intonation
pattern.
a. A handout and a black board are used to show the target intonation pattern
b. Instructor’s model speech is provided to help students understand the excursions of pitch
398
Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 1 No. 4 2002
ISSN 1475 - 8989
with the supplementary use of instructor’s arms.
4. Production and listening practice
a. Hyper-training method (to expand students’ pitch range)
b. Pair-practice (to raise students’ awareness of the role of intonation in a discourse loop)
c. Contextualized practice: Students are asked to guess an appropriate intonation pattern
for a sentence
Ex., ‘Tom went to the park?’
a) Rising-falling intonation
b) Rising intonation
d.
Natural speech training: Instructions and practice time are given to modify their
exaggerated speech into natural discourse-level speech.
Notes
1 Intelligible pronunciation has recently been regarded as an essential component of communicative
competence (Morley, 1994).
2 “Todaka suggests that by using a “hyper-pronunciation” training method (i.e., one that initially
exaggerates pitch contours and the duration of stressed syllables in English), Japanese speakers can be
taught to broaden their range of pitch and to give prominent stressed syllables the longer duration that
English requires to carry the broader, more dramatic pitch changes characteristic of its intonation”
(Celce-Murcia et al., 1996: 26). The efficacy of the hyper-pronunciation training method to teach such
segmentals as voiceless consonants was also reported in Japanese L2 learners (see Nagamine &
Todaka, 1996).
3 Here ‘intonation’ is defined narrowly as ‘change of pitch over time.’
4
By utilizing the CSL pitch-program, in which the overlaid intonation pattern is provided, it is
relatively easy to see the intonational difference of two utterances (e.g., native vs. nonnative or
pre-training vs. post-training).
5 A few major factors that might have caused this discrepancy are the native speakers’ familiarity with
nonnative speakers’ pronunciation (Gass & Varonis, 1984) and the size of the speech sample that was
examined in the native-speaker judgment task (Ludwig, 1982).
399