Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-15T15:37:51.825Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION OF PITCH RANGE IN GERMAN LEARNERS OF ENGLISH

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2014

Ineke Mennen ,
Felix Schaeffler  and
Catherine Dickie
Ineke Mennen*
Affiliation:
Bangor University
Felix Schaeffler
Affiliation:
Queen Margaret University Edinburgh
Catherine Dickie
Affiliation:
Bangor University
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ineke Mennen, Bangor University, Centre for Research on Bilingualism, 37-41 College Road, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2DG, UK. E-mail: i.mennen@bangor.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines pitch range production in the read speech of female German second language (L2) learners of English of moderate to advanced proficiency. The study set out to identify to what extent the learners deviated from or adopted the language-appropriate pitch range values of the target language. Two potential ways in which the learners could deviate from or approximate the target were recognized: (a) by globally expanding their pitch range or (b) by adjusting their pitch range in a position-sensitive way that is linked to the phonetic realization patterns of underlying high and low tones at different points in intonation contours.

Results showed that the L2 speakers produced pitch range values that were often language appropriate or approximated the target, although some deviations from the target were also identified. Deviations and target approximation were found to be position sensitive; that is, L2 learners were found to adjust their pitch range differently at the beginning as compared to later parts of intonational phrases.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 36 , Issue 2: Beyond Segments: Prosody in SLA , June 2014 , pp. 303 - 329
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This research was partially supported by a research grant from the Economic and Social Research Council (RES-000-22-1858) and an Arts and Humanities Research Council fellowship to the first author (AH/J000302/1). Many thanks are extended to Mikhail Ordin and Bettina Beinhoff for their help in recruiting and recording the German learners of L2 English.

References

REFERENCES

Altenberg, E. P., & Ferrand, C. T. (2006). Fundamental frequency in monolingual English, bilingual English-Russian, and bilingual English-Cantonese young adult women. Journal of Voice, 20, 89–96.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Backman, N. E. (1978). Intonation errors in second language pronunciation of eight Spanish speaking adults learning English. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 4, 239–266.Google Scholar
Baken, R. J., & Orlikoff, R. F. (2000). Clinical measurement of speech and voice (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 57, 289–300.Google Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2011). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.3.03) [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://www.praat.org Google Scholar
Braun, A. (1994). Sprechstimmlage und Muttersprache [Pitch range and mother tongue]. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik, 2, 170–178.Google Scholar
Brown, A., & Docherty, G. J. (1995). Phonetic variation in dysarthric speech as a function of sampling task. European Journal of Disorders of Communication, 30, 17–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, A., Gussenhoven, C., & Rietveld, T. (2004). Language specificity in perception of paralinguistic intonational meaning. Language and Speech, 47, 311–349.Google Scholar
Chen, S. (2005). The effects of tones on speaking frequency and intensity ranges in Mandarin and Min dialects. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 117, 3225–3230.Google Scholar
Clark, R. A. J. (2003). Generating synthetic pitch contours using prosodic structure (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
Deutsch, D., Jinghong, L., Sheng, J., & Henthorn, T. (2009). The pitch levels of female speech in two Chinese villages. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125, 208–213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deutsch, D., North, T., & Ray, L. (1990). The tritone paradox: Correlate with the listener’s vocal range for speech. Music Perception, 7, 371–384.Google Scholar
Eady, S. J. (1982). Differences in the F0 patterns of speech: Tone language versus stress language. Language and Speech, 25, 29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genesee, F., & Nicoladis, E. (2007). Bilingual first language acquisition. In Hoff, E. & Shatz, M. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of language development (pp. 324–342). Chichester, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gfroerer, S., & Wagner, I. (1994). Fundamental frequency in forensic speech samples. In Braun, A. & Köster, J.-P. (Eds.), Studies in forensic phonetics (pp. 41–48). Trier, Germany: WVT Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Grabe, E., Post, B., Nolan, F., & Farrar, K. (2000). Pitch accent realization in four varieties of British English. Journal of Phonetics, 28, 161–185.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C., Rietveld, T., Kerkhoff, J., Terken, J. (2003). Transcription of Dutch intonation (ToDI) (2nd ed.) [Online courseware]. Retrieved from http://todi.let.kun.nl/ToDI/home.htm Google Scholar
Gut, U. (2007). Foreign accent. In Müller, C. (Ed.), Speaker classification (pp. 75–87). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
Gut, U. (2009). Non-native speech: A corpus-based analysis of phonological and phonetic properties of L2 English and German. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Hanley, T. D., Snidecor, J. C., & Ringel, R. (1966). Some acoustic differences among languages. Phonetica, 14, 97–107.Google Scholar
International Phonetic Association. (2005). IPA vowel chart [GIF image]. Retrieved from http://www.langsci.ucl.ac.uk/ipa/vowels.html Google Scholar
Jenner, B. (1976). Interlanguage and foreign accent. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 1, 166–195.Google Scholar
Jilka, M. (2000). The contribution of intonation to the perception of foreign accent (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
Juffs, A. (1990). Tone, syllable structure and interlanguage phonology: Chinese learners’ stress errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 21, 99–115.Google Scholar
Kang, O., Rubin, D., & Pickering, L. (2010). Suprasegmental measures of accentedness and judgments of English language learner proficiency in oral English. Modern Language Journal, 94, 554–566.Google Scholar
Keating, P., & Kuo, G. (2012). Comparison of speaking fundamental frequency in English and Mandarin. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 132, 1050–1060.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. R. (2008). Intonational phonology (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magen, H. (1998). The perception of foreign-accented speech. Journal of Phonetics, 26, 381–400.Google Scholar
Majewski, W., Hollien, H., & Zalewski, J. (1972). Speaking fundamental frequency of Polish adult males. Phonetica, 25, 119–125.Google Scholar
Mennen, I. (2004). Bi-directional interference in the intonation of Dutch speakers of Greek. Journal of Phonetics, 32, 543–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mennen, I. (2007). Phonological and phonetic influences in non-native intonation. In Trouvain, J. & Gut, U. (Eds.), Non-native prosody: Phonetic descriptions and teaching practice (pp. 53–76). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mennen, I., Chen, A., & Karlsson, F. (2010). Characterising the internal structure of learner intonation and its development over time. In Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, K., Wrembel, M., & Kul, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second Language Speech, New Sounds 2010 (pp. 319–324). Retrieved from http://ifa.amu.edu.pl/newsounds/files/proceedings/proceedings_quotable_version.pdf Google Scholar
Mennen, I., Schaeffler, F., & Docherty, G. (2012). Cross-language differences in fundamental frequency range: A comparison of English and German. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 131, 2249–2260.Google Scholar
Munro, M. J. (1995). Nonsegmental factors in foreign accent. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 17–34.Google Scholar
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1995). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 45, 73–97.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. (2000). A linguistic approach to pitch range modelling (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
Pickering, L. (2001). The role of tone choice in improving ITA communication in the classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 233–255.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Scharff-Rethfeldt, W., Miller, N., & Mennen, I. (2008). Unterschiede in der mittleren Sprechtonhöhe bei Deutsch/Englisch bilingualen Sprechern [Speaking fundamental frequency differences in German-English bilinguals]. Sprache Stimme Gehör, 32, 123–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
’t Hart, J., Collier, R., & Cohen, A. (1990). A perceptual study of intonation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trofimovich, P., & Baker, W. (2007). Learning prosody and fluency characteristics of L2 speech: The effect of experience on child learners’ acquisition of five suprasegmentals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 251–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Bezooijen, R. (1995). Sociocultural aspects of pitch differences between Japanese and Dutch women. Language and Speech, 38, 253–265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whalen, D. H., & Levitt, A. G. (1995). The universality of intrinsic F0 of vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 23, 349–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willems, N. (1982). English intonation from a Dutch point of view. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Foris.Google Scholar
Xue, A., Hagstrom, F., & Hao, J. (2002). Speaking F0 characteristics of young and elderly bilingual Chinese-English speakers: A functional system approach. Asian Pacific Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing, 7, 55–62.Google Scholar
Yamazawa, H., & Hollien, H. (1992). Speaking fundamental frequency patterns of Japanese women. Phonetica, 49, 128–140.Google Scholar