Teachability and Learnability of English Intonational...

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

362


perceived 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

363


emotion along with other prosodic and paralinguistic features. 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


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


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

366


different spoken languages (Japanese, English, and Cantonese). Their study verified

that 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

367


interference. Moreover, such errors might also be made due to interlanguage effects as

well (cf., 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

368


aspect 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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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 last word ‘speech.’ This complete fall of the voice to a low tone at the end of a

376


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

smaller F0 excursions than those of the native participants before the training sessions.

377


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

1Notes1 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).

378


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 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)

379


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 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-

380


training data.

Figure 4a: Post-Training Data (A Male Participant)

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

381


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 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

382


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 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-

383


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.

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.

384


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 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

385


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

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

386


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.

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

387


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.

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 to validate 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

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).

388


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.

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

389


(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

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

390


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: [email protected]

Tables

Table 1 F0 Ranges of Native Speakers of English (Hz)

Table 2 Average F0 Ranges of Japanese Participants: Pre-Training Data (Hz)

Range Minimum Maximum

Male 75 96 171

Female 97.73 187.82 285.55

Table 3 Average F0 Ranges of Japanese Participants: Post-Training Data (Hz)

Range Minimum Maximum

Male 108.5 98 206.5

Range Minimum MaximumMale 112 92 204Female 137 189 326Average 124.5 140.5 265

391


Female 132.55 190.36 322.91

Table 4 F0 Ranges of Individual Japanese Participants: Pre-and Post-Training Data (Hz)

Participant Minimum Maximum Rage

MP1-Pre 100 175 75

MP1-Post 97 205 108

MP2-Pre 92 167 75

MP2-Post 99 208 109

FP1-Pre 188 270 82

FP1-Post 196 346 150

FP2-Pre 178 244 66

FP2-Post 189 286 97

FP3-Pre 167 270 103

FP3-Post 193 333 140

FP4-Pre 200 286 86

FP4-Post 227 345 118

FP5-Pre 183 278 95

FP5-Post 164 301 137

FP6-Pre 193 263 70

FP6-Post 172 294 122

FP7-Pre 185 301 116

FP7-Post 182 323 141

FP8-Pre 200 263 63

FP8-Post 196 313 117

FP9-Pre 173 294 121

FP9-Post 182 345 163

392


FP10-Pre 217 324 107

FP10-Post 200 333 133

FP11-Pre 182 348 166

FP11-Post 193 333 140

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

Preference

for T2 (%)

Highest Peak Error Types found in T2 Utterances

Pre Post

FP1 83.3 him not word-stress

FP3 83.3 at easy

FP5 83.3 informal not

FP2 75 confident confident

FP8 66.7 confident first

FP7 58.3 informal dress

FP4 50 first not word-stress

FP6 41.7 first manner F0 shape

FP11 41.7 confident informal word-stress

FP10 33.3 manner first

FP9 25 confident at sentence-stress, segmental phoneme productions

393


MP1 16.7 first manner excessive use of pauses (phrase boundaries)

MP2 16.7 first not F0 shape

Table 7 Inter-Rater Variability

Participant American (male) American (female) Irish (male) English (male)

FP1 x x x

FP2 x x x

FP3 x x x x

FP4 x x

FP5 x x x

FP6 x x

FP7 x x x

FP8 x x x

FP9 x

FP10 x x

FP11 x x

MP1

MP2

‘X’ indicates that the rater checked the T2 over twice on a response sheet.

Acknowledgment

394


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.

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.

395


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.

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,

396


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.

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, 35-

41.

397


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.

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’.

398


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.

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)

399


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 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.

400


401

Teachability and Learnability of English Intonational...

Documents

Transcript of Teachability and Learnability of English Intonational...