DOCSLIB.ORG

Department of English and American Studies Segmental Versus

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Department of English and American Studies Segmental Versus Masaryk University Faculty of Arts Department of English and American Studies Teaching English Language and Literature for Secondary Schools Bc. Kristýna Zemková Segmental versus Suprasegmental Mistakes in English Pronunciation Master’s Diploma Thesis Supervisor: PhDr. Kateřina Tomková, Ph.D. 2018 I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography. …………………………………………….. Author’s signature Acknowledgement I would like to thank my supervisor, PhDr. Kateřina Tomková, Ph.D., for her help with the recordings that I could not have done without, as well as for her guidance throughout the writing process. Table of Contents Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................. 4 List of Figures .................................................................................................................................... 6 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 7 1. The History of Teaching Pronunciation .................................................................................... 9 2. Contrasting Theories................................................................................................................... 10 3. Segmental Pronunciation Features ........................................................................................... 15 3. 1 Vowels ................................................................................................................................... 15 3. 2 Consonants ........................................................................................................................... 21 4. Suprasegmentals .......................................................................................................................... 25 4. 1 Stress ...................................................................................................................................... 25 4. 2 Assimilation .......................................................................................................................... 27 4. 3 Elision .................................................................................................................................... 29 4. 4 Linking ................................................................................................................................... 29 4. 5 Rhythm .................................................................................................................................. 30 4. 6 Sentence Stress ..................................................................................................................... 31 4. 7 Intonation ............................................................................................................................. 31 5. Greater Importance for Intelligibility: Segmentals or Suprasegmentals? ............................ 32 6. The Current Status of Pronunciation in Schools .................................................................... 34 7. The Theory of Teaching Pronunciation .................................................................................. 37 7. 1 Teaching Segmentals ........................................................................................................... 37 7. 2 Teaching Suprasegmentals .................................................................................................. 39 7. 3 Error Correction .................................................................................................................. 40 7. 4 Testing Pronunciation ......................................................................................................... 41 8. Research methodology ............................................................................................................... 42 9. Questionnaires analysis ............................................................................................................... 50 9. 1 Characteristics of the Research Participants .................................................................... 50 9. 2 Recording A .......................................................................................................................... 50 9. 2. 1 Native speakers ............................................................................................................ 50 9. 2. 2 Speakers of Asian languages ...................................................................................... 51 9. 2. 3 Speakers of Romance native languages .................................................................... 52 9. 2. 4 Speakers of Slavic languages ...................................................................................... 52 9. 3 Recording B .......................................................................................................................... 53 9. 3. 1 Native speakers ............................................................................................................ 53 9. 3. 2 Speakers of Asian languages ...................................................................................... 54 4 9. 3. 3 Speakers of Romance languages ................................................................................ 55 9. 3. 4 Speakers of Slavic languages ...................................................................................... 55 9. 4 Recording C .......................................................................................................................... 56 9. 4. 1 Native speakers ............................................................................................................ 56 9. 4. 2 Speakers of Asian languages ...................................................................................... 56 9. 4. 3 Speakers of Romance languages ................................................................................ 56 9. 4. 4 Speakers of Slavic languages ...................................................................................... 57 9. 5 English as Lingua Franca .................................................................................................... 57 10. Overall Results Analysis ........................................................................................................... 58 10. 1 Suprasegmental Mistakes .................................................................................................. 59 10. 2 Segmental Mistakes ............................................................................................................ 60 10. 3 The Differences Between Language Groups ................................................................ 61 10. 4 Implications on Teaching Pronunciation ....................................................................... 63 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 65 References ......................................................................................................................................... 67 Other sources ................................................................................................................................... 68 Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 70 Summary in Czech ........................................................................................................................... 71 Appendices on CD .......................................................................................................................... 73 5 List of Figures Figure 1 - Types of interaction (Levis, 2005) .............................................................................. 12 Figure 2 - Primary cardinal vowels by Daniel Jones (Ladefoged, 1975) .................................. 16 Figure 3 - Differences in English and Czech vowels (Ondráček, 2014) ................................. 17 Figure 4 - Questionnaire ................................................................................................................. 47 Figure 5 - Intelligibility chart .......................................................................................................... 58 Figure 6 - Perceived level of English chart .................................................................................. 58 Figure 7 - The most native-like recording .................................................................................... 59 Figure 8 - The recording the most pleasant to listen to ............................................................. 59 Figure 9 - The recording with the most mistakes ....................................................................... 59 6 SEGMENTAL VERSUS SUPRASEGMENTAL MISTAKES IN ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION Introduction The methods of teaching pronunciation have been discussed in the community of ESL teachers for the past hundred years; more so with the development of various English language teaching methods in the second half of the twentieth century. In some methods, pronunciation plays a crucial role; in others (mostly obsolete), it is entirely disregarded. Even after having established that pronunciation is an element of language acquisition
Load more

Recommended publications
  • [email protected]
    Palacký University, Olomouc Roman O. Jakobson: A Work in Progress edited and with an introduction by Tomáš Kubíček and Andrew Lass Olomouc 2014 Recenzenti: prof. PhDr. Petr A. Bílek, CSc. prof. PhDr. Dagmar Mocná, CSc. Publikace vznikla v rámci projektu Inovace bohemistických studií v mezioborových kontextech. Tento projekt je spolufi nancován Evropským sociálním fondem a státním rozpočtem České republiky. Zpracování a vydání publikace bylo umožněno díky fi nanční podpoře udělené roku 2014 Ministerstvem školství, mládeže a tělovýchovy ČR v rámci Institucionálního rozvojového plánu, programu V. Excelence, Filozofi cké fakultě Univerzity Palackého v Olomouci: Zlepšení publikačních možností akademických pedagogů ve fi lologických a humanitních oborech. Neoprávněné užití tohoto díla je porušením autorských práv a může zakládat občanskoprávní, správněprávní, popř. trestněprávní odpovědnost. Editors © Tomáš Kubíček and Andrew Lass, 2014 © Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci, 2014 ISBN 978-80-244-4386-7 Neprodejná publikace Content Introduction .................................................................................................................5 Parallelism in prose ...................................................................................................11 Wolf Schmid Reopening the “Closing statement”: Jakobson’s factors and functions in our Google Galaxy .......................................25 Peter W. Nesselroth Elective Affi nities: Roman Jakobson, Claude Lévi-Strauss and his Antropologie Structurale ..............................................................................37
    [Show full text]
  • Univerzita Palackého V Olomouci Filozofická
    UNIVERZITA PALACKÉHO V OLOMOUCI FILOZOFICKÁ FAKULTA KATEDRA ANGLISTIKY A AMERIKANISTIKY Importance of Individual Features of Czech Accent in English for Perceived Foreign-accentedness (Master Thesis) Význam jednotlivých znaků českého přízvuku v angličtině, a jejich vliv na vnímání cizího přízvuku (Diplomová práce) Autor: Radomíra Koudelková Anglická Filologie Vedoucí práce: Mgr. Václav Jonáš Podlipský, Ph.D. Olomouc 2014 Prohlášení: Prohlašuji, že jsem diplomovou práci vypracovala samostatně a uvedla v ní předepsaným způsobem všechnu použitou literaturu. V Olomouci dne Podpis: Poděkování: Děkuji vedoucímu práce za cenné rady, ochotu a trpělivost. Dále bych chtěla poděkovat všem, kteří byli ochotni zúčastnit se fonetického experimentu, který je součástí této práce. V neposlední řadě děkuji své rodině za podporu a trpělivost. CONTENTS (OBSAH) 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 6 2. Foreign Accent and Language Inference ......................................................................................... 7 3. Foreign Accent and Social Stigma .................................................................................................. 8 4. General Differences between English and Czech .......................................................................... 10 5. Overview of Phonological Features of Czech Accent in English – Segmentals ........................... 11 5.1. English and Czech Consonants – Introduction .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Licensing of Vowel Length in Czech POTSDAM LINGUISTIC INVESTIGATIONS POTSDAMER LINGUISTISCHE UNTERSUCHUNGEN RECHERCHES LINGUISTIQUES À POTSDAM
    Licensing of Vowel Length in Czech POTSDAM LINGUISTIC INVESTIGATIONS POTSDAMER LINGUISTISCHE UNTERSUCHUNGEN RECHERCHES LINGUISTIQUES À POTSDAM Edited by / Herausgegeben von / Edité par Peter Kosta, Gerda Haßler, Teodora Radeva-Bork, Lilia Schürcks, Nadine Thielemann and/und/et Vladislava Maria Warditz Editorial Board: Tilman Berger (University of Tübingen, Germany) Željko Boškovi (University of Connecticut, USA) Sarah Dessì Schmid (University of Tübingen, Germany) ć Anna Maria di Sciullo (UQAM / Université du Québec à Montreál, Montreal, Canada) Steven Franks (Indiana University, Bloomington, USA) Atle Grønn (University of Oslo, Norway) Holger Kuße (Dresden University of Technology, Germany) Hans-Georg Wolf (University of Potsdam, Germany) Ghil'ad Zuckermann (University of Adelaide, Australia) Vol./Bd 22 Zu Qualitätssicherung und Peer Review Notes on the quality assurance and peer der vorliegenden Publikation review of this publication Die Qualität der in dieser Reihe Prior to publication, the quality of the erscheinenden Arbeiten wird vor der work published in this series is double Publikation durch einen externen, von der blind reviewed by an external referee Herausgeberschaft benannten Gutachter appointed by the editorship. The im Double Blind Verfahren geprüft. Dabei referee is not aware of the author's ist der Autor der Arbeit dem Gutachter name when performing the review; während der Prüfung namentlich nicht the referee's name is not disclosed. bekannt; der Gutachter bleibt anonym. POTSDAM LINGUISTIC INVESTIGATIONS Markéta Ziková
    [Show full text]
  • Phonological Constraints in Serbo-Croatian Syllable Maxgins
    PHONOLCGICAL CONSTRAINTS IN SERBO-CROATIAN SYLLABLE MARGINS and MARKEMJBS IN GENERATIVE PHONOLOGY Steven Uzelac P BOA. (~ons,)Simon Fraser University, 1969 TWO EXTENDED ESSAYS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEREE OF MASTER 6~ ARTS in the Department Modern Languages a @ STEVEN UZELAC 1971 SIMON FRASER UNIVJBSITY March, 1971 APPROVAL Name: Steven Uxelac Degree8 Master of Arts Titles of Extended Essays; 1. Phonological Constraints in Serbo-Croatian Syllable Maxgins 2. Markedness in Generative Phonology Examining Committee r N, J. Lincoln Chairman Senior Supervisor B. Newton ~e te Approved, 47/ Acknowledgement Work on the first essay, "Phonological Constraints in Serbo-Croatian Syllable Margins", was initiated under the supervision of m. Ross Saunders, (iii) ESSAY I Phonological Constraints in ~erbo-~rbatiaa Syllable Margins Steven Uzelac TABLE OF .CONTENTS 0.0 Introduction ............................................... 0.1 Statement of purpose .................................. 0.2 Summary of Contents ................................... 0.3 Description of the Corpus ............................. 1.0 Segmentation procedures .................................... 1.1 Interlude segmentation ................................ 1.2 Isolated Consonantal Microsegments .................... 2.0 The phonological syllable of Serbo-Croatian ................ 2.1 Structure ............................................. 2.2 inventory of Possible Manifestations .................. 3.0 The Constraint Granmar 3.1 Components of a Constraint
    [Show full text]
  • GOO-80-02119 392P
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 228 863 FL 013 634 AUTHOR Hatfield, Deborah H.; And Others TITLE A Survey of Materials for the Study of theUncommonly Taught Languages: Supplement, 1976-1981. INSTITUTION Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C. SPONS AGENCY Department of Education, Washington, D.C.Div. of International Education. PUB DATE Jul 82 CONTRACT GOO-79-03415; GOO-80-02119 NOTE 392p.; For related documents, see ED 130 537-538, ED 132 833-835, ED 132 860, and ED 166 949-950. PUB TYPE Reference Materials Bibliographies (131) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC16 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Annotated Bibliographies; Dictionaries; *InStructional Materials; Postsecondary Edtmation; *Second Language Instruction; Textbooks; *Uncommonly Taught Languages ABSTRACT This annotated bibliography is a supplement tothe previous survey published in 1976. It coverslanguages and language groups in the following divisions:(1) Western Europe/Pidgins and Creoles (European-based); (2) Eastern Europeand the Soviet Union; (3) the Middle East and North Africa; (4) SouthAsia;(5) Eastern Asia; (6) Sub-Saharan Africa; (7) SoutheastAsia and the Pacific; and (8) North, Central, and South Anerica. The primaryemphasis of the bibliography is on materials for the use of theadult learner whose native language is English. Under each languageheading, the items are arranged as follows:teaching materials, readers, grammars, and dictionaries. The annotations are descriptive.Whenever possible, each entry contains standardbibliographical information, including notations about reprints and accompanyingtapes/records
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded on 2017-02-12T11:34:32Z a Cross-Linguistic Database of Children’S Printed Words in Three Slavic Languages
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Cork Open Research Archive Title A cross linguistic database of children's printed words in three Slavic languages Author(s) Garabik, Radovan; Caravolus, Marketa; Kessler, Brett; Hoeflerova, Eva; Masterson, Jackie; Mikulajova, Marina; Szczerbinski, Marcin; Wierzchon, Piotr Editor(s) Levicka, Jana Garabik, Radovan Publication date 2007 Original citation Garabík, R., Caravolas, M., Kessler, B., Höflerová, E., Masterson, J., Mikulajová, M., Szczerbiński, M., Wierzchoń, P. (2007). 'A cross- linguistic database of children’s printed words in three Slavic languages'. In Levická, J., & Garabík, R. (Eds.). Computer Treatment of Slavic and East European Languages: Fourth International Seminar, Bratislava, Slovakia, 25−27 October 2007: Proceedings (pp. 51−64). Bratislava: Tribun. Type of publication Conference item Link to publisher's http://spell.psychology.wustl.edu/Garabík2007/ version http://korpus.juls.savba.sk/~slovko/2007/ Access to the full text of the published version may require a subscription. Rights © 2007, the respective authors. The articles can be used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ Item downloaded http://hdl.handle.net/10468/736 from Downloaded on 2017-02-12T11:34:32Z A Cross-linguistic Database of Children’s Printed Words in Three Slavic Languages Radovan Garabík1, Markéta Caravolas2, Brett Kessler3, Eva Höflerová4, Jackie Masterson5, Marína Mikulajová6,
    [Show full text]
  • Conference Proceedings
    Prague, Czech Republic May 21-23, 2015 PROCEEDINGS A Letter to the Participants Pronunciation of a foreign or second language is a controversial issue. Many claim that without proper pronunciation people’s chances of success in life are small. Others contradict by saying that as long as you are not changing meanings of words, any pronunciation is acceptable. Neither of these views really helps. The mechanisms and effects of pronunciation are far too complex to make strong and definite claims of any sort. It is actually quite damaging for our learning to say that, already, we are convinced about these fundamental issues. Why invest time and resources to research if we know that pronunciation is of little importance? Analogically, why study and experiment with pronunciation and its consequences, if we already know that it must be drilled and drilled and drilled? It is much more practical and effective to talk about the subject matter with an open mind and modesty. We have to admit that we do not know but, with the same voice, claim that we want to know. That is also the reason for most of the participants of EPIP conferences to prepare their presentations and gather in an assembly to confront them with the views of others. Yet again, the objective of this confrontation is to inspire and encourage others to discover rather than to convince them. Let me stress again: We don’t know and we want to know. The endeavours like EPIP are here to help us. The proceedings you are now using manifest the wealth of ideas, but also the complexity of the issues in the field of pronunciation.
    [Show full text]
  • Language Management in the Czech Republic1
    Language Management in the Czech Republic 1 J.V. Neustupný School of Languages, Cultures and Linguistics, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia Ji øí Nekvapil Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Arts, Charles University, nám. Jana Palacha 2, CZ-11638 Prague, Czech Republic This monograph, based on the Language Management model, provides information on both the simple (discourse-based) and organised modes of attention to language prob - lems in the Czech Republic. This includes but is not limited to the language policy of the State. This approach does not satisfy itself with discussing problems of language variet - ies but tries also to attend to issues pertaining to situations, functions, and other aspects of communication. While Part I deals with theoretical prerequisites of the study, Part II surveys ethnic communities which are resident in the territory of the Czech Republic, and Part III, the most extensive in the study, provides a description of the current state of the major varieties spoken in the country. It is suggested that a weak form of diglossia (Standard vs. Common Czech) is one of the major areas of problems within the Czech language. Among the other communities the Roma community presents most distinctly interactional as well as narrowly communicative problems. All non-Czech communities seem to be gradually assimilating to the matrix (Czech) community, particularly with regard to language. Part IV is devoted to the survey of language management in different situations. The authors particularly deal with changes that occurred after the Velvet Revolution of 1989 and resulted in intensive management in all domains of interaction. Part V presents individual observations on areas that have so far failed to attract system- atic attention.
    [Show full text]
  • The Peripheral Plural Endings of Nouns in Petrine Sermons
    Slavistische Beiträge ∙ Band 173 (eBook - Digi20-Retro) John Dingley The Peripheral Plural Endings of Nouns in Petrine Sermons Verlag Otto Sagner München ∙ Berlin ∙ Washington D.C. Digitalisiert im Rahmen der Kooperation mit dem DFG-Projekt „Digi20“ der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek, München. OCR-Bearbeitung und Erstellung des eBooks durch den Verlag Otto Sagner: http://verlag.kubon-sagner.de © bei Verlag Otto Sagner. Eine Verwertung oder Weitergabe der Texte und Abbildungen, insbesondere durch Vervielfältigung, ist ohne vorherige schriftliche Genehmigung des Verlages unzulässig. «Verlag Otto Sagner» ist ein Imprint der Kubon & Sagner GmbH. John Dingley - 9783954791279 Downloaded from PubFactory at 01/10/2019 04:59:38AM via free access S l a v is t ic h e B eiträg e BEGRÜNDET VON ALOIS SCHMAUS HERAUSGEGEBEN VON JOHANNES HOLTHUSEN • HEINRICH KUNSTMANN PETER REHDER • JOSEF SCHRENK REDAKTION PETER REHDER Band 173 VERLAG OTTO SAGNER MÜNCHEN John Dingley - 9783954791279 Downloaded from PubFactory at 01/10/2019 04:59:38AM via free access 00061126 JOHN DINGLEY THE PERIPHERAL PLURAL ENDINGS OF NOUNS IN PETRINE SERMONS VERLAG OTTO SAGNER ■ MÜNCHEN 1983 John Dingley - 9783954791279 Downloaded from PubFactory at 01/10/2019 04:59:38AM via free access ISBN 3-87690-269-X © Verlag Otto Sagner, München 1983 Abteilung der Firma Kubon & Sagner, München Druck: Grâbner, Altendorf John Dingley - 9783954791279 Downloaded from PubFactory at 01/10/2019 04:59:38AM via free access 00061126 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table o f C ontents ........................................................................................................ v O rthographic Conventions ........................................................................................ vi P reface .............................................................................................................................. v ii Chapter 1: In tro d u c tio n ........................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: A Survey of A-penetration in the Slavic Languages........
    [Show full text]
  • A Czech Morphological Lexicon
    A Czech Morphological Lexicon Hana Skoumalovfi Institute of Theoretical and Computational Linguistics Charles University Celetn£ 13, Praha 1 Czech Republic hana.skoumalova @ff . cuni. cz Abstract of 219 paradigms I got 159 that use 116 sets of endings. Under the term paradigm I mean the In this paper, a treatment of Czech set of endings that belong to one lemma (e.g. phonological rules in two-level mor- noun endings for all seven cases in both num- phology approach is described. First bers) and possible derivations with their cor- the possible phonological alternations responding endings (e.g. possessive adjectives in Czech are listed and then their derived from nouns in all possible forms). That treatment in a practical application of is why the number of paradigms is higher then a Czech morphological lexicon. the number of endings. In this approach, it is necessary to deal with 1 Motivation the phonological changes that occur at bound- aries between the stem and the suffix/ending or In this paper I want to describe the way in which between the suffix and the ending. There are I treated the phonological changes that occur in also changes inside the stem (e.g. p~'tel 'friend' Czech conjugation, declension and derivation. x p~dteld 'friends', or hndt 'to chase' x 5enu My work concerned the written language, but 'I chase'), but I will not deal with them, as as spelling of Czech is based on phonological they are rather rare and irregular. They are principles, moSt statements will be true about treated in the lexicon as exceptions.
    [Show full text]
  • Ketner Corrected Dissertation
    SIZE RESTRICTIONS IN PROSODIC MORPHOLOGY Katherine Heidel Ketner Selwyn College This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge April 2006 ABSTRACT This dissertation proposes a theory of conditions on prosodic constituents and how they relate to morphological categories. A significant effect of such conditions is that they can impose minimal and maximal size limits on roots and words. A good deal of research has established that there are minimality restrictions on words (McCarthy & Prince 1986, Hayes 1995); this dissertation shows how minimal restrictions on roots and maximal size restrictions on both roots and words can be characterized through Prosodic Morphology. Prosodically-based minimal and maximal size restrictions on a morphological category (MCat) are achieved indirectly through independently motivated concepts such as the Prosodic Hierarchy (Selkirk 1984) and Generalized Alignment (McCarthy and Prince 1993). A prosodically-based root size restriction follows from restrictions on prosodic categories. A language may require all prosodic words to be at least one binary foot through Headedness and Foot Binarity (McCarthy and Prince’s (1986) “Minimal Word”), or to be at most one binary foot (plus optional unfooted syllables) through a ban on non-head feet (de Lacy 2003). A size restriction is then transferred to a root morpheme through outputs in which the PCat and the MCat are linked, a process dubbed Concurrence here. One example is a bare root, which is coextensive with a prosodic word: any size restriction on the PrWd is directly translated to the root morpheme in this environment. Equally important to the indirect approach advocated in this dissertation is Output Faithfulness, which can spread size restrictions derived through Concurrence to all outputs in the language (Benua 1997).
    [Show full text]
  • The Licensing and Interpretation of Coronality: a New Approach
    The Licensing and Interpretation of Coronality: A New Approach By Dominic Rubin Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of PhD, School of Oriental & African Studies, University of London, London, 2001. ProQuest Number: 10752650 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 10752650 Published by ProQuest LLC(2018). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C ode Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 Abstract This thesis presents a new approach to the behavior of coronal segments. It examines seven aspects of coronal uniqueness: (i) the interaction of coronal consonants with front vowels, (ii) the confinement of liquids to coronal Place, (iii) the preference of “weak” syllabic sites for coronal Place, the processes of (iv) palatalization and (v) coronalization of coronal and non-coronal consonants by palatal glides and front vowels, (vi) the confinement of consonant harmony processes to consonants of coronal Place, and finally, (vii) the frequency and subplace richness of the coronal Place. It is argued that this range of behavior can be given a unified analysis if coronality is represented by the Government Phonological element [I], Further, this element is argued to be the head of a Resonance Phrase in an element-geometric tree which is divided into a Resonance, Manner and Laryngeal Phrase.
    [Show full text]