Advertisement

Vowel Quality and Duration as a Cue to Word Stress for Non-native Listeners: Polish Listeners’ Perception of Stress in English

  • Arkadiusz Rojczyk
Chapter
Part of the Second Language Learning and Teaching book series (SLLT)

Abstract

The paper reports results from a study on the perception of vowel quality and duration as a stress cue in English by Polish learners of English. The word record was synthesised in which F0 was held constant and vowel quality and duration were manipulated to obtain three different types of interaction. The two parameters could remain neutral as to the stress location, contribute jointly to stress location, or provide conflicting cues. Thirty-two Polish advanced learners of English participated in an identification task in which they were required to choose a noun form ‘record stressed on the first syllable or a verb form re’cord stressed on the second syllable. The results revealed that in the absence of f0 cues, the listeners were able to make use of both vowel quality and duration to judge the stress location. It is hypothesized that, in the absence of the cue which is primary in their native language, the listeners were able to resort to cues which are secondary in their native language when listening to L2 speech.

Keywords

Stressed Syllable Vowel Duration Lexical Stress Vowel Quality Initial Syllable 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was partly supported by a grant from Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education (0576/B/H03/2010/38).

References

  1. Anderson, Peggy. J. 1993. The interstress interval as an indicator of perceived intelligibility among non-native speakers of English. Doctoral Dissertation, Wichita State University.Google Scholar
  2. Archibald, John. 1992. Transfer of L1 parameter setting: Some empirical evidence from Polish metrics. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 37: 301–339.Google Scholar
  3. Beckman, Mary. E. 1986. Stress and non-stress accent. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  4. Beckman, Mary. E. and Jan Edwards. 1994. Articulatory evidence for differentiating stress categories. In Laboratory Phonology III: Phonological Structure and Phonetic Form, ed. P A. Keating, 7–33, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Boersma, Paul. 2001. Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International 10: 341–345.Google Scholar
  6. Bogacka, Anna, Geoffrey Schwartz, Paulina Zydorowicz, Monika Połczyńska-Fiszer and Paula Orzechowska. 2006. The production and perception of schwa in second language acquisition: The case of Polish learners of English. In IFAtuation: A Life in IFA. A Festschrift for Professor Jacek Fisiak on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday, ed. K. Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, 71–84, Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.Google Scholar
  7. Braun, Bettina, Kristin Lemhöfer and Anne Cutler. 2008. English word stress as produced by English and Dutch speakers. In Proceedings of Interspeech 2008, 1953–1953.Google Scholar
  8. Braun, Bettina, Kristin Lemhöfer and Nivedita Mani. 2011. Perceiving unstressed vowels in foreign-accented English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 129: 376–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell, Nick and Mary E. Beckman. 1997. Stress, prominence, and spectral tilt. In Proceedings of the ESCA Workshop on Intonation: Theory, Models, and Applications, eds. A. Botinis, G. Kouroupetroglou, and G. Caraynnis, 67–70, Athens: University of Athens.Google Scholar
  10. Comrie, Bernard. 1967. Irregular stress in Polish and Macedonian. International Review of Slavic Linguistics 1: 227–240.Google Scholar
  11. Cooper, Nicole, Anne Cutler and Roger Wales. 2002. Constraints of lexical stress on lexical access in English: Evidence from native and non-native listeners. Language and Speech 45: 207–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crosswhite, Katherine. 2003. Spectral tilt as a cue to word stress in Polish, Macedonian, and Bulgarian. In Proceedings of the XVth International Conference of Phonetic Sciences, Vol. 2, eds. M. J. Solé, D. Recasens and J. Romero, 767–770, Barcelona: Casual Productions.Google Scholar
  13. Crystal, T. H., House, A. S. 1988. The duration of American English vowels: An overview. Journal of Phonetics 16: 263–284.Google Scholar
  14. Cutler, Anne. 1986. Forbear is a homophone: Lexical prosody does not contain lexical access. Language and Speech 29: 201–220.Google Scholar
  15. Cutler, Anne. 2005. Lexical stress. In The Handbook of Speech Perception, eds. D. B. Pisoni and R. E. Remez, 264–289, Malden MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Cutler, Anne. 2009. Greater sensitivity to prosodic goodness in non-native than in native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical society of America 125: 3522–3525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cutler, Anne and Charles. E. Clifton. 1984. The use of prosodic information in word recognition. In Attention and Performance X, eds. H. Bouma and D. G. Bouwhuis, 183–196, Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Cutler, Anne and Dennis. G. Norris. 1988. The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 14: 113–121.Google Scholar
  19. Cutler, Anne, Roger Wales, Nicole Cooper and Joris Janssen. 2007. Dutch listeners’ use of suprasegmental cues to English stress. In Proceedings of 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, eds. J. Trouvain and W. J. Barry, 1913–1916, Saarbrücken.Google Scholar
  20. Dłuska, Maria. 1947. Prozodia języka polskiego. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności.Google Scholar
  21. Dogil, Grzegorz. 1995. Phonetic correlates of word stress. In Phonetic AIMS, 1–60, Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  22. Dogil, Grzegorz. 1999. The phonetic manifestation of word stress in Lithuanian, Polish, German and Spanish. In Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe, ed. H. Hulst, 273–311, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  23. Dupoux, Emmanuel, Sharon Peperkamp and Núria Sebastián-Gallés. 2001. A robust paradigm to study stress “deafness”. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 110: 1606–1618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dupoux, Emmanuel, Núria Sebastián-Gallés, Eduardo Navarrete and Sharon Peperkamp. 2008. Persistent stress “deafness”: The case of French learners of Spanish. Cognition 106: 682–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dutoit, Thierry, Vincent Pagel, Nicolas Pierret, Ferdinand Bataille and Olivier van der Vrecken. 1996. The MBROLA project: Towards a set of high quality speech synthesizers free of use for noncommercial purposes. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, eds. H. T. Bunnell and W. Idsardi, 1393–1396.Google Scholar
  26. Fear, Beverley D., Anne Cutler, Sally Butterfield. 1995. The strong/weak syllable distinction in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97: 1893–1904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Flege, James E. 1995. Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-language research, ed. W Strange, 233–277. Timonium: York Press.Google Scholar
  28. Flege, James E. and Ocke-Schwen Bohn. 1989. An instrumental study of vowel reduction and stress placement in Spanish-accented English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11: 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fokes, Joann and Z. S. Bond. 1989. The vowels of stressed and unstressed syllables in non-native English. Language Learning 39: 341–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fokes, J., Z. S. Bond and Mary Steinberg. 1984. Patterns of word stress by native and non-native speakers. In Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, eds. M. Van den Broecke and A. Cohen, 682–686, Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  31. Fry, Dennis B. 1955. Duration and intensity as physical correlates of linguistic stress. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 27: 765–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fry, Dennis B. 1958. Experiments in the perception of stress. Language and Speech 1: 126–152.Google Scholar
  33. Gay, Thomas. 1978. Physiological and acoustic correlates of perceived stress. Language and Speech 21: 347–353.Google Scholar
  34. Gonet, Wiktor, Jolanta Szpyra-Kozłowska and Radosław Święciński. 2010. The acquisition of vowel reduction by Polish students of English. In Issues in Accents of English 2: Variability and Norm, ed. E. Waniek-Klimczak, 291–308. Newcastle-Upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishers.Google Scholar
  35. Hammond, Robert H. 1986. Error analysis and the natural approach to teaching foreign languages. Lenguas Modernas 13: 129–139.Google Scholar
  36. Huss, Volker. 1978. English word stress in the post-nuclear position. Phonetica 35: 86–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jassem, Wiktor. 1962. Akcent języka polskiego. Prace Językoznawcze 31-1-116.Google Scholar
  38. Jaworski, Sylwester. 2009. Inertial and non-inertial lenition processes. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 45: 103–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kondo, Yuko. 2000. Production of schwa by Japanese speakers of English. In Laboratory Phonology V: Acquisition and the Lexicon, eds. M. B. Broe and J. B. Pierrehumbert, 29–39, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Lee, Borim, Susan G. Guion, and Tetsudo Harada. 2006. Acoustic analysis of the production of unstressed English vowels by early and late Korean and Japanese bilinguals. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28: 487–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lehiste, Ilse. 1970. Suprasegmentals. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Lieberman, Philip. 1960. Some acoustic correlates of word stress in American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 22: 451–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lindblom, Bjorn. 1963. Spectrographic study of vowel reduction. Journal of the Acoustical society of America 35: 1773–1781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mochizuki-Sudo, Michiko and Shigeru Kiritani. 1991. Production and perception of stress-related durational patterns in Japanese learners of English. Journal of Phonetics 19: 231–248.Google Scholar
  45. Mol, H. G. and G. M. Uhlenbeck. 1956. The linguistic relevance of intensity in stress. Lingua 5: 205–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nowak, Paweł. M. 2006. Vowel reduction in Polish. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California.Google Scholar
  47. Ortega-Llebaria, Marta, Maria del Mar Vanrell and Pilar Prieto. 2010. Catalan speakers’ perception of word stress in unaccented contexts. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 462–471.Google Scholar
  48. Peperkamp, Sharon and Emmanuel Dupoux. 2002. A typological study of stress “deafness” In Laboratory Phonology VII, eds. C. Gussenhoven and N. Warner, 203–240, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  49. Peperkamp, Sharon, Inga Vendelin and Emmanuel Dupoux. 2010. Perception of predictable stress: A cross-linguistic investigation. Journal of Phonetics 38: 422–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Porzuczek, Andrzej. 2008. Stress-dependent syllable duration variability in Polish learners’ and native British English pronunciation. In Issues in Accents of English, ed. E. Waniek-Klimczak, 64–78, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishers.Google Scholar
  51. Porzuczek, Andrzej. 2010. The weak forms of TO in the pronunciation of Polish learners of English. In Issues in Accents of English 2: Variability and Norm, ed. E. Waniek-Klimczak, 309–324, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishers.Google Scholar
  52. Rojczyk, Arkadiusz. 2010a. Vowel quality and duration in stressed and unstressed positions in Polish. Poster presented at GLOW Conference, April 13, Wrocław Poland.Google Scholar
  53. Rojczyk, Arkadiusz. 2010b. Temporal and spectral parameters in perception of the voicing contrast in English and Polish. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.Google Scholar
  54. Rojczyk, Arkadiusz. 2010c. Production and perception of vowel /æ/ by Polish learners of English. In Proceedings from the Sixth Symposium on the Acquisition of Second Language Speech, eds. K. Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, M. Wrembel and M. Kul. [CD ROM Version].Google Scholar
  55. Ramus, Franck, Emmanuel Dupoux and Jacques Mehler. 2003. The physiological reality of rhythm classes: Perceptual studies. In Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of the Phonetic Sciences, 337–342.Google Scholar
  56. Slowiaczek, Louisa M. and Daniel A. Dinnsen. 1985. On the neutralizing status of Polish word-final devoicing. Journal of Phonetics 17: 205–212.Google Scholar
  57. Slowiaczek, Louisa M. and Henryka. J. Szymanska. 1989. On the neutralizing status of Polish word-final devoicing. Journal of Phonetics 17: 205–212.Google Scholar
  58. Sluijter, Agaath M. C. and Vincent J. van Heuven. 1996. Spectral balance as an acoustic correlate of linguistic stress. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 100: 2471–2485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sluijter, Agaath M. C., Vincent van Heuven and Jos A. Pacilly. 1997. Spectral balance as a cue in the perception of linguistic stress. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101: 503–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Smoczyńska, Magdalena. 1985. The acquisition of Polish. In The Crosslinguistic study of Language Acquisition, ed. D. Slobin, 595–686, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  61. Strycharczuk, Patrycja and Peter Jurgec. 2008. Prosodic influences on formant frequencies of Polish vowels. Paper presented at the 3rd Newcastle Postgraduate Conference in Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, July 9, Newcastle.Google Scholar
  62. Turk, Alice E. and James R. Sawusch. 1996. The processing of duration and intensity cues to prominence. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 126: 367–376.Google Scholar
  63. Tyler, Michael D. and Anne Cutler. 2009. Cross-language differences in cue use for speech segmentation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 126: 367–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Waniek-Klimczak, Ewa. 2002. How to predict the unpredictable: English word stress from a Polish perspective. In Accents and Speech in Teaching English Phonetics and Phonology, eds. E. Waniek-Klimczak and P. J. Melia, 221–241, Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  65. Waniek-Klimczak, Ewa. 2005. Temporal parameters in second language speech: An applied linguistic phonetics approach. Lódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.Google Scholar
  66. Weist, Richard, Hanna Wysocka, Katarzyna Witkowska-Stadnik, Ewa Buczkowska and Emilia Konieczna. 1984. The defective tense hypothesis: On the emergence of tense and aspect in child Polish. Journal of Child Language 11: 347–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wierzchowska, Bożena. 1980. Fonetyka i fonologia języka polskiego. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.Google Scholar
  68. Yu, Vickie Y. and Jean E. Andruski. 2010. A cross-language study of perception of lexical stress in English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 39: 323–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Yuan, Jiahong, Stephen Isard and Mark Liberman. 2008. Different roles of pitch and duration in distinguishing word stress in English. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, 885, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
  70. Zhang, Yanhong and Alexander Francis. 2010. The weighting of vowel quality in native and non-native listeners’ perception of English lexical stress. Journal of Phonetics 38: 260–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zhang, Yanhong, Shawn L. Nissen and Alexander Francis. 2008. Acoustic characteristics of English lexical stress produced by native Mandarin speakers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 123: 4498–4513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SilesiaKatowicePoland

Personalised recommendations