Skip to main content

The Perception of Speech Rhythm in Indian English and British English

  • Chapter
Speech Rhythm in Varieties of English

Part of the book series: Prosody, Phonology and Phonetics ((PRPHPH))

Abstract

This chapter shows that the production differences between Indian English and British English in speech rhythm (documented in the previous chapter) are also relevant in the perception of speech. Even if differences in the production of speech rhythm between two varieties are large and significant, it is not a foregone conclusion that they play any role in the perception of speech. Extending previous research on the importance of segmental and supra-segmental cues in the perception of accent differences, a partially new technique will be introduced which consists of the selective transfer and suppression of segmental and supra-segmental cues. Utterances that were manipulated in this way are then used in two types of experiments. The first set of experiments consists of an accent identification task, where participants have to decide whether a speaker is of Indian or British origin. These experiments were designed to determine whether differences in speech rhythm (defined as variability in duration), in intonation or segmental differences are a stronger cue for accent identification. In the second set of experiments, participants have to focus on one of two simultaneous speakers. Here the research question is whether differences in speech rhythm, intonation or segmental differences help listeners more when trying to understand the target speaker. Overall, both types of experiments show that the difference in speech rhythm between Indian English and British English is perceptually relevant. Participants used speech rhythm as an acoustic cue to identify the origin of a talker, even if acoustic cues other than speech rhythm were suppressed. Talkers with a more syllable-timed rhythm were assigned significantly more often to the ‘Indian’ group than talkers with a more stress-timed rhythm, who, in turn, were assigned more frequently to the ‘British’ group.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    All stimuli were processed with Praat (Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer (Computer Program). Version 5.3.04).

  2. 2.

    Another option would have been to manipulate the durations of unstressed syllables (see Hertrich and Ackermann 1998). However, Chap. 6 showed that the variability of vocalic durations shows much more robust differences between IndE and BrE than the variability of syllable durations, which suggests that vocalic durations rather than syllable durations should be manipulated in the experiments.

  3. 3.

    Part of the results presented in this section has been published with a different focus in Fuchs (2015d). Results vary to a small degree because in the present work a logistic regression model was used after collapsing the interval-scaled response variable to a binary variable (‘British’ and ‘somewhat British’ merged to ‘British’, and ‘Indian’ and ‘somewhat Indian’ to ‘Indian’). In Fuchs (2015d), a linear regression model was used.

  4. 4.

    The sentences were taken from the reading passage used as the basis for the rhythm measurements in Chap. 6. They read ‘The suspect, who cannot be named, works as a hairdresser in Carter Town’ and ‘Eugene’s hairdressers has a fine reputation due to the long-standing service of Peter Beard and Barbara Detman’.

  5. 5.

    This includes another condition (with a total of 12 stimuli) that addressed a hypothesis not related to the research questions discussed here. For the purposes of the present discussion, these 12 stimuli can be regarded as fillers.

  6. 6.

    Participants were asked to enumerate all languages they know in decreasing order of proficiency. L1 is defined here as the first language in the list of languages that is not English.

  7. 7.

    These factors were not considered in the pilot study because they were either not applicable (sentence) or the number of participants was considered too small to make valid distinctions based on them (school and L1).

  8. 8.

    The present experiment is similar to Cushing and Dellwo (2010) in many respects and the same Praat scripts were used for preparing stimuli and running the experiment, except for the IndE recordings and the manipulation of the stimuli. I would like thank Volker Dellwo for providing the BrE recordings and the Praat scripts for this experiment.

  9. 9.

    These are the only rhythm conditions that include pairs of stimuli involving only naturalistic rhythm resynthesis, but they also contain some stimuli with artificial rhythm resynthesis. Even under these circumstances difference rhythm has less influence than intonation, and the influence of difference rhythm is very unlikely to be greater if these conditions were restricted to exclusively naturalistic rhythm resynthesis.

  10. 10.

    Some groups were presented with only 253 stimuli, which was caused by the stimulus selection script choosing the same stimulus twice.

  11. 11.

    I would like to thank Ganesh Sinisetty, Angana Adhikari and Chandrasekar Kandharaja for the help with recruiting participants and running the experiment.

References

  • Akaike, Hirotugu. 1980. Likelihood and the Bayes procedure. Trabajos de Estadistica y de Investigacion Operativa 31(1): 143–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, and Ben Bolker. 2013. lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using S4 Classes. R package version 0.999999-2. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.

  • Bezooijen, Renée van, and Charlotte Gooskens. 1999. Identification of language varieties – The contribution of different linguistic levels. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 18(1): 31–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boersma, Paul, and David Weenink. 2012. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (computer program). Version 5.3.04. www.praat.org.

  • Bolia, Robert S., W. Todd Nelson, Mark A. Ericson, and Brian D. Simpson. 2000. A speech corpus for multitalker communications research. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 107: 1065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boula de Mareüil, Philippe, and Béatrice Akissi Boutin. 2011. Évaluation et identification perceptives d’accents ouest-africains en francçais. Journal of French Language Studies 21(3): 361–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boula de Mareüil, Philippe, and Bianca Vieru-Dimulescu. 2006. The contribution of prosody to the perception of foreign accent. Phonetica 63(4): 247–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brungart, Douglas S. 2001. Evaluation of speech intelligibility with the coordinate response measure. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 109: 2276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bush, Clara N. 1967. Acoustic parameters of speech and their relationships to the perception of dialect differences. TESOL Quarterly 1(3): 20–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calcagno, Vincent, and Claire de Mazancourt. 2010. Glmulti: An R package for easy automated model selection with (generalized) linear models. Journal of Statistical Software 34(12): 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherry, E. Colin. 1953. Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 25(5): 975–979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, Martin, M.L., Garcia Lecumberri, and Jon Barker. 2008. The foreign language cocktail party problem: Energetic and informational masking effects in non-native speech perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 123(1): 414–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cushing, Ian R., and Volker Dellwo. 2010. The role of speech rhythm in attending to one of two simultaneous speakers. In Electronic proceedings of speech prosody 2010, Chicago. http://speechprosody2010.illinois.edu/papers/100039.pdf.

  • Darwin, Christopher J., Douglas S. Brungart, and Brian D. Simpson. 2003. Effects of fundamental frequency and vocal-tract length changes on attention to one of two simultaneous talkers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 114(5): 2913–2922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drager, Katie. 2010. Sociophonetic variation in speech perception. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(7): 473–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freyman, Richard L., Uma Balkrishnan, and Karen S. Helfer. 2001. Spatial release from informational masking in speech recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 109(5): 2112–2122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fridland, Valerie, Kathryn Bartlett, and Roger Kreuz. 2004. Do you hear what I hear? Experimental measurement of the perceptual salience of acoustically manipulated vowel variants by Southern speakers in Memphis, TN. Language Variation and Change 16(1): 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, Robert. 2015a. Pitch range and level in postcolonial varieties of English: A comparison of Educated Indian English with British English. In Proceedings of interspeech 2015, Dresden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, Robert. 2015d. You’re not from around here, are you? – A dialect discrimination experiment with speakers of British and Indian English. In Prosody and language in contact: L2 acquisition, attrition and languages in multilingual situations, ed. Elisabeth Delais-Roussarie, Mathieu Avanzi, and Sophie Herment, 121–146. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia Lecumberri, M.L., and Martin Cooke. 2006. Effect of masker type on non-native and non-native consonant perception in noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 119(4): 2445–2554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gooskens, Charlotte. 1997. On the Role of Prosodic and Verbal Information in the Perception of Dutch and English Language Varieties. PhD thesis. University of Nijmegen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graff, David, William Labov, and Wendell A. Harris. 1986. Testing listeners’ reactions to phonological markers of ethnic identity: A new method for sociolinguistic research. In Diversity and diachrony, ed. David Sankoff. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gut, Ulrike. 2009. Non-native speech. A corpus-based analysis of phonological and phonetic properties of L2 English and German. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gut, Ulrike. 2012. A multilingual corpus of spoken learner German and learner English. In Multilingual corpora and multilingual corpus analysis, ed. Thomas Schmidt and Kai Wörner, 3–23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hertrich, Ingo, and Hermann Ackermann. 1998. Auditory perceptual evaluation of rhythm-manipulated and resynthesized sentence utterances obtained from cerebellar patients and normal speakers: A preliminary report. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 12(6): 427–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jilka, Matthias. 2000a. Testing the contribution of prosody to the perception of foreign accent. In Proceedings of new sounds (4th international symposium on the aquisition of second language speech), Amsterdam, 199–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jilka, Matthias. 2000b. The Contribution of Intonation to the Perception of Foreign Accent. PhD thesis. Universität Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, Patti M., and Ruth Y. Litovsky. 2006. Effect of masker type and age on speech intelligibility and spatial release from masking in children and adults. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 120(4): 2177–2189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolly, Marie-José, and Volker Dellwo. 2014. Cues to linguistic origin: The contribution of speech temporal information to foreign accent recognition. Journal of Phonetics 42(1): 12–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leijden, Klaske van. 2004. Prosodic characteristics of Orkney and shetland dialects: An experimental approach. Utrecht: LOT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levon, Erez. 2007. Sexuality in context: Variation and the sociolinguistic perception of identity. Language in Society 36(4): 533–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leyden, Klaske van. 2004. Prosodic Characteristics of Orkney and Shetland Dialects. PhD thesis. University of Leiden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leyden, Klaske van, and Vincent J. van Heuven. 2006. On the prosody of Orkney and Shetland dialects. Phonetica 63(2–3): 149–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malarski, Kamil. 2013. Intonation in the perception of Brummie. In Teaching and researching English accents in native and non-native speakers, ed. Ewa Waniek-Klimczak and Linda R. Shockey, 207–217. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, Olga. 2014. The Intonational Phonology of Indian English. An Autosegmental-Metrical Analysis Based on Bengali and Kannada English. PhD thesis. University of Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, Olga, and Janet Fletcher. 2010b. The realisation of focus by L1 Bengali and L1 Kannada speakers of English. Poster presented at Tone and Intonation in Europe 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayo, Lynn Hansberry, Soren Buus, and Mary Florentine. 1997. Age of second-language acquisition and perception of speech in noise. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 40(3): 686–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milde, Jan-Thorsten, and Ulrike Gut. 2002. A prosodic corpus of non-native speech. In Proceedings of speech prosody 2002, 503–506. Aix-en-Provence: Laboratoire Parole et Langage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munro, Murray J. 1995. Nonsegmental factors in foreign accent. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17(1): 17–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niedzielski, Nancy. 1999. The effect of social information on the perception of sociolinguistic variables. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 18(1): 62–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, Hanyong. 2013. Detecting foreign accent in monosyllables: The role of L1 phonotactics. Journal of Phonetics 41(2): 78–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, Jörg, Peter Gilles, Peter Auer, and Margret Selting. 2002. Identification of regional varieties by intonational cues: An experimental study on Hamburg and Berlin German. Language and Speech 45(2): 115–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollack, Irwin, and James M. Pickett. 1957. Cocktail party effect. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 29: 1262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramus, Franck, and Jacques Mehler. 1999. Language identification with suprasegmental cues: A study based on speech resynthesis. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 105(1): 512–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reel, Leigh Ann, and Candace Bourland Hicks. 2012. Selective auditory attention in adults: Effects of rhythmic structure of the competing language. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 55: 89–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhebergen, Koenraad S., Niek J. Versfeld, and Wouter A. Dreschler. 2005. Release from informational masking by time reversal of native and non-native interfering speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 118(3): 1274–1277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sperry, Jennifer L., Terry L. Wiley, and Michael R. Chial. 1997. Word recognition performance in various background competitors. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 8(2): 71–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szakay, Anita. 2006. Rhythm and pitch as markers of ethnicity in New Zealand English. In Proceedings of the 11th Australian international conference on speech science technology, ed. Paul Warren and Catherine Watson, 421–426. Canberra: Australian Speech Science & Technology Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szakay, Anita. 2007. Identifying Maori English and Pakeha English from Suprasegmental Cues: A Study Based in Speech Resynthesis. MA thesis. University of Canterbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szakay, Anita. 2008. Social networks and the perceptual relevance of rhythm: A New Zealand case study. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 14(2): article 18 (n.p.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabri, Dollen, Kim Michelle Smith Abou Chacra, and Tim Pring. 2010. Speech perception in noise by monolingual, bilingual and trilingual listeners. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 46(4): 411–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, Erik R. 2002b. Sociophonetic applications of speech perception experiments. American Speech 77(2): 115–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, Erik R., and Jeffrey Reaser. 2004. Delimiting perceptual cues used for the ethnic labeling of African American and European American voices. Journal of Sociolinguistics 8(1): 54–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tun, Patricia A., Arthur Wingfield, and Gail O’Kane. 2002. Distraction by competing speech in younger and older adult listeners. Psychology and Aging 17(3): 453–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulbrich, Christiane. 2013. German pitches in English: Production and perception of cross-varietal differences in L2. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16(2): 397–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaissière, Jacqueline, and Philippe Boula de Mareüil. 2004. Identifying a language or an accent: From segments to prosody. In Proceedings of Identification des Langues et des Varietés Dialectales par les Humains et par les Machines (MIDL 2004), ed. Martine Adda-Decker, Philippe Boula de Mareüil, and Ioana Vasilescu. Paris, 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Engen, Kristin J., and Ann R. Bradlow. 2007. Sentence recognition in native- and foreign-language multi-talker background noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 121(1): 519–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vestergaard, Martin D., Nichloas R.C. Fyson, and Roy D. Patterson. 2009. The interaction of vocal characteristics and audibility in the recognition of concurrent syllables. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125(2): 1114–1124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vicenik, Chad, and Megha Sundara. 2013. The role of intonation in language and dialect discrimination by adults. Journal of Phonetics 41(5): 297–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vicenik, Chad J. 2011. The Role of Intonation in Language Discrimination by Infants and Adults. PhD thesis. University of California at Los Angeles.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, Laurence, and Sven L. Mattys. 2007a. Calibrating rhythm: First language and second language studies. Journal of Phonetics 35(4): 501–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, Laurence, and Sven L. Mattys. 2007b. Rhythmic typology and variation in first and second languages. Segmental and Prosodic Issues in Romance Phonology 282: 237–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, Laurence, Sven L. Mattys, and Lukas Wiget. 2012. Language categorization by adults is based on sensitivity to durational cues, not rhythm class. Journal of Memory and Language 66(4): 665–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiltshire, Caroline R., and James D. Harnsberger. 2006. The influence of Gujarati and Tamil L1s on Indian English: A preliminary study. World Englishes 25(1): 91–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winters, Stephen, and Mary Grantham O’Brien. 2013. Perceived accentedness and intelligibility: The relative contributions of F0 and duration. Speech Communication 55(3): 486–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fuchs, R. (2016). The Perception of Speech Rhythm in Indian English and British English. In: Speech Rhythm in Varieties of English. Prosody, Phonology and Phonetics. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47818-9_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47818-9_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-47817-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-47818-9

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics