Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
Vol. 12:6 (2022) ► pp.748–777

Focus prosody by Korean learners of English

 | Liaocheng University
 | Cheongju University
This study examined whether Korean learners of English attained native-like performance in English focus prosody by conducting production and perception experiments using digit strings. Language learners were classified into advanced-, intermediate-, and low-level groups according to their proficiency and compared with native speakers. Native speakers’ focus prosody was clearly prominent in the focus positions, and their post-focus positions were considerably compressed. Their focused digits were easy to detect, resulting in a 97% identification rate. Although advanced-level speakers produced acoustic cues quite similar to those of native speakers, their post-focus production did not resemble that of native speakers. Their identification rate was 81%, 16% lower than that of native speakers. Neither intermediate- nor low-level speakers’ focus-cueing changes were distinguished whatsoever in the focus and post-focus positions. Their identification rates were just over 10%, similar to the level of chance in a 10-digit string, implying that their focus productions were not sufficiently salient to be recognized in the experiment. The results suggest that second language acquisition is hindered by a negative transfer between English and Korean. The acquisition of second language focus prosody proceeds slowly; second language learners approach native-like proficiency once they become advanced.
Keywords: focus prosody, production, perception, Korean learners of English
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Prosodic structure and focus prosody in English and Korean
    • 1.2Prosodic transfer
    • 1.3Setting the stage
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Stimuli
    • 2.2Participants
    • 2.3Recording procedure
    • 2.4Overview of pitch contours
    • 2.5Acoustic measurements
    • 2.6Analyses and results
      • 2.6.1On-focus positions
      • 2.6.2Post-focus positions
  • 3.Perception
    • 3.1Audio stimuli
    • 3.2Participants
    • 3.3Procedure
    • 3.4Results
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 4 March 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.20031.liu
References (43)
References
Archibald, J. (1998). Second language phonology, phonetics, and typology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(2), 189–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenik, D. (2020). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer software]. Retrieved from [URL]
Bolinger, D. (1958). A theory of pitch accent in English. Word, 14(2–3), 109–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y., Guion-Anderson, S., & Xu, Y. (2012). Post-focus compression in second language Mandarin. Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2012, 410–413.Google Scholar
Corder, S. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
de Jong, K. (2004). Stress, lexical focus, and segmental focus in English: Patterns of variation in vowel duration. Journal of Phonetics, 32(4), 493–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, B. (2012). Syntax and discourse in near-native French: Clefts and focus. Language Learning, 62(3), 902–930. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, I., & Jannedy, S. (2013). Prosody of focus marking in Ewe. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics, 34(1), 1–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardner, M. K., Rothkopf, E. Z., Lapan, R., & Lafferty, T. (1987). The word frequency effect in lexical decision: Finding a frequency-based component. Memory & Cognition, 15(1), 24–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (1983). Focus, mode and the nucleus. Journal of Linguistics, 19(2), 377–417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hothorn, T., Bretz, F., & Westfall, P. (2008). Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical Journal, 50(3), 346–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
House, A. S., & Fairbanks, G. (1953). The influence of consonant environment upon the secondary acoustical characteristics of vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 251, 105–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huss, V. (1978). English word stress in the post-nuclear position. Phonetica, 35(2), 86–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jun, S.-A. (1998). The Accentual Phrase in the Korean prosodic hierarchy. Phonology, 151, 189–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jun, S.-A., & Oh, M. (2000). Acquisition of second language intonation. Proceedings of International Conference on Spoken Language Processing Vol 4, 76–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kang, S., Ahn, H., & Hong, M. (2012). The acquisition of L2 English focus by Korean learners. Korean Journal of Linguistics, 37(1), 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhof, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. R. (1984). English compound stress. In D. Gibbon & H. Richer (Eds.), Intonation, accent and rhythm (pp. 253–266). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Y. (2009). The phonetic realization of contrastive focus and its neighbors in Korean and English: A cross-language study. MA thesis, Hannam University.Google Scholar
(2012). Prosodic correlation between the focusing adverb ozik ‘only’ and focus/givenness in Korean. Journal of Speech Sciences, 2(2), 85–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Prosodic focus within and across languages. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Lee, Y., Wang, T., & Liberman, M. (2016). Production and perception of tone 3 focus in Mandarin Chinese. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(1058), 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Y., & Xu, Y. (2010). Phonetic realization of contrastive focus in Korean. Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2010, paper 331, 1–4.Google Scholar
Liberman, M. (1975). The intonational system of English. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Liu, J., Xu, Y., and Lee, Y. (2019). Post-focus compression is not automatically transferred from Korean to L2 English. Phonetics and Speech Sciences, 111, 15–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. (2020). A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from [URL]
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 101, 203–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shin, J., & Speer, S. R. (2012). English lexical stress and spoken word recognition in Korean learners of English. Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2012, 422–425.Google Scholar
Song, J. J. (2005). The Korean language: Structure, use and context. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Suomi, K., Toivanen, J., & Ylitalo, R. (2003). Durational and tonal correlates of accent in Finnish. Journal of Phonetics, 31(1), 113–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swerts, M., & Zerbian, S. (2010). Prosodic transfer in Black South African English. Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2010, paper 981, 1–4.Google Scholar
Ueyama, M., & Jun, S.-A. (1998). Focus realization in Japanese English and Korean English intonation. Japanese and Korean Linguistics, 71, 629–645.Google Scholar
Vallduví, E. (1990). The informational component. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Van Rossum, G. (1995). Python reference manual. Amsterdam: CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science).Google Scholar
Wagner, M., & McCurdy, K. (2010). Poetic rhyme reflects cross-linguistic differences in information structure. Cognition, 117(2), 166–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, T., Liu, J., Lee, Y., & Lee, Y. (2020). The interaction between tone and prosodic focus in Mandarin Chinese. Language and Linguistics, 21(2), 331–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, S., & Hammarberg, B. (1998). Language switches in L3 production: Implications for a polyglot speaking model. Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 295–333. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wu, W. L., & Chung, L. (2011). Post-focus compression in English-Cantonese bilingual speakers. Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 148–151.Google Scholar
Xu, Y. (2011). Post-focus compression: Cross-linguistic distribution and historical origin. Proceedings of the The 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 152–155.Google Scholar
(2013). ProsodyPro – A Tool for large-scale systematic prosody analysis. Proceedings of Tools and Resources for the Analysis of Speech Prosody, 7–10.Google Scholar
Xu, Y., Chen, S., & Wang, B. (2012). Prosodic focus with and without post-focus compression: A typological divide within the same language family? The Linguistic Review, 29(1), 131–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xu, Y., & Xu, C. X. (2005). Phonetic realization of focus in English declarative intonation. Journal of Phonetics, 33(2), 159–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

White, Lydia, Heather Goad, Guilherme Duarte Garcia, Natália Brambatti Guzzo, Liz Smeets & Jiajia Su
2024. Pronoun interpretation in Italian. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism DOI logo
Zhang, Weizhong, Jian Gong, Xiaoli Ji, Yuhong Sun & Kai Sheng
2022. 2022 25th Conference of the Oriental COCOSDA International Committee for the Co-ordination and Standardisation of Speech Databases and Assessment Techniques (O-COCOSDA), ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Ge, Haoyan, Iris Mulders, Xin Kang, Aoju Chen & Virginia Yip
2021. Processing focus in native and non-native speakers of English: an eye-tracking study in the visual world paradigm. Applied Psycholinguistics 42:4 ► pp. 1057 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.