DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of language on fundamental frequency: Comparison between Korean and English produced by L2 speakers and bilingual speakers

  • Lim, Soo Bin ;
  • Lee, Goun ;
  • Rhee, Seok-Chae
  • Received : 2016.10.24
  • Accepted : 2016.12.24
  • Published : 2016.12.31

Abstract

This study aims to examine whether the fundamental frequency (F0) varies depending on languages or distinguishes between L1 (first language) and L2 (second language) speech and whether the type of materials which vary in control of consonant voicing affects the use of F0-especially, mean F0. For this purpose, we compared productions of two languages produced by Korean L2 learners of English to those of Korean-English bilingual speakers. Twelve Korean L2 speakers of English and twelve Korean-English bilingual speakers participated in this study. The subjects read aloud 22 declarative sentences-balanced and unbalanced-once in English and once in Korean. Mean F0 of Korean was higher than that of English for both speaker groups, and the difference in the value of mean F0 between the Korean and English sentences was different depending on the type of materials that the participants read. With regard to F0 range, the L2 speakers had a larger F0 range in English than in Korean; however, the effect of language on F0 range was not statistically significant for the bilingual speakers. These results indicate that language-specific properties may affect the use of F0, in particular, mean F0.

Keywords

mean F0;F0 range;L2 speakers;bilingual speakers;L2 effect;language-specific features;consonant voicing

References

  1. Andreeva, B., Demenko, G., Wolska, M., Mobius, B., Zimmerer, F., Jugler, J., Oleskowicz-Popiel, M., & Trouvain, J. (2014). Comparison of pitch range and pitch variation in Slavic and Germanic languages. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Speech Prosody (pp. 776-780). Dublin, Ireland. 20-23 May, 2014.
  2. Bent, T., & Bradlow, A. R. (2003). The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114(3), 1600-1610. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1603234
  3. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2016). Praat: doing phonetics by computer. Version 6.0.08, Retrieved from http://www.praat.org/[Computer program] on December 7, 2015.
  4. Brown, J. D. (1984). A cloze is a cloze is a cloze? In J. Handscombe, R. A. Orem, & B. P. Taylor (Eds.), On TESOL '83: The question of control (pp.109-119). Washington, DC: TESOL.
  5. Busa, M. G., & Urbani, M. (2011). A cross linguistic analysis of pitch range in English L1 and L2. Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XVII), (pp. 380-383). Hong Kong, China. 17-21 August, 2011.
  6. Carlson, R., Granstrom, B., & Nord, L. (1992). Experiments with emotive speech: Acted utterances and synthesized replicas. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP 92), (pp. 671-674). Alberta, Canada. 12-16 October, 1992.
  7. Flemming, E. (2008). The role of pitch range in focus marking. Slides from a talk given at the Workshop on Information Structure and Prosody.
  8. Graham, C. (2013). Revisiting F0 range production in Japanese-English simultaneous bilinguals. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report, 110-125.
  9. Grawnder, S., & Winter, B. (2010). Acoustic correlates of politeness: Prosodic and voice quality measures in polite and informal speech of Korean and German speakers. Proceedings of the International Conference for Speech Prosody. Chicago, IL. 11-14 May, 2010.
  10. Gussenhoven, C. (2004). The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  11. Haan, J., & van Heuven, V. J. (1999). Male vs. Female pitch range in Dutch questions. Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. San Francisco, CA. 1-7 August, 1999.
  12. Kang, O. (2003). Korean phonology. Seoul: Taehaksa. (강옥미 (2003). 한국어 음운론. 서울: 태학사.)
  13. Keating, P., & Kuo, G. (2012). Comparison of speaking fundamental frequency in English and Mandarin. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 132(2), 1050-1060. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4730893
  14. Loveday, L. (1981). Pitch, politeness and sexual role: An exploratory investigation into the pitch correlates of English and Japanese politeness formulae. Language and Speech, 24(1), 71-89. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383098102400105
  15. Major, R. C., & Faudree, M. C. (1996). Markedness universals and the acquisition of voicing contrasts by Korean speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(1), 69-90. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100014686
  16. Pereira, C., & Watson, C. (1998). Some acoustic characteristics of emotion. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing. Sydney, Australia. 30 November - 4 December, 1998.
  17. Shin, D., & Lee, G. (2016). Do Korean learners of English speak L2 differently from their L1? - F0 characteristics and intensity differences between Korean and English. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology, 22(2), 317-334. https://doi.org/10.17959/sppm.2016.22.2.317
  18. Shin, S. (2005). Grammaticalization of politeness: A contrastive study of German, English and Korean. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
  19. Stevens, K. N. (1998). Acoustic phonetics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  20. Ullakonoja, R. (2007). Comparison of pitch range in Finnish (L1) and Russian (L2). Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 1701-1704). Saarbrucken, Germany. 6-10 August, 2007.
  21. Upshur, J., Koba, H., Spaan, M., & Strowe, L. (1972). English Language Institute listening comprehension test. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
  22. Winter, B., & Grawnder, S. (2012). The phonetic profile of Korean formal and informal speech registers. Journal of Phonetics, 40(6), 808-815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2012.08.006
  23. Xu, Y. (2013). ProsodyPro - A tool for large-scale systematic prosody analysis. Proceedings of Tools and Resources for the Analysis of Speech Prosody (TRASP 2013), (pp. 7-10). Aix-en-Provence, France. 30 August, 2013.
  24. Zimmerer, F., Jugler, J., Andreeva, B., Mobius, B., & Trouvain, J. (2014). Too cautious to vary more? A comparison of pitch variation in native and non-native productions of French and German speakers. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Speech Prosody (pp. 1037-1041). Dublin, Ireland. 20-23 May, 2014.
  25. Lee, D. (2016). Pitch variation in Korean EFL speakers' L1-Koreanand L2-English speech. M.A. Thesis, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies. (이대용 (2016). 한국인 영어학습자의 한국어 및 영어 발화에 나타난 음높이 변화에 관한 연구. 한국외국어대학교 석사학위논문.)

Acknowledgement

Grant : BK21플러스

Supported by : 연세대학교