융합정보논문지 (Journal of Convergence for Information Technology)

중소기업융합학회 (Convergence Society for SMB)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

PRAAT 소프트웨어: 교사 목소리 분석을 위한 맞춤법 상호작용 도구

PRAAT Software: A Spech Interaction Tool to Analyze Teacher Voices

  • Kidd, Ella Jane (Department of British & American Language and Culture, Kyunghee University)
  • 투고 : 2019.05.13
  • 심사 : 2019.09.20
  • 발행 : 2019.09.27
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 논문은 음성 소프트웨어 기술의 사용을 통해 영어의 내부 영역 내에서 음성 상호 작용의 영향을 검토한다. 기본주파수(F0)는 국적, 연령, 성별을 기준으로 원어민(연령 30-55세) 음성 효과를 분석해 얻었다. 이 연구에서 밝혀진 바에 따르면, 백인 영국 여성(33세)과 백인 미국인 남성(55세)이 가장 많은 대화형 연설을 했다는 것이다. 기여 요인은 학생들이 언어 습득 연구를 통해 다양한 언어 스타일을 경험한 것이다. 이 연구의 결과는 평균 이상의 연속적인 말이 학생의 참여와 상호작용에 가장 중요하다는 데 동의한 $Traunm{\ddot{u}}eller$ & Eriksson(1995) 및 이전 연구와 양립할 수 있다.

Through the use of speech software technology, this paper examines the effects of voice interactions within the inner circle of English. The fundamental frequency (F0) was obtained by analyzing native speakers (aged 30-55) speech effects based on nationality, age, and gender. The findings within this study reveal that the Caucasian British female (age 33) and the Caucasian American male (age 55) produced the most interactive speech. The contributing factor is the students' experience with various language styles throughout their language acquisition studies. The results of this study are compatible with $Traunm{\ddot{u}}eller$ & Eriksson (1995) and previous studies which agree that continuous speech above average is paramount towards student engagement and interactions.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. H. Traunmuller & E. Anders. (1995). The frequency range of the voice fundamental in the speech of male and female adults. Unpublished Manuscript.
  2. B. Inan. (2012). A comparison of classroom interaction patterns of native and non-native EFL teachers. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 2419-2423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.496
  3. Y. Maryn & N. Roy. (2012). Sustained vowels and continuous speech in the auditory-perceptual evaluation of dysphonia severity. Journal de Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia, 24(2), 107-112. https://doi.org/10.1590/S2179-64912012000200003
  4. P. Boersma & D. Weenink. (2013). Praat: doing phonetics by computer [windows 10]. Version 5.3.51, retrieved 3 June 2017 from http://www.praat.org/.
  5. Z. Dornyei. (2010a). The relationship between language aptitude and language learning motivation: Individual differences from a dynamic systems perspective. In E. Macaro (Ed.) Continuum companion to second language acquisition (pp. 247-267). London: Continuum.
  6. Z. Dornyei & I. Otto. (1998). Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation. Working Papers In Applied Linguistics. 4, 43-69.
  7. R. C. Gardner. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Arnold.
  8. R. Bahous, N. N. Bacha & M Nabhani. (2011). Motivating Students in the EFL Classroom: A Case Study of Perspectives. English Language Teaching, 4(3), 33-43, 2011. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n1p33
  9. A. Liuoliene & R. Metiuniene. (2006). Second language learning motivation. Santalka. Filologija Edulologija, 14(2), 93-98. https://doi.org/10.3846/coactivity.2006.24
  10. H. Gardner. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
  11. R. C. Gardner. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Arnold.
  12. R. Clement. (1980). Ethnicity, contact, and communicative competence in a second language. In E. Giles, D. Robinson, & P.M. Smith (Eds.) Language: Social psychology perspectives (pp. 146-154). Oxford: Pergamon.
  13. M. O. Akita. (2014). The Effectiveness of Interactive Teaching Methods in EFL Classrooms: A Comparison with Bottom-Up and Top-Down Methods. Applied Linguistics, 5, 2014.
  14. T. Morell. (2004). Interactive lecture discourse for university EFL students. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 325 - 338. DOI : 10.1016/S0889-4906(03)00029-2.
  15. B. Inan. (2012). A comparison of classroom interaction patterns of native and non-native EFL teachers. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 2419-2423.
  16. D. Graddol. (1986). Discourse specific pitch behaviour," in Intonation in Discourse. edited by Catherine Johns-Lewis (Croom Helm, London and Sidney), pp. 221-237.
  17. B. Gorjian, H. Abdolmajid & P. Pourkhon. (2013). Using Praat software in teaching prosodic features to EFL learners. Social and Behavioral Sciences. 84, 34-40.
  18. P. Medgyes. (1994). The non-native teacher. London: Macmillan.
  19. C. Johns-Lewis. (1986). Prosodic differentiation of discourse modes in Intonation in Discourse. edited by Catherine Johns-Lewis (Croom Helm, London and Sidney), pp. 199-219.
  20. Wiberg, E. (2003). The interactional context of L2 dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics. 35(3), 389-407. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00142-X