Cover not available
Article published In:
Chinese as a Second Language (漢語教學研究—美國中文教師學會學報)
Vol. 52:1 (2017) ► pp.3–27

Prosodic features, self-monitoring, and dysfluency in native and non-native Mandarin speech

| University of Wisconsin – Madison

This study explores the relationship between the prosodic features for time delay, self-monitoring in speech production, and perceived dysfluency. In this study, twenty native and non-native speakers of Chinese took a speech test. Each speech was transcribed, prosodic features were assigned symbols, and the coding system traced self-monitoring. An additional twenty-eight native speakers assessed the fluency of the speech samples, and then the researcher matched assessment results with symbols and coding, and analyzed them. The results indicate that uh/um and self-monitoring influence perceived dysfluency in most cases while other prosodic features do not; that the filled pause in non-native speech is a salient feature of perceived dysfluency; and how a dysfluency is perceived. The study also finds the native speakers’ perception bias.

Keywords: fluency, self-monitoring, pause, prosodic feature, production and perception
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1What is fluency?
    • 1.2What is studied?
    • 1.3Assessment of fluency
      • 1.3.1Analysis of production
      • 1.3.2Perception assessment
      • 1.3.3Some terms used in the production analysis
  • 2.Methodology
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Procedure
    • 2.3Analysis
      • 2.3.1Transcription
      • 2.3.2Counting and coding system
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Global score and local dysfluency number: highly correlated
    • 3.2The relationship between prosodic features/self-monitoring and perceived dysfluency
      • 3.2.1How many prosodic features or self-monitorings are produced when dysfluencies are perceived?
      • 3.2.2How many dysfluencies are perceived when a specific feature is produced?
      • 3.2.3Feature combinations and perceived dysfluencies
      • 3.2.4In which cases do prosodic features and self-monitoring influence fluency?
        • 3.2.4.1Analysis of silent pause
        • 3.2.4.2Analysis of filled pause
        • 3.2.4.3Analysis of self-monitoring
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1NS perceptual bias
    • 4.2How do prosodic features and self-monitoring influence perceived fluency?
    • 4.3Comparison between NS and NNS
  • 5.Conclusion
  • 6.Pedagogical implications
  • Acknowledgements
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 4 September 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/csl.52.1.01yan
References

References

Albrechtsen, D., Henriksen, B., & Faerch, C.
(1980) Native speaker reactions to learners’ spoken interlanguage. Language Learning, 30(2), 365–396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnold, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., Altmann, R. J., & Fagnano, M.
(2004) The old and thee, uh, new disfluency and reference resolution. Psychological Science, 15(9), 578–582. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beatti, G.
(1983) Talk: An analysis of speech and non-verbal behaviour in conversation. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Blau, E. K.
(1991) More on comprehensible input: the effect of pauses and hesitation markers on listening comprehension. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Puerto Rico Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages: from ERIC database.
Brennan, S. E., & Schober, M. F.
(2001) How listeners compensate for disfluencies in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 44(2), 274–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cenoz, J.
(2000) Pauses and hesitation phenomena in second language production. ITL. Institut voor Togepaste Linguistik, 127–28, 53–69.Google Scholar
Deese, J.
(1984) Thought into speech: the psychology of a language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
De Jong, N., & Perfetti, C. A.
(2011) Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning, 61(2), 533–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Rossiter, M. J., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I.
(2004) L2 fluency: Judgments on different tasks. Language Learning, 541, 655–679. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Thomson, R. I., & Munro, M. J.
(2006) English pronunciation and fluency development in Mandarin and Slavic speakers. System, 341, 183–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., Thomson, R. I., & Rossiter, M. J.
(2009) The relationship between L1 fluency and L2 fluency development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(04), 533–557. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I.
(2008) A longitudinal study of ESL learners’ fluency and comprehensibility development. Applied Linguistics, 291, 359–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
(1979) On fluency. In C. J. Fillmore, D. Kempler & W. S-Y. Wang (Eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior (pp. 85–101). New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox Tree, J. E., & Schrock, J. C.
(1999) Discourse markers in spontaneous speech: Oh what a difference an oh makes. Journal of Memory and Language, 401, 280–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, R.
(1991) Pausological research in an L2 context: A rationale, and review of selected studies. Applied Linguistics, 12(4), 345–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guillot, M. -N.
(1999) Fluency and its teaching. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Henderson, A., Goldman-Eisler, F., & Skarbek, A.
(1966) Sequential temporal patterns in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech, 91, 207–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Isaacs, T., & Trofimovich, P.
(2011) Phonological memory, attention control, and musical ability: Effects of individual differences on rater judgments of second language speech. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(1), 113–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ke, C.
(2005) Research on the relationship between the OPI and the SOPI and their pedagogical implications. Journal of Chinese Language Studies, 11: 156–168.Google Scholar
Kormos, J., & Dénes, M.
(2004) Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System, 32(2), 145–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lennon, P.
(1990) Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning, 401, 387–417. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M.
(1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
O’Brien, M. G.
(2014) L2 learners’ assessments of accentedness, fluency, and comprehensibility of native and nonnative German speech. Language Learning, 64(4), 715–748. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raupach, M.
(1980) Temporal variables in first and second language speech production. In H. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Temporal variables in speech: Studies in honour of Frieda Goldman-Eisler (pp. 263–270). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rehbein, J.
(1987) On fluency in second language speech. In H. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Psycholinguistic models of production (pp. 97–105). Praeger Pub Text.Google Scholar
Reich, S. S.
(1980) Significance of pauses for speech perception. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 9(4), 379–389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riazantseva, A.
(2001) Second language proficiency and pausing: A study of Russian speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(04), 497–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riggenbach, H.
(1991) Toward an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of nonnative speaker conversations. Discourse processes, 14(4), 423–441. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R.
(1992) Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency. Studies in second language acquisition, 14(04), 357–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tavakoli, P.
(2009) Assessing L2 task performance: Understanding effects of task design. System, 37(3), 482–495. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N.
(1996) The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 84–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trenchs-Parera, M.
(2009) Effects of formal instruction and a stay abroad on the acquisition of native-like oral fluency. Canadian Modern Language Journal, 65(3): 365–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trofimovich, P., & Baker, W.
(2006) Learning second language suprasegmentals: Effect of L2 experience on prosody and fluency characteristics of L2 speech. Studies in second language acquisition, 28(01), 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vanderplank, R.
(1993) ‘Pacing’ and ‘spacing’ as predictors of difficulty in speaking and understanding English. ELT Journal, 47(2), 117–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Voss, B.
(1979) Hesitation phenomena as sources of perceptual errors for non-native speakers. Language and Speech, 22(2), 129–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, M., Hirose, K., Den, Y., & Minematsu, N.
(2008) Filled pauses as cues to the complexity of upcoming phrases for native and non-native listeners. Speech Communication, 50(2), 81–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yang, B.
(2012) How do pauses reveal linguistic plans by L2 learners of Chinese? In Q. Ma, H. Ding, & D. Hirst (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Speech Prosody (SP2012). International Speech Communication Association online archive.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Yang, Jing & Bei Yang
2021. Duration of Disyllabic Words Produced by Russian Learners of Chinese. In The Acquisition of Chinese as a Second Language Pronunciation [Prosody, Phonology and Phonetics, ], ► pp. 177 ff. DOI logo
Zhu, Junling
2023. Critical Literature Review on Teaching Chinese as a World Language in the Context of Globalization. Language and Sociocultural Theory 9:2 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 march 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.