Article published in:
Above and Beyond the Segments: Experimental linguistics and phonetics
Edited by Johanneke Caspers, Yiya Chen, Willemijn Heeren, Jos Pacilly, Niels O. Schiller and Ellen van Zanten
[Not in series 189] 2014
► pp. 28–41

Pitch accent placement in Dutch as a second language

An exploratory investigation

How do non-native speakers of Dutch differ from native speakers in pitch accent placement? Previous investigations report over-accentuation, but there is also evidence that non-native (L2) speakers have no problems accenting new information and deaccenting given information. A text was read aloud by L2 speakers with Mandarin, French, Polish and Hungarian as native languages (L1). Based on native speaker production, the “accentability” of words was determined. The L2 speakers produced most “obligatory” accents, but not most “forbidden” accents. Also, L2 speakers accented two thirds of the optionally accentable words, while L1 speakers accented only a third. These results suggest that over-accentuation in L2 does not necessarily mean inappropriate pitch accent location.
Published online: 10 December 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.189.03cas
References
Baumann, S., & Schumacher, P.B
(2012) (De-)Accentuation and the processing of information status: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Language and Speech, 55, 361–381. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caspers, J., Bosma, E., Kramm, F., & Reya, P
(2012) Deaccentuation in Dutch as a second language: Where does the accent go to? In M. Elenbaas, & S. Aalberse (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2012 (pp. 27–40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caspers, J., & Horłoza, K
(2012) Intelligibility of non-natively produced Dutch words: Interaction between segmental and suprasegmental errors. Phonetica, 69, 94–107. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caspers, J., & Kepinska, O
(2011) The influence of word-level prosodic structure of the mother tongue on production of word stress in Dutch as a second language. In W.S. Lee, & E. Zee (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 420–423).Google Scholar
Caspers, J., & Santen, A. van
(2006) Nederlands uit Franse en Chinese mond: Invloed van T1 op de plaatsing van klemtoon in Nederlands als tweede taal? [Dutch from French and Chinese mouth: Influence of L1 on the location of stress in Dutch as a second language?] Nederlandse Taalkunde, 11, 289–318.Google Scholar
Caspers, J., & Wouden, T. van der
(2008) The perception of modal particles in Dutch as a second language. Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen, 80(2), 9–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe (
2011) Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Retrieved from http://​www​.coe​.int​/t​/dg4​/linguistic​/Source​/Framework​_en​.pdfGoogle Scholar
Cruttenden, A
(2006) The de-accenting of given information: A cognitive universal? In G. Bernini, & M. Schwartz (Eds.), Pragmatic organization of discourse in the languages of Europe (pp. 311–356). The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C
(2011) Sentential prominence in English. In M.E.C. van Oostendorp, C. Ewen, K. Rice, & E. Hume (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology (pp. 2778–2806). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hahn, L.D
(2004) Primary stress and intelligibility: Research to motivate the teaching of suprasegmentals. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 201–233. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
He, X
(2012) Mandarin-accented Dutch prosody. PhD dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
He, X., Heuven, V.J. van, & Gussenhoven, C
(2010) Choosing the optimal pitch accent location in Dutch by Chinese learners and native listeners. In K. Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, M. Wrembel, & M. Kul (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second Language Speech, New Sounds 2010 (pp. 185–190).Google Scholar
Koutny, I., Olaszy, G., & Olaszi, P
(2000) Prosody prediction from text in Hungarian and its realization in TTS conversion. International Journal of Speech Technology, 3, 187–200.
 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D.R
(1996) Intonational phonology. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Landis, J.R., & Koch, G.G
(1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Michaux, M.-C., & Caspers, J
(2013) The production of Dutch word stress by francophone learners. In P. Mertens, & A.C. Simon (Eds.), Proceedings of the Prosody-Discourse Interface 2013 (IDP-2013) (pp. 89–94). Leuven.Google Scholar
Michaux, M.-C., Hiligsmann, Ph., & Rasier, L
(2012) Het klemtoonpatroon in de tussentaal van Franstalige leerders van het Nederlands [The interlanguage stress pattern of Francophone learners of Dutch]. XII. Internationaler Germanistenkongress 2010 (pp. 321–332). Warsaw.Google Scholar
Munro, M.J
(2008) Foreign accent and speech intelligibility. In J.G. Hansen Edwards, & M.L. Zampini (Eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition (pp. 193–218). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rasier, L
(2006) Prosodie en vreemdetaalverwerving: Accentdistributie in het Frans en Nederlands als vreemde taal [Prosody and foreign language acquisition: Accent distribution in French and Dutch as foreign language] . Unpublished PhD dissertation, Université Catholique de Louvain.Google Scholar
Rasier, L., & Hiligsmann, Ph
(2007) Prosodic transfer from L1 to L2: Theoretical and methodological issues. Nouveaux cahiers de linguistique française, 28, 41–66.Google Scholar
Swerts, M., Krahmer, E., & Avesani, C
(2002) Prosodic marking of information status in Dutch and Italian: A comparative analysis. Journal of Phonetics, 30, 629–654. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Terken, J., & Nooteboom, S.G
(1987) Opposite effects of accentuation and deaccentuation on verification latencies for given and new information. Language and cognitive processes, 2, 145–163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vallduví, E
(1991) The role of plasticity in the association of focus and prominence. Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, 7, 295–306.Google Scholar
Wiśniewski, M
(2001) Zarys fonetyki i fonologii współczesnego języka polskiego [Outline of the phonetics and phonology of contemporary Polish]. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika.Google Scholar