Intonation meaning in English discourse: A study of Thai speakers
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25170/ijelt.v1i2.1422Keywords:
discourse intonation, cross-cultural communication, cross-linguistics interferenceAbstract
At the heart of cross-cultural misunderstandings lie problems associated with intonation features of learners of English (Gumperz et al., 1979; Gumperz, 1982). The successful use of discourse intonation contributes to effective cross-cultural communication, and failure to make use of the appropriate pragmatic discourse features of English intonation jeopardizes effective communication, possibly resulting in serious communication breakdown between native and non-native speakers. Despite its crucial role in communication and language learning, many English language learners have difficulty in using appropriate intonation. A number of studies of second language intonation have an underlying assumption of the role of cross-linguistic interference contributing to a “foreign intonation” (Lepetit, 1989; Hewings, 1990; Wennerstrom, 1994). However, this line of research is in an early stage and the findings are as yet inconclusive. This paper compared the speech of five Thai speakers who were studying for their advanced degrees in science and business in the U.S with the speech produced by five native speakers. The speech elicited from three different tasks was analyzed using Pierrehumbert & Hirschberg’s 1990 model of intonational meaning. The extent to which the intonation produced by Thais diverged from that by native speakers was assessed. In light of the findings, pedagogical suggestions were offered to help improve the teaching of pronunciation, in general, and the teaching of intonation, in particular.
References
Brazil, D. 1995. Grammar of speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chafe, W. 1994. Discourse, consciousness and time. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Chun, D. 1988. The neglected role of intonation in communicative competence and proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 72/3, 295-303.
Clennell, C. 1997. Raising the pedagogic status of discourse intonation teaching. ELT Journal, 51/2, 117-125.
Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. 1997. The teaching of academic listening comprehension and the question of authenticity. English for Specific Purposes, 16, 27-46.
Graddol, D. 1986. Discourse specific pitch behaviour. In C. John-Lewis (Ed.), Intonation in discourse (pp. 221-237). College-Hill Press, Inc.: San Diego.
Gumperz, J., Jupp, C., & Roberts, C. 1979. Crosstalk. Text to accompany BBC film. Southall, Middlesex: National Centre for Industrial Language Training.
Gumperz, J. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Halliday, M. 1967. Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton.
Hewings, M. 1990. Patterns of intonation in the speech of learners of English. In M. Hewings (Ed.), Papers in discourse intonation (pp. 130-144). Birmingham: English Language Research: Discourse Monograph series.
Hewings, M. 1995. The English intonation of native speakers and Indonesian learners: A comparative study. RELC Journal, 26, 27-46.
Juffs, A. 1990. Tone, syllable structure and interlanguage phonology: Chinese learners’s stress errors. IRAL, 28/2, 99-117.
Lepetit, D. 1989. Cross-cultural influence in intonation: French/Japanese and French/English. Language Learning, 39, 397-413.
Luthy, M. 1983. Nonnative speakers’ perceptions of English “nonlexical” intonation signals. Language Learning, 33, 19-36.
Pickering, L. 1994. The function of intonation in the classroom. University of Florida thesis.
Pickering, L. 2004. The structure and function of intonational paragraphs in native and nonnative speaker instructional discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 19-43.
Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J. 1990. The meaning of intonational contours in discourse. In P. Cohen, J. Morgan & M. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 271-311). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rost, M. 2002. Teaching and researching listening. London: Longman.
Scott, M., & Thompson, G. (Eds.). 2001. Patterns of text: In honour of Michael Hoey. Amsterdam: Johns Benjamin.
Shen, X. 1990. Ability of learning the prosody of an intonational language by speakers of a tonal language: Chinese speakers learning French prosody. IRAL, 28/2, 119-134.
Tench, P. 1996. The intonation systems of English. London: Cassell.
Thompson, S.E. 2003. Text structuring metadiscourse, intonation and the signaling of organization in academic lectures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2/5-20.
Thompson, S.E. 1995. Teaching intonation on questions. ELT Journal, 49/3, 235-242.
Wennerstrom, A. 1994. Intonational meaning in English discourse: A study of non-native speakers. Applied Linguistics,15, 399-420.
Wennerstrom, A. 1998. Intonation as cohesion in academic discourse: A study of Chinese speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20/1, 1-15.
Wennerstrom, A. 2001. Intonation and evaluation in oral narratives. Journal of Pragmatics, 33/8, 1183-1206.
Wong-opasi, U. 1996. The interplay between tone, stress, and syllabification in Thai. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 23/2, 165-192.
Yule, G. 1980. Speaker’s topics and major paratones. Lingua, 52/1-2, 33-47.
