Analysis of prosodic systems in the classroom discourse of native speaker and nonnative speaker teaching assistants

323 Pages·1999·7.6 MB·English

by  Pickering, Lucy

ANANALYSISOFPROSODICSYSTEMS INTHECLASSROOMDISCOURSE
OFNATIVESPEAKERANDNONNATIVESPEAKERTEACHINGASSISTANTS
By
LUCYPICKERING
ADISSERTATIONPRESENTEDTOTHEGRADUATESCHOOL
OFTHEUNIVERSITYOFFLORIDAINPARTIALFULFILLMENT
OFTHEREQUIREMENTSFORTHEDEGREEOF
DOCTOROFPHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITYOFFLORIDA
1999
TABLEOFCONTENTS
ABSTRACT iv
CHAPTERS
1 INTRODUCTION !
OLIveravndiewL2Discourse 10i
2 INTONATIONINDISCOURSE 16
MAACCodooddMnmeiocpldtlaesiurlosinisosoofonfnDtowiIisntcBthorouanrzTasiwteoli'osnMPordMoioesndloesDdliysofcouIrnsteonation. ... 3451177386
3 METHODOLOGY 55
DDTaarttaaanbsacCsroeilplteicotnionConavnedntAinoanlsysis 556745
4ANALYSISOFNSDATA 65
TCSPIooeinnnqttecucrlehounCdcshSueioecoiqtncuiSeeotnnrcuaecnsdturOaerndieSnDttirasutcciotouunrreseMarkers 10896644057
5 ANALYSISOFNNSDATA 107
TCSPIooiennntqteccurhleounCdcshuSeioceoitqcniuCeoehnnaciaennsdSOtarnriduecntDtuirasetcioounrseMarkers 111115630038957
ii
6ANALYSESOFIVEDATA 172
CTSPIooiennntqteccurlheounCdschSuieoecoiqtncuiCeeohnnaciaennsdSOtarnriduecnDttiuasrtceioounrseMarkers .... 221111398727852
7CONCLUSION 242
STShuuemgmgaeRrsoytleioonfosfAnPfaorlroyssoFedusitcureStRuecstueraerchinDiscourse . 222455238
APPENDICES 265
A SAMPLEMATHEMATICSTRANSCRIPTS 265
B SAMPLEENGINEERINGTRANSCRIPTS 270
C SAMPLEPHYSICSTRANSCRIPTS 283
D SAMPLECHEMISTRYTRANSCRIPTS 296
REFERENCELIST 305
BIOGRAPHICALSKETCH 315
iii
AbstractofDissertationPresentedtotheGraduateSchool
oftheUniversityofFloridainPartialFulfillmentofthe
RequirementsfortheDegreeofDoctorofPhilosophy
ANANTIAVNEALSYPSEIASKEORFAPNRDOSNOODNINCATSIYVSETESMPSEAIKNERTHTEEACCLHAISNSGRAOSOSMISDTIASNCTOSURSEOF
LucyPickering
August1999
Chairperson:DianaBoxer
MajorDepartment:PrograminLinguistics
Thisdissertationinvestigatestheroleofprosodicstructureinthe
classroomdiscourseofnativeandnonnativespeakerteachingassistantsin
oneAmericanuniversity.Videoandaudiotapeddataofnaturallyoccurring
teachingpresentationsgivenbymaleNorthAmerican,Chinese,andIndian
Englishspeakerswerecollectedintheclassroom. Fundamentalfrequency
contoursand pause structure were calculated using aKay Elemetrics
computerized Speech Laboratory. Patternsof intonation, stress, and
pausingweretheninterpretedusingamodelofintonationindiscourse.
Theresultsofthenativespeakeranalysisshowthatintonationand
pausestructureareorganizedsystematicallybythesespeakersbothto
structureinformation(forexample,tomarktopicboundariesandestablish
contrasts),and interactively toestablish arapport between discourse
participants. Theresultsofthetwononnativespeakeranalysesshowthat
bothgroupscouldbecharacterizedbyatypicalprosodicprofilewhich
markedspeakersasdeviatingfromanativespeakerstandard. Typical
iv
pitchandpausepatternsfoundinthesedatashowlittleindicationthat
teachersaredirectingtheirpresentationtowardsassistingthestudentsin
theircomprehensionofthematerial. Conflictsbetweenprosodiccuesand
organization at other levels of the discourse (for example, topic
organizationorsyntacticstructure)maketheinformationalstructureofthe
discoursemoredifficulttointerpretforthenativespeakerhearer. In
addition, intonation choices are shown to contribute to a distancing
betweenteachersandstudents. Ataninterpersonallevel,theyfrequently
characterize teachers as uninvolved and unsympathetic from the
perspectiveofnativespeakerparticipantsinthediscourse.
Thestudyconcludesthatprosodicstructureformsanaturallink
between grammatical and soicolinguistic competence and bears a high
communicativeloadintermsofbothstructuringinformationandexpressing
relationships between participants. Therefore, prosodic miscues in
nonnativediscoursewillnegativelyeffectundergraduateperceptionsofthe
nonnativeteachers'competenceandpersonalityandareoneunderlying
causeofcross-culturalcommunicationfailurebetweeninternationalteaching
assistantsandtheirstudents.
INCTHRAOPDTUECRTI1ON
Overview
Overthelastdecade,bothuniversityfacultiesandgraduate
programshavebecomeincreasinglydiverse. Thenumbersof
internationalteachingassistantsandlecturersinscientificandtechnical
fieldssuchasengineering,mathematics,andlaboratoryscienceshave
increaseddramatically(Mooney,1990). ThemajorityofU.S.
undergraduatesarenowmorelikelytohaveimportantcontactwith
internationalstaffintheirintroductorycourses,andnonnativespeakers
arerequiredtobe"professionalcommunicators"onadailybasisin
theirclassrooms(Scollon&Scollon,1995). Aswithmanyother
workplaces,cross-culturalcommunicationhasbecomeanintegralpartof
academiclifeinuniversitiesacrossthecountry. However,communication
failurebetweennonnativeteachersandtheirstudentsisnotuncommon,
andconcernregardingthecompetenceofinternationalstaffremains
acute(Cresswell,1990). Increasingly,screeningprogramsdevelopedto
assessthelinguisticabilityofinternationalteachershaverecognized
thatsuccessfulcommunicationbetweenlanguagegroupsrequiresa
sophisticatedcommunicativecompetenceonthepartofthenonnative
speaker. Thisincludestheabilitytouselanguageappropriatetoa
givensituationalcontext,andtorecognizetheexpectationsofnative
speakerdiscourseparticipants. Oneareaoflinguisticcompetencewhich
isfrequentlyoverlookedinthisdiscussionistheprosodicstructureof
nonnativediscourse.
2
Thisdissertationinvestigatesthecontributionofprosodic
structuretopossiblecross-culturalcommunicationfailurebyanalyzing
thesystematicuseoftwoprosodicvariables,pitchvariationandpause
structure,inthenaturallyoccurringdiscourseofnativeandnonnative
teachingassistants. Usingnativespeakerpresentationsasbaseline
data,theanalysisfocusesontheroleofdiscourseprosodiesintypical
classroompresentationsandinrapport-buildingbetweenteachersand
students.
Incomparisonwithanalysesofthesyntacticandlexicalfeatures
oftext,thecontributionoftheprosodiccharacteristicsoflonger
stretchesofspeechhasremainedlargelyunderstudied(Levinson,1983).
Systematicinvestigationoftheroleofintonation,inparticular,hasalso
beenhamperedbyitstraditionalrepresentationasa"half-tamed
savage"(fromBolinger,1978,citedinVaissiere,1995),lyingontheedge
oflanguageandmoreappropriateforparalinguisticinvestigation. More
recently,however,improvementsintheinstrumentaltechniquesavailable
toresearchersinspeechperceptionandnewapproachestodiscourse
analysishaveresultedinarevisedconceptionoftheroleofprosodyin
theproductionandinterpretationofspokendiscourse. Prosodic
featuressuchasstress,intonation,rhythm,andpausestructurehave
beenshowntoformanaturallinkbetweenlinguisticandsociolinguistic
aspectsoflanguage,astheybearahighcommunicativeloadintermsof
bothstructuringinformationandexpressingrelationshipsbetween
discourseparticipants(Brazil,1997;Gumperz,1982). Inlightofthis
research,prosodicfeaturesbecomemeasurableasacriticalcomponentof
3
thecommunicativeabilityofnonnativespeakers,astheydirectlyimpact
linguistic,sociolinguisticanddiscoursecompetence.
Theroleofdiscourseprosodiesininformationstructuringhas
beeninvestigatedinanumberofexperimentalstudieswhichpropose
thatprosodicfeaturessuchaspitch(asmeasuredbyfundamental
frequency)andpausestructureareusedintheproductionand
processingoflocal(utterancelevel)andglobal(discourselevel)
informationstructure(Grosz&Sidner,1986). Productionstudiesin
EnglishandDutchshowthataspeaker'suseofpitchandpausingcan
bedirectlylinkedtothetopicstructureofthediscourse(Grosz&
Sidner,1986;Nakajima&Allen,1993;Swerts&Geluykens,1993,1994;
Cutler,Dahan&Donselaar,1997). Speakerstendtouseahighpitch
level,orfundamentalfrequency(Fo),attheinitiationofanewtopic,a
midlevelatpointsofcontinuation,andalowFoaccompaniedbylonger
pausesattopicfinalboundaries. Nakajima&Allen(1993)alsofound
thattopicelaborationsor'asides'wereproducedwithlowerFoonsets
andfinalsandwerecharacterizedbyarestrictedpitchrange. Swerts
&Geluykens(1994)concludethat"thispointstoaverysophisticated
useofglobalFofeaturesbythespeaker,andshowsthatweshould
lookbeyondthelocallevelwhenstudyingthediscoursefunctionofFo
variation"(p.31).
Listenerperceptionsoftheroleofprosodiccuesininformation
processingaretypicallytestedusingresponsetimestomanipulatedor
synthesizedspeech(Kreiman,1982;Grosz&Sidner,1986;Grosjan,1983;
Swerts&Geluykens,1994;Cutler,Dahan&Donselaar,1997). Inthese
studies,listenerswereabletoidentifymajordiscourseboundariesand
4
predictwhenanutterancewaslikelytoendusingonlyprosodic
featuressuchaspauselengthandFovariation. Whensyntacticand
prosodiccuesweremanipulatedsothatutterancesweresyntactically
completebutprosodicallyincomplete,listenerresponsetimesincreased,
suggestingthatthismismatchoflinguisticsignalsrequiredlistenersto
reanalyzetheinformation(Berkovits,1984;Sanderman&Collier,1997).
Swerts&Geluykens(1994)concludethat"listenersareabletodeduce
discoursestructurefromprosody. Bothpausedurationandpitch
variationappeartobeimportantperceptualcues"(p.38). Collectively,
thisresearchsuggeststhatspeakersemployprosodicstructureto
organizeinformationatagloballevelandthatlistenersuseprosodic
cuestoparseincominginformationandpredictupcomingdiscourse
structure.
Inadditiontotheseinformationalfunctions,discourseanalysts
haveproposedthatpitchvariationandpausestructureformpartofa
systematicuseofprosodicfeaturesforindexical,ornon-referential,
functions(Gumperz,1982;Couper-Kuhlen&Selting,1992). Indexical
functionsincludetheuseofpitchvariationtoregulateturn-takingin
conversation,tocommunicatesociolinguisticinformationsuchasstatus
differences,solidarity,orsocialdistancebetweeninterlocutors,orto
projectspeakerassumptionsregardingwhatinformationis'new'or
sharedinthecontextofaspecificinteraction. Ingeneralterms,
prosodycontributestorelationship-buildingbetweenparticipants. Both
thereferentialandnon-referentialfunctionsofprosodicstructureare
unitedinGumperz's(1982)theoryofconversationalinference.
5
Gumperzsuggeststhatcomprehensiblespokendiscourseis
achievedthroughtheproductionandinterpretationofmultiplecuesor
signalspresentatalllevelsofthediscourse,i.e.,lexical,syntactic,
prosodicandnon-verbal. Thepragmaticorcommunicativevalueofthe
discoursemessageiscontainedwithinthecompositewhole. Fortheir
productionandinterpretationofthesedevices,orcontextualizationcues,
participantsuse"contextualpresuppositions"(institutionalizedlinguistic
andculturalknowledge),and"situatedinferencing"(momentbymoment
inferencesregardingthespeaker'sintentbasedonthecontextofthe
interaction). Gumperzproposesthatovertime,thesecueshavebecome
tacit,conventionalizedchoices,andinnormalinteractionbetween
membersofthesamespeechcommunity,discourseparticipantswill
implicitlyassumeasharedframeworkofproductionandinterpretation.
Therelianceonasharedlinguisticandsocioculturalbackground
forinterpretationofthediscoursemessagehasparticularimplications
forcross-culturalcommunication. Thewayinwhichparticipantsorient
themselvestotheinteractionandtoeachotherdependsontheiron-
goinginterpretationofconversationalbehaviors. Thosebehaviorsthat
differacrossspeechcommunitiesmaynotbeimmediatelyevidentto
interlocutors,asinterpretationrestsondeeplyrooted,culturallybased
presuppositionswhicharenoteasilyretrievedbyanativespeakerona
conscious,analyticallevel. Participantsarelikelytoassumeamutual
understandingofdiscourseconventions,andinferspeakerintentwithin
theirowninterpretiveframework(Green,1989;Humprey-Jones,1986;
Tannen,1985). Prosodiccuesareparticularlyvulnerableto
misinterpretation. InGumperz's(1982,1983,1992)ownwork