Promoting increased pitch variation in oral presentations with transient visual feedback

Language Learning and Technology

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 32-50

  Hincks, Rebecca ^a   Edlund, Jens ^a  

^a ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77950742653     PISSN: None     EISSN: 10943501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Anderson-Hsieh, J. (1992). Using electronic visual feedback to teach suprasegmentals. System, 20(1), 51-62.
2. Boersma, P. (2001). PRAAT: A system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International, 5, 341-345.
3. Brazil, D. (1986). The communicative value of intonation in English. Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham, English Language Research.
4. Brazil, D. (1997). The communicative value of intonation in English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5. Chun, D. (1998). Signal analysis software for teaching discourse intonation. Language Learning & Technology, 2(1), 61-77. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu.
6. Chun, D. (2002). Discourse intonation in L2: From theory and research to practice. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
7. de Bot, K. (1983). Visual feedback of intonation I: Effectiveness and induced practice behavior. Language and Speech, 26(4), 331-350.
8. Edlund, J., & Heldner, M. (2006). /nailon/ - software for online analysis of prosody. Paper presented at the Interspeech 2006 ICSLP, Pittsburgh PA, USA.
9. Edlund, J., & Heldner, M. (2007). Underpinning /nailon/ - automatic estimation of pitch range and speaker relative pitch. In C. Müller (Ed.), Speaker Classification II: Fundamentals, Features, and Methods, 229-242. Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
10. Hahn, L. D. (2004). Primary stress and intelligibility: Research to motivate the teaching of suprasegmentals. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 201-223.
11. Hamilton, A. (2006, August 4). Vocal cords need to be brushed up for the classroom. The Times Online. Retrieved from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news.
12. Hardison, D. (2004). Generalization of computer-assisted prosody training: Quantitative and qualitative findings. Language Learning & Technology 8(1), 34-52. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu.
13. Hincks, R. (2005). Measures and perceptions of liveliness in student oral presentation speech: A proposal for an automatic feedback mechanism. System, 33(4), 575-591.
14. Hincks, R. (2009). Speaking rate and information content in English lingua franca oral presentations. English for Specific Purposes. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2009.05.004.
15. Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language: New models, new norms, new goals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16. Johns-Lewis, C. (1986). Prosodic differentiation of discourse modes. In C. Johns-Lewis (Ed.), Intonation in discourse (pp. 199-220). Breckenham, Kent: Croom Helm.
17. Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18. Levis, J. (2008). Computer technology in teaching and researching pronunciation. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 27, 184-202.
19. Levis, J., & Pickering, L. (2004). Teaching intonation in discourse using speech visualization technology. System, 32, 505-524.
20. Levy, M. (1997). Computer-Assisted Language Learning. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
21. Molholt, G. (1988). Computer-assisted instruction in pronunciation for Chinese speakers of American English. TESOL Quarterly, 22(1), 91-111.
22. Motohashi-Saigo, M., & Hardison, D. (2009). Acquisition of L2 Japanese geminates: Training with waveform displays. Language Learning & Technology 13 (2), 29-47. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu.
23. Neri, A., Cucchiarini, C., & Strik, H. (2008). The effectiveness of computer-based speech corrective feedback for improving segmental quality in L2 Dutch. ReCALL, 20(2), 225-243.
24. Nilsonne, Å. (1987). Speech in depression: A methodological study of prosody. Stockholm: Karolinska Institute.
25. Pennington, M., & Ellis, N. (2000). Cantonese speakers' memory for English sentences with prosodic cues. The Modern Language Journal 84(iii), 372-389.
26. Pickering, L. (2001). The role of tone choice in improving ITA communication in the classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35(2), 233-255.
27. Pickering, L. (2004). The structure and function of intonational paragraphs in native and nonnative speaker instructional discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 19-43.
28. Rosenberg, A., & Hirschberg, J. (2005). Acoustic/prosodic and lexical correlates of charismatic speech. Paper presented at the Interspeech 2005, Lisbon.
29. Sjölander, K., & Beskow, J. (2000). WaveSurfer: An open source speech tool. Paper presented at the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing 2000, Beijing.
30. Strangert, E., & Gustafson, J. (2008). Subject ratings, acoustic measurements and synthesis of good-speaker characteristics. Paper presented at the Interspeech 2008, Brisbane, Australia.
31. Talkin, D. (1995). A robust algorithm for pitch tracking (RAPT). In W. B. Klejin, & Paliwal, K. K (Ed.), Speech coding and synthesis (pp. 495-518). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
32. 0 excursions in speech as evidenced in liveliness estimations. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97(3), 1905-1915.
33. Wang, X., & Munro, M. (2004). Computer-based training for learning English vowel contrasts. System, 32, 539-552.
34. Wennerstrom, A. (1994). Intonational meaning in English discourse: A study of non-native speakers. Applied Linguistics, 15(4), 399-421.
35. Wennerstrom, A. (1998). Intonation as cohesion in academic discourse: A study of Chinese speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 1-25.