韵律结构使用的非母语差异

Q1 Arts and Humanities

Dialogue and Discourse Pub Date : 2017-01-31 DOI:10.5087/dad.2017.101

Nigel G. Ward, Paola Gallardo

{"title":"韵律结构使用的非母语差异","authors":"Nigel G. Ward, Paola Gallardo","doi":"10.5087/dad.2017.101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many language learners never acquire truly native-sounding prosody. Previous work has suggested that this involves skill deficits in the dialog-related uses of prosody, and may be attributable to weaknesses with specific prosodic constructions. Using semi-automated methods, we identified 32 of the most common prosodic constructions in English dialog. Examining 90 minutes of six advanced native-Spanish learners conversing in English, there were differences, notably regarding swift turn-taking, alignment, and empathy, but overall their uses of prosodic constructions were largely similar to those of native speakers.","PeriodicalId":37604,"journal":{"name":"Dialogue and Discourse","volume":"170 1","pages":"1-30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"21","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Non-Native Differences in Prosodic-Construction Use\",\"authors\":\"Nigel G. Ward, Paola Gallardo\",\"doi\":\"10.5087/dad.2017.101\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Many language learners never acquire truly native-sounding prosody. Previous work has suggested that this involves skill deficits in the dialog-related uses of prosody, and may be attributable to weaknesses with specific prosodic constructions. Using semi-automated methods, we identified 32 of the most common prosodic constructions in English dialog. Examining 90 minutes of six advanced native-Spanish learners conversing in English, there were differences, notably regarding swift turn-taking, alignment, and empathy, but overall their uses of prosodic constructions were largely similar to those of native speakers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37604,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dialogue and Discourse\",\"volume\":\"170 1\",\"pages\":\"1-30\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"21\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dialogue and Discourse\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2017.101\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dialogue and Discourse","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2017.101","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 21

摘要

许多语言学习者从未获得真正地道的韵律。先前的研究表明，这涉及到与对话相关的韵律使用的技能缺陷，并且可能归因于特定韵律结构的弱点。使用半自动化的方法，我们识别了英语对话中32个最常见的韵律结构。通过对6名高水平的西班牙语母语学习者90分钟的英语会话进行研究，发现他们之间存在差异，尤其是在快速轮位、对齐和同理心方面，但总体而言，他们对韵律结构的使用与母语人士基本相似。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Non-Native Differences in Prosodic-Construction Use

Many language learners never acquire truly native-sounding prosody. Previous work has suggested that this involves skill deficits in the dialog-related uses of prosody, and may be attributable to weaknesses with specific prosodic constructions. Using semi-automated methods, we identified 32 of the most common prosodic constructions in English dialog. Examining 90 minutes of six advanced native-Spanish learners conversing in English, there were differences, notably regarding swift turn-taking, alignment, and empathy, but overall their uses of prosodic constructions were largely similar to those of native speakers.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Dialogue and Discourse Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics

CiteScore

1.90

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

12 weeks

期刊介绍： D&D seeks previously unpublished, high quality articles on the analysis of discourse and dialogue that contain -experimental and/or theoretical studies related to the construction, representation, and maintenance of (linguistic) context -linguistic analysis of phenomena characteristic of discourse and/or dialogue (including, but not limited to: reference and anaphora, presupposition and accommodation, topicality and salience, implicature, ---discourse structure and rhetorical relations, discourse markers and particles, the semantics and -pragmatics of dialogue acts, questions, imperatives, non-sentential utterances, intonation, and meta--communicative phenomena such as repair and grounding) -experimental and/or theoretical studies of agents'' information states and their dynamics in conversational interaction -new analytical frameworks that advance theoretical studies of discourse and dialogue -research on systems performing coreference resolution, discourse structure parsing, event and temporal -structure, and reference resolution in multimodal communication -experimental and/or theoretical results yielding new insight into non-linguistic interaction in -communication -work on natural language understanding (including spoken language understanding), dialogue management, -reasoning, and natural language generation (including text-to-speech) in dialogue systems -work related to the design and engineering of dialogue systems (including, but not limited to: -evaluation, usability design and testing, rapid application deployment, embodied agents, affect detection, -mixed-initiative, adaptation, and user modeling). -extremely well-written surveys of existing work. Highest priority is given to research reports that are specifically written for a multidisciplinary audience. The audience is primarily researchers on discourse and dialogue and its associated fields, including computer scientists, linguists, psychologists, philosophers, roboticists, sociologists.