3rd International Symposium on Teaching English at Tertiary Level Hong Kong, 9-10 June 2007 Jointly organised by: Department of English, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Department of Foreign Languages, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China Chris - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – 3rd International Symposium on Teaching English at Tertiary Level Hong Kong, 9-10 June 2007 Jointly organised by: Department of English, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Department of Foreign Languages, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China Chris PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 7237e0-Nzg3Z



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

3rd International Symposium on Teaching English at Tertiary Level Hong Kong, 9-10 June 2007 Jointly organised by: Department of English, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Department of Foreign Languages, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China Chris

Description:

Department of English, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Department of Foreign Languages, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China Chris Greaves and Martin Warren – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:107
Avg rating:3.0/5.0

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: 3rd International Symposium on Teaching English at Tertiary Level Hong Kong, 9-10 June 2007 Jointly organised by: Department of English, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Department of Foreign Languages, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China Chris


1
3rd International Symposium on Teaching English
at Tertiary LevelHong Kong, 9-10 June
2007Jointly organised by Department of
English, The Hong Kong Polytechnic
UniversityDepartment of Foreign Languages,
Tsinghua University, Beijing, ChinaChris
Greaves and Martin WarrenEnglish Department The
Hong Kong Polytechnic University
  • A corpus-driven approach to learning and teaching
    the communicative role of discourse intonation

2
The Hong Kong Corpus of Spoken English (HKCSE)
  • The HKCSE consists approx. 2 million words made
  • up of four sub-corpora
  • Conversations
  • Academic discourses
  • Business discourses
  • Public discourses
  • Each sub-corpus consists of 50 hrs of naturally
    occurring data (i.e. a total
  • of 2 million words). Half of all of the
    sub-corpora have also been
  • prosodically transcribed approx. 1 million
    words.

3
Discourse intonation choices available to speakers
  • System Choice
  • Prominence prominent/non-prominent syllables
  • Tone rise-fall, fall, rise,
    fall-rise, level
  • Key high, mid, low
  • Termination high, mid, low
  • (Adapted from Hewings and Cauldwell 1997 vii,
    in Brazil 1997)

4
Example
imPRESsive

a // ? SO much MORE
// // ? than it REALly IS //
  • Example (computer readable)
  • a \ SO much MORE lt imPRESsive gt \
    than it REALly lt IS gt (HKCSE,
    prosodic)

5
The prosodic notation system
  • Tone group boundaries are marked with
    brackets.
  • The referring and proclaiming tones are shown
    using combinations of forward and back slashes
    rise /, fall-rise \/, fall \, and rise-fall
    /\.
  • Level tones are marked and unclassifiable
    tones ?.
  • Prominence is shown by means of UPPER CASE
    letters.
  • Key is marked with brackets, high key and
    low key are indicated with and _
    respectively, while mid key is not marked (i.e.
    it is the default).
  • Termination is marked with lt gt brackets with
    high, mid, and low termination using the same
    forms of notation used for key choices.

6
What the textbooks say about intonation
  • Often the textbooks conflate intonation with
    pronunciation.
  • Intonation is portrayed as having fixed
    attitudinal meanings.
  • Intonation is usually portrayed as simply a
    means to sound lively as opposed to speaking
    with a flat and monotonous intonation that
    sounds boring.
  • Intonation patterns, if described at all,
    tend to oversimplify or are simply incorrect
    for example, yes/no questions are spoken with a
    rise tone and wh-questions are spoken with a fall
    tone.

7
Discourse Intonation
  • Intonation does not convey fixed attitudinal
  • meanings.
  • Intonation choices are not determined with
  • reference to grammar.
  • Intonation choices are situation-specific
    decisions
  • to add additional meaning to what is being
    said.

  • (Brazil, 1997)

8
Searching the corpus
  • Example of searches for discourse intonation
    using the iConc search engine written by Chris
    Greaves.

9
Topic Development
  • One way that a speaker can indicate to the
  • hearer(s) that she/he is about to develop the
  • topic in a new direction is by means of
  • discourse intonation.
  • The HKCSE (prosodic) can be used to
  • illustrate this with real world examples, along
  • with other functions of discourse intonation.

10
Implications
  • Need for a shared understanding of intonation and
    its communicative role.
  • Need to adopt a standard format for representing
    and interpreting intonation.
  • Students and teachers should be exposed to
    naturally occurring discourse to learn how
    English intonation functions.
  • The HKCSE (prosodic) provides a useful resource
    to explore the full contribution of intonation.

11
References
  • Brazil, D. 1997. The Communicative Value of
  • Intonation in English. Cambridge
  • Cambridge University Press.
  • Sinclair, J. McH. 2004. Trust the Text.
  • London Routledge.

12
Tones in wh-questions
? ?? ? ?? ? Total
Academic Discourse 87 (88.8) 1 (1) 0 1 (1) 9 (9.2) 98 (33.7)
Business Discourse 40 (66.7) 0 2 (3.2) 8 (13.3) 10 (16.8) 60 (20.6)
Conversation 49 (66.2) 3 (4.1) 2 (2.7) 8 (10.8) 12 (16.2) 74 (25.4)
Public Discourse 51 (86.3) 0 1 (1.7) 0 7 (12) 59 (20.3)
Total 227 (78) 4 (1.4) 5 (1.7) 17 (5.8) 38 (13.1) 291 (100)
13
Tones in yes/no-questions
Discourse type ? ?? ? ?? ? Total
Academic Discourse 31 (38.8) 0 1 (1.3) 31 (38.8) 17 (22) 80 (20.1)
Business Discourse 34 (25.7) 1 (0.8) 7 (5.3) 54 (41) 36 (27.1) 132 (35.6)
Conversation 23 (28) 0 2 (2.4) 36 (44) 21 (25.6) 82 (21.5)
Public Discourse 29 (33.3) 0 1 (1.1) 14 (16.1) 43 (49.5) 87 (22.8)
Total 117 (30.7) 1 (0.26) 11 (2.9) 135 (35.4) 117 (30.7) 381 (100)
14
(No Transcript)
15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
(No Transcript)
18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
Possible explanations for the inverse
relationship between word frequency and prominence
  • The more frequent the word, the more functions it
    typically performs and so the more likely it is
    that its meaning is determined from the wider
    context of interaction rather than by the word in
    isolation.
  • The notion of phraseology (Sinclair, 2004) -
    that language is typified by extended
    collocations representing units of meaning rather
    than by individual words - further supports the
    inverse relationship we have found.

21
  • Many of the grammatical words are the sole
    occupant of the tone unit and are thus prominent.
    In this role they appear to have an
    organisational function linking propositional
    content.
  • Nouns that are modified are less likely to be
    made prominent.
  • Nouns such as people typically collocate with
    other items such as many, more, most and it is
    the latter which tend to be made prominent.
  • Other nouns such as proposal(s) are less
    likely to be modified and so more likely to be
    made prominent by the speaker.

22
(No Transcript)
About PowerShow.com