The perception and learnability of English prosodic phonology by Luo speakers: A cross-linguistic experimental study

DECLARATION
APPROVAL
DEDICATION
COPYRIGHT
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST of figures
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
GLOSSARY
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
1.2 BACKGROUND TO THE LANGUAGES
	Figure 1.1 Map of Luo languages area in East Africa
1.2.1 Dhoacholi
1.2.2 Dhopadhola
1.2.3 Dholang’o
1.2.4 Dholuo
1.2.5 English
1.3 BACKGROUND TO LANGUAGE TEACHING- LEARNING PROCESS
1.4 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
1.5 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
1.5.1 The General Objective:
1.5.2 The Specific Objectives:
1.6 RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
1.7 SCOPE OF STUDY
1.8 MOTIVATION FOR THE STUDY
1.9 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
1.10 STUDY LIMITATIONS
1.11 DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS
1.12 ORGANISATION OF THE THESIS
1.13 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 2
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 BASIC PRINCIPLES OF OPTIMALITY THEORY
2.2.1 Principles of Optimality theory
2.2.2. The Components of an OT Grammar
	Fig. 2.1: Optimality Theory Conceptual Framework
2.3 LEARNABILITY
2.3.1 Word-level prosody learnability
2.3.2   Sentence Prosody Learnability
2.3.3 Information Structure Learnability
2. 4 ROBUST INTERPRETIVE PARSING/CONSTRAINT DEMOTION (RIP/CD)
	Figure 2.3  Loser ‹ winner
	Figure 2.4 Mark concellation
2.5 EVALUATION OF OPTIMALITY THEORY
2.5.1 Advantages of Optimality Theory
2.5.2 Disadvantages of Optimality Theory
2.6 Previous Phonological Theories
2.7   Present Contribution
2.8 Conclusion
CHAPTER 3
LITERATURE REVIEW
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF LUO AND ENGLISH SEGMENTAL AND PROSODIC PHONOLOGY
3.2.1 Dhoacholi Segmental and Prosodic Phonology
	Figure 3.1 Dhoacholi vowel constrasts
3.2.2 Dhopadhola Segmental and Prosodic Phonology
	Figure 3.2 Dhopadhola vowel contrasts
3.2.3 Dholang’o segmental and prosodic phonology
	Fig 3.3 Dholang’o vowel contrast
3.2.4 Dholuo Segmental and Prosodic Phonology
	Figure 3.4 Dholuo Contrastive vowels
	Fig 3.5 Spectogram showing + ATR vs – ATR constrast in Dholuo
3.2.5 English Segmental and Prosodic Phonology
poor
ʊə
3.2.6 Phonological Contrastive Analysis of Dhoacholi and English
3.2.7 Phonological Contrastive Analysis of Dhopadhola and English
3.2.8 Phonological Contrastive Analysis of Dholang’o and English
3.2.9 Phonological Contrastive Analysis of Dholuo and English
3.3 THE PERCEPTION AND LEARNABILITY OF WORD-LEVEL PROSODIC PHONOLOGY
3.3.1 Perception and Learnability of Word-Level Stress
3.3.2 Word Boundary Perception and Learnability
3.4 The Perception and Learnability of English Sentence-Level Prosody
3.4.1 The Perception and Learnability of English Sentence Intonation
3.4.2 The Perception and Learnability of English Phrasal Ryhthmic Patterning
3.4.3 The Perception and Learnability of English Prosodic Phrasing
3.4.4 Non-Native English Learners’ Prosodic Disambiguation of English Sentences
3.5 Perception and Learnability of Discourse Anaphora
3.6   Prosody Pyramid in Second Language Teaching
3.7 Test for Assessing Prosodic Phonology Processing
3.8 Conclusion
CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 The Research Design
4.3 LOCATION
4.4 THE POPULATION AND SAMPLING METHODS
4.4.1 The research Population
4.4.2 The Sample and Sampling Techniques
4.4.3 Criteria for Inclusion of Respondents
4.5 The Variables Defined
4.5.1 Independent Variables
4.5.2 Dependent Variable: EPPPT test Scores
4.6 DATA COLLECTION
4.6.1 Instrumentation: English Prosodic Phonology Processing Test
4.6.2 Administration of the Experiment
4.6.2.1 Pre-training phase
4.6.2.2 Training phase
4.6.2.3 Post-training phase
4.6.3 Procedures Used in Piloting the EPPPT
4.6.4 Validity and Reliability of the Research Instruments
4.6.5 Spectrogram Analysis
4.7 Data Analysis
4.8 Ethical Considerations
4.8.1 Permission to collect data
4.8.2 Ethical Issues in Data Analysis
4.8.3 Informed Consent
4.8.4 Confidentiality and Anonymity
4.8.5 Protection of Subjects from Harm
4.8.6 Benefits
4.9 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 5
WORD LEVEL PROSODY AND PROCESSING
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 Method: Experiment 1 Sub-Experiment 1
5.2.1 Participants
5.2.2 Stimuli
5.2.3 Task
5.2.4 Scoring
5.2.5 Procedure and Data Analysis
5.2.6 An Optimality Theoretic Perception Grammar Hypotheses and Predictions
ALIGN-FT-R
5.3 RESULTS
5.3.1 Statistical Analysis Word Stress Assignment Task
	Fig 5.1: Percentage of syllable prominence by each listener in the word photograph across the four languages and two treatment groups
	Fig 5.2: Percentage of syllable prominence by each listener in the word Photographer across the four languages and two treatment groups
	Fig 5.3: Percentage of syllable prominence by each listener in the word Photographic across the four languages and two treatment groups
5.3.2 An Optimality Theoretic Constraint interaction of English primary stress in experiment 1 sub- experiment 1
ALIGN-FT-L
ALIGN-FT-L
	d.[ʌn.ɪk. sep.ʃə. ˈnl]
	d. [ɪntə.næʃn. ˈəl.aiz.ei.ʃn]
	e. [ɪntə.næʃn.əl. ˈaiz.ei.ʃn]
	f. [ɪntə.næʃn.əl. aiz. ˈei.ʃn]
	g.[ɪntə.næʃn.əl. aiz.ei. ˈʃn]
	d.[ʌn.ɪk. sep.ʃə. ˈnl]
	d.[ʌn.ɪk. sep.ʃə. ˈnl]
	d. ( [ɪntənæˈʃnəl aizeiʃn]ˈ
	d. [ˈɪntənæʃnə l.aiz.ei.ʃn]ˈ
5.3.3 Phonological and Spectrographic Analysis of Data
5.3.4 Discussion
5.4 EXPERIMENT 2 SUB-EXPERIMENT 1
5.4.1 Participants
5.4.2 Stimuli
5.4.3    Task
5.4.4 Procedure and Data Analysis
5.4.5 Scoring
5.4.6 An Optimality Theoretic Perception Grammar Hypotheses and Predictions
5.4.7 Results
	Figure 5.7: Percentage of syllable prominence by each listener in the word accessibility across the four languages and two treatment groups
	Figure 5.8: Percentage of syllable prominence by each listener in the word kilometer across the four languages and two treatment groups
	Figure 5.9: Percentage of  syllable prominence by each listener in the word himself across the four languages and two treatment groups
	Figure 5.10: Percentage of syllable prominence by each listener in the word telecopy across the four languages and two treatment groups
	Fig 5.11: Percentage of  syllable prominence by each listener in the word manipulation across the four languages and two treatment groups
5.4.8 An Optimality Theoretic Constraint interaction of English primary stress in experiment 2 sub- experiment 1
5.4.9 Optimality Theoretic Analysis of Constraint Demotion of English Primary Word Stress by Luo Listeners
5.4.9 Phonological and Spectrographic Analysis of Data
	Figure 5.13: Waveform, spectrogram with F0 track of the word accessibility as perceived by Dhoacholi listener
	Figure 5.14: Waveform, spectrogram with F0 track of the word accessibility as perceived by Dhopadhola listener
	Fig 5.15: Waveform, spectrogram with F0 track of the word accessibility as perceived by Dholang’o listener
	Fig 5.16: Waveform, spectrogram with F0 track of the word accessibility as perceived by Dholuo listener
	Fig 5.17: Waveform, spectrogram with F0 track of the word manipulation in RP English
	Fig 5.18: Waveform, spectrogram with F0 track of the word manipulation as perceived by Dhoacholi listener
5.4.10 Discussion
5.5    EXPERIMENT 3 SUB-EXPERIMENT 1
5.5.1 Participants
5.5.2 Stimuli
5.5.3 Task
5.5.4 An optimality Theoretic Perception Grammar Hypotheses and Predictions
5.5.5 Data Analysis
5.5.6 Results of word chunking task
	Figure 5.19: Percentage of syllable prominence by each listener in the word appreciate across the four languages and two treatment groups
	Figure 5.20: Percentage of syllable prominence by each listener in the word expensive  across the four languages and two treatment groups
	Figure 5.21: Percentage of syllable prominence by each listener in the word interesting across the four languages and two treatment groups
	Figure 5.22: Percentage of syllable prominence by each listener in the word unexceptional across the four languages and two treatment groups
	Figure 5.23: Percentage for syllable prominence by each listener in the word internationalisation across the four languages and two treatment groups
5.5.6 An Optimality Theoretic Constraint interaction of English primary stress in experiment 3 sub experiment 1
5.5.7 Optimality Theoretic Analysis of Constraint Demotion of English Primary Word Stress by Luo Listeners
5.5.8 Phonological and Spectrographic Analysis of Data
	Figure 5.24: Waveform, spectrogram with F0 track of the  comparing RP English and Luo L2 learners production of word unexceptional
	Figure 5.25 shows the Luo listener’s pitch track and spectrograph for the word unexceptional shows  that the primary stress is on the initial syllable as is evident by the high F0  and the waveforms of the initial syllable.  There is a clear differenc...
5.5.9 Discussion
5.6   EXPERIMENT 4 SUB-EXPERIMENT 1
5.6.1 Participants
5.6.2 Stimuli
5.6.3 Task
5.6.4 An Optimality Theoretic perception grammar hypotheses and predictions
5.6.5 Data Analysis
5.6.6   Results of Experiment 4 Sub-Experiment 1
	Figure 5. 26: Percentage for syllable prominence by each listener in the word Project (v) across the four languages and two treatment groups
	Figure 5.27: Percentage of syllable prominence by each listener in the word project (N) across the four languages and two treatment groups
	Figure 5.28: Percentage of syllable prominence by each listener in the word nutritious  (adj) across the four languages and two treatment groups
	Fig 5.29: Percentage for syllable prominence by each listener in the word revolution across the four languages and two treatment groups
5.6.7 An Optimality Theoretic Constraint Interaction of English Primary Stress in Experiment 4 Sub-Experiment 1
Align-Head
Align-Head
Align-Head
Align-Head
Align-Head
5.6.8 Optimality Theoretic Analysis of Constraint Demotion of English Primary Word Stress by Luo Listeners
5.6.9 Phonological and spectrographic analysis of data
5.6.10 Discussion
5.7 EXPERIMENT 5 SUB-EXPERIMENT 1
5.7.1 Participants
5.7.2 Stimuli
5.7.3 Task
5.7.4 An optimality Theoretic Perception Grammar Hypotheses and Predictions
5.7.4 Results of ABX Task
5.7.5   An Optimality Theoretic Constraint Interaction of English Primary Stress in Experiment 5 Sub- Experiment 1
F
F
5.7.6 Optimality Theoretic Analysis of Constraint Demotion of English Primary Word Stress by Luo Listeners
5.7.7 Discussion
5.8 GENERAL DISCUSSION
5.9 Conclusion
CHAPTER 6
SENTENCE-LEVEL PROSODY AND PROCESSING
6.1 Introduction
6.2 ENGLISH PHRASE-LEVEL PROSODY AND LEXICAL DISAMBIGUATION
6.2.1 Listeners
6.2.2 Stimuli
6.2.3 Experimental Procedure and Task
6.2.4 Data Analysis
6.2.5 Hypotheses and Predictions
6.2.6 Results of Perceptual Judgement of Phrasal Juncture
	Figure 6.1: Mean percentages of correct discrimination responses for five pairs of stimuli   for Luo listeners (N=120)
6.2.7 Phonological Analysis of Stimuli
6.2.8 An Optimality Theoretic Interpretation of Experiment 1 Sub-Experiment 2
6.2.9 Learnability of English Phrasal Juncture
6.2.9 Discussion
6.3 ENGLISH PHRASE-LEVEL PROSODY AND JUNCTURE PERCEPTION EXPERIMENT 2 SUB-EXPERIMENT 2
6.3.2 Stimuli
6.3.4 Hypotheses and Predictions
6.3.5 Procedure and Data Analysis
6.3.6 Results and Discussion
6.3.7 Phonological Analysis of Stimuli
6.3.8 An Optimality Theoretic Interpretation of Experiment 2 Sub-Experiment 2
6.3.9 The Learnability of English Prosodic Juncture Cues
6.3.10 Discussion
6.4 EXPERIMENT 1 SUB-EXPERIMENT 3: AMBIGUITY OF PARTICIPLE CONSTRUCTIONS IN ENGLISH
6.4.1 Aim of the Experiment
6.4.2 Hypotheses and Predictions
6.4.3 Materials
6.4.4 Subjects
6.4.5 Experiment Design and Procedure
6.4.6 Data Coding and Analysis
6.4.7 Results
6.4.8 An Optimality Theoretic Interpretation of Experiment 1 Sub-Experiment 3
6.4.9 The Learnability of English Prosodic Phrasing
6.4.10 Phonological and Spectrographic Analysis
6.4.11 Discussion
6.5 EXPERIMENT 2 SUB-EXPERIMENT 3 NARROW FOCUS VS. BROAD FOCUS
6.5.1 The Aim of the Experiment
6.5.2 Hypotheses and Predictions
6.5.3   Materials
6.5.4 Subjects
6.5.5 Experimental Design and Procedure
6.5.6 Data Coding and Analysis
6.5.7 Results
6.5.8 An Optimality Theoretic Interpretation of experiment 2  Sub-experiment 3
6.5.9 The Learnability of Broad Focus vs. Narrow Focus
6.6 EXPERIMENT 3 SUB-EXPERIMENT 2: PROSODIC RESOLUTION OF PREPOSITIONAL PHRASE (PP) AMBIGUITY
6.6.1 The Aim of the Experiment
6.6.2 Hypotheses and Predictions
6.6.3   Materials
6.6.4 Subjects
6.6.5 Experimental Design and Procedure
6.6.6 Data Coding and Analysis
6.6.7 Results
6.6.8 An Optimality Theoretic Interpretation of Experiment 3 Sub-Experiment 2
6.6.9 The learnability of English Prosodic Phrasing
6.6.10 Discussion
6.7 EXPERIMENT 3 SUB-EXPERIMENT 3:  PROSODIC RESOLUTION OF RELATIVE CLAUSE AMBIGUITY
6.7.1 The Aim of the Experiment
6.7.2 Hypotheses and Predictions
6.7.3   Materials
6.7.4 Subjects
6.7.5 Experimental Design and Procedure
6.7. 6 Data Coding and Analysis
6.7.7 Results
6.7.8 An Optimality Theoretic Interpretation of experiment 2 Sub-experiment 3
6.7.9 The Learnability of Relative Clause Attachment
6.7.10 Discussion
6.8 EXPERIMENT 4 SUB-EXPERIMENT 2: PROSODIC DISAMBIGUATION OF COORDINATE STRUCTURE
6.8.1 The Aim of the Experiment
6.8.2 Hypotheses and Predictions
6.8.3   Materials
6.8.4 Subjects
6.8.6 Data Coding and Analysis
6.8.7 Results
6.8.8 An Optimality Theoretic Interpretation of Experiment 4 Sub-Experiment 2
6.8.9 The Learnability of Coordination
6.8.10 Discussion
6.9 EXPERIMENT 4 SUB-EXPERIMENT 3: PROSODIC PHRASING IN THE DISAMBIGUATION OF ENGLISH SENTENCES
6.9.1 The aim of the experiment
6.9.2 Hypotheses and predictions
6.9.3   Materials
6.9.4 Experimental Design, Participants and Procedure
6.9.5 Data Coding and Analysis
6.9.6 Results
6.9.7 An Optimality Theoretic Interpretation of Experiment 4  Sub-Experiment 3
6.9.8 The Learnability of English Embedded Question vs. Relative Clause Phrasing
6.9.9 Discussion
6.10 EXPERIMENT 5 SUB-EXPERIMENT 2: PROSODIC PHRASING IN HIGH VERSUS  LOW PP ATTACHMENT AMBIGUITY
6.10.1 The Aim of the Experiment
6.10.2 Hypotheses and Predictions
6.10.3   Materials
6.10.4 Experimental Design, Subjects and Procedure
6.10.5 Data Coding and Analysis
6.10.6 Results
6.10.7 An Optimality Theoretic Interpretation of Experiment 5 Sub-Experiment 2
6.10.8 The learnability of High versus  Low PP attachment
6.10.9 Discussion
6.11 EXPERIMENT 5 SUB-EXPERIMENT 3: EARLY CLOSURE VERSUS LATE CLOSURE AND NP- VERSUS S-COMPLEMENT AMBIGUITY
6.11.1 The Aim of the Experiment
6.11.2 Hypotheses and Predictions
6.11.3   Materials
6.11.4 Experimental Design, Subjects and Procedure
6.11.5 Data Coding and Analysis
6.11.6 Results
6.11.7 An Optimality Theoretic Interpretation of experiment 5  Sub-experiment 3
6.11.8 The learnability of Early Closure versus Late Closure and NP- versus S-comp Ambiguity
6.11.8 Discussion
6.12 GENERAL DISCUSSION
6.13 Conclusion
CHAPTER 7
DISCOURSE LEVEL PROSODY AND PROCESSING
7.1 Introduction
7.1.1 English Discourse Topic Shift Prosody Processing
7.2 Experiment 1 Sub- Experiment 5 Methods
7.2.1 Participants
7.2.2 Materials and Design
7.2.3 Experimental Procedure
7.2.4 Hypotheses and Predictions
7.2.5 Acoustical Analysis
7.2.6 Transcription and Coding
7.2.7 Results
	Figure7.3: The number of times the first NP, second NP, and ‘I don’t know’ were selected as the pronoun referent in topic shift across the four Luo languages
	Figure 7.4: The number of times the first NP, second NP, and ‘I don’t know’ were selected as the pronoun referent in non-topic shift across the four Luo languages
7.2.8 An Optimality Theoretic Interpretation of Experiment 1 Sub-Experiment 5
7.2.9 The Learnability of English Discourse Coherence relation
7.2.10 Discussion
7.3 Experiment 2 Sub-Experiment 5
7.3.1 Participants
7.3.2 Materials and Design
7.3.3 Experimental Procedure
7.3.4 Hypotheses and predictions
7.3.5 Coding and Analysis
7.3.6 Results
7.3.7 An Optimality Theoretic Interpretation of Experiment 2 Sub-Experiment 5
7.3.8 The Learnability of English Discourse Topic Constraints
7.3.9 Discussion
7.4 Experiment 3 Sub-Experiment 5
7.4.1 Participants
7.4.2 Hypotheses and Predictions
7.4.3 Material and Design
7.4.4 Experimental procedure
7.4.5 Results
7.4.6 An Optimality Theoretic Interpretation of Experiment 3 Sub-Experiment 5
7.4.7 The Learnability of English
7.4.8 Discussion
7.5 Experiment 4 sub- experiment 5
7.5.1 Subjects
7.5.2   Materials
7.5.3 Experimental Design and Procedure
7.5.4 Hypotheses and Predictions
7.5.5 Results
	Figure 7.7: Percentage of correct responses by different groups of Luo listeners to the four discourse transition types
7.5.6 An Optimality Theoretic Interpretation of Experiment 4  Sub-Experiment 5
ALIGN
COHERE
FAM-DEF
ALIGN
COHERE
FAM-DEF
PRO-TOP
ALIGN
COHERE
FAM-DEF
PRO-TOP
ALIGN
COHERE
FAM-DEF
PRO-TOP
7.5.7 The Learnability of English Discourse Transition
ALIGN
COHERE
FAM-DEF
PRO-TOP
ALIGN
PRO-TOP
COHERE
FAM-DEF
7.5.8 Discussion
7.6 Experiment 5 sub-experiment 5
7.6.1 The aim of the Experiment 5 sub-experiment 5
7.6.2   Subjects
7.6.3 Hypotheses and Predictions
7.6.4 Experimental Design and Procedure
7.6.5  Materials
7.6.6 Results
7.6.7 An Optimality Theoretic Interpretation of Experiment 5  Sub-Experiment 5
7.6.8 The Learnability of English Discourse Coherence relation
AVOID-F
ALIGN
AGREE
COHERE
AVOID-F
ALIGN
AGREE
COHERE
AVOID-F
ALIGN
AGREE
COHERE
7.6.9   Discussion
7.7    General Discussion
7.8 Conclusion
CHAPTER 8
GENERAL CONCLUSION
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Summary of the findings
8.2.1 The Development and Validation of Instruments for the Asssement of the Perception and Learnability of English prosodic Phonology
8.2.2 The perception and learnability of English word-level prosody
8.2.3   The Cross-linguistic Differences in the Perception and learnability of English Syntactic Prosodic Disambiguation
8.2.4 The Determination of the Cross-linguistic Differences in the Perception and Learnability of Discourse-level Prosody
8.2.5 The Establishment of the Effectiveness of the Prosody Oriented Approach
8.3 Implication for the Hypotheses on the Perception and Learnability of Prosodic    Phonology
8.3.1 English Language Prosodic Phonology Processing Test
8.3.2 Prosody Oriented Approach
8.3.3 Optimality Theory
8.3.4 The Effect of First Language
8.4 Pedagogical Implications
8.5 Recommendations
8.6 Suggestion for Further Research
8.7 Conclusion
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A: INSTRUMENTS
APPENDIX B: PERCEPTION TRAINING ACTIVITIES – VERBS
Appendix C: Letter to students
Appendix D: Informed Consent
APPENDIX E:  RESEARCH CLEARANCE PERMIT
Appendix F: Permission to use sound files by Proffesor Amy Schafer
	> (Ms.) Amy Schafer