Article published in:
Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 8:2 (2019) ► pp. 291309

Full-text

Effects of prosody awareness training on the intelligibility of Iranian interpreter trainees in English
References

References

Abercrombie, D.
(1956) Problems and principles in language study. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ahrens, B.
(2004) Prosodie beim Simultandolmetschen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Anderson-Hsieh, J., Johnson, R., & Koehler, K.
(1992) The relationship between native speakers’ judgements of nonnative pronunciation and deviance in segmentals, prosody, and syllable structure, Language Learning, 42, 529–555. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bent, T., & Bradlow, A. R.
(2003) The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114, 1600–1610. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burns, A.
(2003) Clearly speaking: Pronunciation in action for teachers. Sydney: National Center for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University.Google Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Goodwin, J. M.
(1996) Teaching pronunciation: A reference for teachers of English to speakers of other languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Champagne-Muzar, C., Schneiderman, E. I., & Bourdages, J. S.
(1993) Second language accent: The role of the pedagogical environment. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 143–160.Google Scholar
Crystal, D.
(2003) A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2004) The past, present, and future of World English. In A. Gardt, & B. Hüppauf (Eds.), Globalization and the future of German (pp. 27–46). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A.
(2012) Native listening: Language experience and the recognition of spoken words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A., & McQueen, J.
(2014) How prosody is both mandatory and optional. In J. Caspers, Y. Chen, W. F. L. Heeren, J. Pacilly, N. O. Schiller, & E. van Zanten (Eds.), Above and beyond the segments. Experimental linguistics and phonetics (pp. 71–82). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Diepenbroek, L. G., & Foote, J. A.
(2012) How well do general-skills ESL textbooks address pronunciation? TESL Canada Journal, 30, 22–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J.
(2005) Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: A research-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 379–397. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dupoux, E., Peperkamp, S., & Sebastián-Gallés, N.
(2010) Limits on bilingualism revisited: Stress ‘deafness’ in simultaneous French-Spanish bilinguals. Cognition, 114, 266–275. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Field, J.
(2005) Intelligibility and the listener: The role of lexical stress. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 399–423. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Foote, J. A., Holtby, A. K., & Derwing, T. M.
(2011) Survey of the teaching of pronunciation in adult ESL programs in Canada, 2010. TESL Canada Journal, 29, 1–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, J. B.
(1995) Pronunciation practice as an aid to listening comprehension. In D. J. Mendelsohn, & J. Rubin (Eds.), A guide for the teaching of second language listening (pp. 97–112). San Diego, CA: Dominie Press, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
Gooskens, C., & Van Heuven, V. J.
(2019, to appear). Mutual intelligibility. In M. Zampieri, & P. Nakov (Eds.), Similar languages, varieties, and dialects: A computational perspective. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gooskens, C., Van Heuven, V. J., Van Bezooijen, R., & Pacilly, J. J. A.
(2010) Is spoken Danish less intelligible than Swedish? Speech Communication, 52, 1020–1037. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Graddol, D.
(2006) English next. London: The British Council.Google Scholar
Haug Hilton, N., Gooskens, C., & Schüppert, A.
(2013) The influence of non-native morphosyntax on the intelligibility of a closely related language. Lingua, 137, 1–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Howlader, M. R.
(2010) Teaching English pronunciation in countries where English is a second language: Bangladesh perspective. ASA University Review, 4, 233–244.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J.
(1998) Which pronunciation norms and models for English as an international language? ELT Journal, 52, 119–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000) The phonology of English as an international language: New models, new norms, new goals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2002) A sociolinguistically based, empirical researched pronunciation syllabus for English as an international language. Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 83–103. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kachru, B. B.
(1985) Standards, codification, and sociolinguitic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk, & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world (pp. 11–34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koike, Y.
(2014) Explicit pronunciation instruction: Teaching suprasegmentals to Japanese learners of English. In N. Sonda, & A. Krause (Eds.), JALT 2013 Conference Proceedings (pp. 361–374). Tokyo.Google Scholar
Moedjito
(2015) Factors determining global intelligibility of EFL learners in Asian contexts. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 5, 155–164.Google Scholar
Morley, J.
(1991) The pronunciation component in teaching English to speakers of other languages. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 481–521. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mouri, T., Hirose, K., & Minematsu, N.
(2003) Consideration on vowel durational modification for Japanese CALL system. Proceedings of Eurospeech 2003, 3153–3156.Google Scholar
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T.
(1997) Accent, intelligibility and comprehensibility. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 1–16. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M.
(2006) The functional load principle in ESL pronunciation instruction: An exploratory study. System, 34, 520–531. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Segmental acquisition in adult ESL learners: A longitudinal study of vowel production. Language Learning, 58, 479–502. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pennington, M. C.
(1998) The teachability of phonology in adulthood: A re-examination. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 323–341. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peperkamp, S., & Dupoux, E.
(2002) A typological study of stress ‘deafness’. In C. Gussenhoven, & N. Warner (Eds.), Laboratory Phonology 7 (pp. 203–240). Berlin: Mouton-De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P., Mackey, A., Gass, S. M., & Schmidt, R.
(2012) Attention and awareness in second language acquisition. In S. Gass, & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 247–267). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Suwartono, S.
(2014) Enhancing the pronunciation of English suprasegmental features through reflective learning method. TEFLIN Journal, 25, 80–93.Google Scholar
Trofimovich, P., & Baker, W.
(2006) Learning second language suprasegmentals: Effect of L2 experience on prosody and fluency characteristics of L2 speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 1–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tsurutani, C., & Ishihara, S.
(2012) Naturalness judgement of prosodic variation of Japanese utterances with prosody modified stimuli. Proceedings of Interspeech 2012, 646–649.Google Scholar
Van Heuven, V. J.
(1986) Some acoustic characteristics and perceptual consequences of foreign accent in Dutch spoken by Turkish immigrant workers. In J. van Oosten, & J. F. Snapper (Eds.), Dutch Linguistics at Berkeley (pp. 67–84). Berkeley: The Dutch Studies Program, U. C. Berkeley.Google Scholar
(2008) Making sense of strange sounds: (Mutual) intelligibility of related language varieties. A review. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 2, 39–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) A relative measure of the interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit: A meta-analytic exercise. In S. Bátyi, & M. Vígh-Szabó (Eds.), Language – System, Usage, Application (pp. 31–52). Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó.Google Scholar
(2016) An acoustic characterisation of English vowels produced by American, Dutch, Chinese and Hungarian speakers. Hungarian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 1–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Heuven, V. J., & Gooskens, C.
(2017) An acoustic analysis of English vowels produced by speakers of seven different native-language backgounds. In M. Wieling, G. Bouma, & G. van Noort (Eds.), From semantics to dialectometry. Festschrift in honour of John Nerbonne (pp. 129–139). Groningen: University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Van Heuven, V. J., & De Vries, J. W.
(1981) Begrijpelijkheid van buitenlanders: de rol van fonische versus niet fonische factoren [Intelligibility of foreigners: the role of phonic versus non-phonic factors]. Forum der Letteren, 22, 309–320.Google Scholar
Venkatagiri, H. S., & Levis, J. M.
(2007) Phonological awareness and speech comprehensibility: An exploratory study. Language Awareness, 16, 263–277. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Walker, R.
(2001) Pronunciation for international intelligibility. English Teaching Professional, 21, 1–7.Google Scholar
Wang, Z.
(2014) Developing accuracy and fluency in spoken English of Chinese EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 7, 110–118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wang, H., & Van Heuven, V. J.
(2015) The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit as bias toward native-language phonology. i-Perception, 6(6), 1–13. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yenkimaleki, M.
(2016) Why prosody awareness training is necessary for training future interpreters. Journal of Education and Human Development, 5, 256–261. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Effect of prosody awareness training on the quality of consecutive interpreting between English and Farsi (LOT dissertation series 459). Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Yenkimaleki, M., & Van Heuven, V. J.
(2013) Prosodic feature awareness training in interpreting: An experimental study. In L. Gómez Chova, A. López Martínez, & I. Candel Torres (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Education, Research and Innovation, November 18th-20th 2013, Seville, Spain, 4179–4188.Google Scholar
(2016a) Effect of explicit teaching of prosodic features on the development of listening comprehension by Farsi-English interpreter trainees: An experimental study. International Journal of English Language Teaching, 4, 32–41.Google Scholar
(2016b) The effect of prosody teaching on developing word recognition skills for interpreter trainees: An experimental study. Journal of Advances in Linguistics, 7, 1101–1107. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016c) Prosody teaching matters in developing speaking skills for Farsi-English interpreter trainees: An experimental study. International Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research, 4(5), 82–91.Google Scholar
(2016d) Effect of prosody awareness training on the performance of consecutive interpretation from Farsi into English: An experimental study. Asia Pacific Translation and Intercultural Studies, 3(3), 235–251. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016e) Explicit teaching of segmentals versus suprasegmentals: which would yield better listening comprehension skills for interpreter trainees? An experimental study. British Journal of English Linguistics, 4(6), 11–22.Google Scholar
Yenkimaleki, M. & Van Heuven, V. J.
(2018) The effect of teaching prosody awareness on interpreting performance: an experimental study of consecutive interpreting from English into Farsi. Perspectives, Studies in Translation Theory and Practice, 26(1), 84–99. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Yenkimaleki, Mahmood & Vincent J. van Heuven
2020. Relative contribution of explicit teaching of segmentals vs. prosody to the quality of consecutive interpreting by Farsi-to-English interpreting trainees. Interactive Learning Environments  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 07 november 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.