Why Prosody Awareness Training is Necessary in Training Future Interpreters?

Abstract

Establishing comprehensive rules and guidelines for speech production and teaching of prosody is difficult compared with the specific second language learner problem in pronunciation which can be easily corrected in second language learning classes. The nature of prosodic features is inherently complicated and because of the complexity of prosodic feature errors, no specific teaching methodology deals with them appropriately and most of the teaching methods are focused on segmental aspects in second language learner’s pronunciation problems. Despite the helpfulness of computer-aided analysis of voice characteristics, there should be cooperation with experts in voice and signal processing in getting conclusions about these aspects. Teaching prosody should be of utmost importance in the interpreter training curriculum. Additionally, in this respect, appropriate materials and data should be chosen carefully according to the learners of mother tongue and the data analysis should be done by professionals to see the gaps in teaching and in students’ learning processes. The choice of methodology in teaching prosody can be an important aspect as well. It should target individual differences among learners in different contexts.

Cuvinte-cheie: prosodie, formare iniţială, curriculum, interpretare, sistem de sunete în Farsi

REZUMAT

Formularea unor reguli clare ale vorbirii orale şi ale predării prosodiei limbii a doua este o sarcină care poate fi rezolvată cu succes doar în cadrul orelor de limbă. Fenomenele prosodice sunt, prin natura lor, lucruri complicate, care necesită o metodologie aparte de predare, bazată, în bună parte, pe segmentarea vorbirii. În pofida avantajelor analizei automatizate a caracteristicilor vocii umane, se impune şi colaborarea cu specialiştii în domeniul acusticii. Predarea prosodiei ocupă un rol central în curriculumul specialităţii „Traducere”. În acest caz, un rol important le revine şi datelor obţinute, care se cer analizate de specialişti, în vederea evidenţierii neajunsurilor predării şi învăţării disciplinei cu pricina.

LANGUAGES OF PUBLICATION

English (main text) and Farsi (corpus)

UDC: 811.111’342.1(072)

REFERENCES

Abdolhasanizadeh, V., Gussenhoven C., Bijankhan, M. (2011). A Pitch Accent Position Contrast in Persian. In Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 17-21). Hongkong.

Ahren, B. (2004). Prosody beim Simultandolmetchen. Peter Lang Verlag.

Amini, A. (1997). On Stress in Persian. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 16, 1-20.

Aquil, R. (2012). Listening to English Connected Speech: A Problem and Solutions. Arab World English Journal, 3, 329-364.

Cutler, A. (1983). Speakers Conceptions of the Functions of Prosody. In: Cutler A., Ladd D. R. Prosody: Models and Measurements. Springer.

Ferguson, C. A. (1957). Word Stress in Persian. Language, 33(2), 123-135.

Goldman-Eisler, F. (1958). Speech Production and the Predictability of Words in Context. Quarterly Journal Experimental Psycholinguistics, 10, 96-106.

Gussenhoven, C. (2015). Suprasegmentals. In: Wright J. D. (Ed.) International Encyclo­pedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (the 2^nd edition, vol. 23, pp. 714-721). Elsevier.

Gut, U. (2007). Learner Corpora in Second Language Prosody Research and Teaching. In Trouvain, J., Gut, U. (Eds.) Non-native Prosody. Phonetic Description and Teaching Practice (pp. 145-167). Mouton de Gruyter.

Gut, U., Trouvain, J., Barry, W. J. (2007). Bridging Research on Phonetic Desciptions with Knowledge from Teaching Practice – The Case of Prosody in Non-native Speech. In Trouvain, J., Gut, U. (Eds.) Non-native Prosody (pp. 3-21). Mouton de Gruyter.

Hall, M. (2007). Phonological Characteristics of Farsi Speakers of English and L1 Australian English Speakers’ Perception of Proficiency. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Department of Linguistics. Curtin University.

Hardison, D. M. (2004). Generalization of Computer-assisted Prosody Training: Quantitative and Qualitative Findings. Language Learning & Technology, 8, 34-52.

Heuven, V. J. van. (1994). Introducing Prosodic Phonetics. In Odé, C., Heuven, V. J. van (Eds.). Experimental Studies of Indonesian Prosody. Semaian 9. Leiden: Vakgroep Talen en Culturen van Zuidoost-Azië en Oceanië, Leiden University.

Hirschfeld, U., Trouvain, J. (2007). Teaching Prosody in German as a Foreign Language. In Trouvain, J., Gut, U. (Eds.) Non-native Prosody (pp. 171-189). Mouton de Gruyter.

Jilka, M. (2007). Different Manifestations and Perceptions of Foreign Accent in Intonation. In Trouvain, J., Gut U. (Eds.). Non-native Prosody (pp. 77-97). Mouton de Gruyter.

Kometsu, M., Mori, K., Arai, T., Murahara, Y. (2001). Human Language Identification with Reduced Segmental Information: Comparison between Monolinguals and Bilinguals. Proc. EUROSPEECH, 1, 149–152.

Lazard, G. (1957). Grammaire du Persian Contemporain. Éditions Klincksieck.

Mahjani, B. (2003). An Instrumental Study of Prosodic Features and Intonation in Modern Farsi (Persian). MA Thesis, University of Edinburgh.

Mary, L., Yegnanarayana, B. (2008). Extraction and Representation of Prosodic Features for Language and Speaker Recognition. In Speech Communication, 50, 782-796.

Mori, K., Toba, N., Harada, T., Arai, T., Kometsu, M., Aoyagi, M., Murahara, Y. (1999). Human Language Identification with Reduced Spectral Information. Proc. EUROSPEECH, 1, 391–394.

Sadat Tehrani, N. (2007). The Intonational Grammar of Persian. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Manitoba.

Samareh, Y. (1986). Phonology of Farsi Language. Markaz e Nashre Daneshgahi.

Shademan, S. (2002). Epenthetic Vowel Harmony in Farsi. Unpublished M.A. thesis. University of California, Los Angeles.

Windfuhr, G. (1979).Persian Grammar: History and State of its Study. Mouton.

Received: January 20, 2016 | Reviewed: February 19, 2016 | Accepted for publication: March 10, 2016

Google Scholar cited by