PROMINENCE AND MEANING SELECTION IN GHANAIAN ENGLISH DISCOURSE: TOWARDS A CATEGORIZATION OF THE NEW ENGLISHES

Charlotte Fofo Lomotey

Abstract


All models of intonation recognize that speakers in any communication context select prominence based on their communicative intents. Consequently, every prominent syllable bears a specific communicative function. However, while prominence selection appears fixed in inner circle Englishes, the same cannot be said of outer (OC) and expanding circle (EC) Englishes. Results from research clearly suggest that it is not always possible for OC and EC speakers to select prominence to indicate meaning selection. This study reports findings on the selection of prominence in Ghanaian English in relation to Brazil’s Discourse Intonation model. Data consisting of 6 hours of English conversations from 100 Ghanaians were analyzed using Brazil’s model. Results show that just as in other OC English varieties, Ghanaians assign prominence to individual syllables with communicative intent, although their selections may not always coincide with the functions proposed in Brazil’s model. Based on these results, it is argued that rather than being viewed as deficiencies, phonological choices such as prominence selection should be regarded as common to OC Englishes. The study, therefore, argues for an adoption of a model that describes the intonation of outer circle Englishes in relation to their contexts and not on a native speaker model.

Article visualizations:

Hit counter


Keywords


prominence, meaning selection, Ghanaian English, outer circle Englishes

Full Text:

PDF

References


Journal articles

Baumann, S. & Winter, B. 2018. What makes a word prominent? Predicting untrained German listeners’ perceptual judgments. Journal of Phonetics, 70, 20-38.

Clark, H. H. 2001. Conversation: Linguistic Aspects. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 2744-2747). Elsevier Ltd.

Clark, H. H. & Schaefer, E. F. 1989. Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13, 259-294.

Deterding, D. 2011. English language teaching and the lingua franca core in East Asia. In W.-S. Lee & E. Zee (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 92-95). City University of Hong Kong.

Deterding, D. & Kirkpatrick, A. 2006. Emerging South-East Asian Englishes and intelligibility. World Englishes, 25(3/4), 391-409.

Goh, C. 2001. Discourse intonation of English in Malaysia and Singapore: Implications for wider communication and teaching. RELC Journal, 32(1), 92-105.

Gut, U. 2005. Nigerian English prosody. English World-Wide 26, 153–177.

Gut, U. 2007. First language influence and final consonant clusters in the new Englishes of Singapore and Nigeria. World Englishes, 26(3), 346-359.

Gut, U., Pillai, S., & Mohd Don, Z. 2013. The prosodic marking of information status in Malaysian English. World Englishes, 32(2), 185-197.

Hahn, L. 2004. Primary stress and intelligibility: Research to motivate the teaching of suprasegmentals. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 201–233.

Hewings, M. 1995. Tone choice in the English intonation of non-native speakers. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 251-265.

Jowitt, David. 2000. Patterns of Nigerian English intonation. English World-Wide, 21, 63-80.

Kiss, K. É. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language, 74(2). 245-273.

Krifka, M. 2008. Basic Notions of Information Structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55(3–4). 243–276.

Ramirez Verdugo, D. 2002. Non-native interlanguage intonation systems: A study based on a computerized corpus of Spanish learners of English. ICAME Journal, 26, 115–132.

Samuelsson, C. 2009. Using conversation analysis to study prosodic problems in a child with language impairment. Child Language Teaching and therapy, 25(1), 59-88.

Schneider, E. W. 2003. The dynamics of new Englishes: From identity construction to dialect birth. Language, 79(2), 233-281.

Warren, P., Elgort, I. & Crabbe, D. 2009. Comprehensibility and prosody ratings for pronunciation software development. Language Learning & Technology, 3(3), 87-102.

Books

Brazil, D. 1994. Pronunciation for advanced learners of English. Cambridge University Press.

Brazil, D. 1997. The communicative value of intonation in English. Cambridge University Press.

Brazil, D., Coulthard, M., & Johns, C. (1980). Discourse intonation and language teaching. Longman.

Brazil, D. 1978. Discourse intonation II. English Language Research Monographs.

Brazil, D. 1985. The communicative value of intonation. English Language Research.

Brazil, D. 1995. A grammar of speech. Oxford University Press.

Cauldwell, R. 2007. The reliability of intonation transcriptions: Implications for speech corpora. SpeechinAction Research Centre (SPARC).

Cauldwell, R., & Allen, M. 1999. Phonology. Birmingham: The University of Birmingham.

Cheng, W., Greaves, C., & Warren, M. 2008. A Corpus-driven Study of Discourse Intonation. John Benjamins.

Coulthard, M. (Ed.). 1994. Advances in written text analysis. Routledge.

Creswell, J. W. 2012. Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th edn.). SAGE.

Crystal, D. 1969. Prosodic systems and intonation in English. Cambridge University Press.

Dalton, C., & Seidlhofer, B. 1994. Pronunciation. Oxford University Press.

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). 2018. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. SAGE.

Deterding, D. 2013. Misunderstandings in English as a Lingua Franca: An analysis of ELF interactions in South-East Asia. De Gruyter

Graddol, D. 1997. The future of English? A guide to forecasting the popularity of the English language in the 21st century. British Council.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1970. A Course in Spoken English: Intonation. Oxford University Press.

Jenkins, J. 2000. The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford University Press.

Kachru, B. B. 1986. The alchemy of English: The spread functions and models of non-native Englishes. Pergamon.

Low, E. L. 2015. Pronunciation for English as International Language: From research to practice. Routledge.

Low, E. L. & Brown, A. 2005. English in Singapore. An Introduction. McGraw-Hill.

Sinclair, J. M. H. & Brazil, D. 1982. Teacher talk. Oxford University Press.

Sinclair, J. M. H. & Coulthard, R. M. 1975. Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford University Press.

Tench, P. 1996. The Intonation Systems of English. Cassell.

Yin, R.K. 2009. Case study research: Design and methods (4th edn.). SAGE.

Book chapters

Du Bois, J. W., Schuetze-Coburn, S., Paolino, D., & Cumming, S. 1992. Discourse

transcription. In S. A. Thompson (Ed.), Santa Barbara papers in linguistics (vol. 4). University of California, Santa Barbara.

Goh, C. C. M. 2000. A discourse approach to the description of intonation in Singapore English. In A. Brown, D. Deterding & E. L. Low (Eds.), The English Language in Singapore: Research on Pronunciation (pp. 35-45). Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics.

Low, E. L. 2000. Is lexical stress placement different in Singapore English and British English? In D. Deterding, A. Brown & E. L. Low (Eds.), The English Language in Singapore: research on pronunciation (pp. 22-34). Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics.

Muller Levis, G., Levis, J. M. 2020. Teaching contrastive stress for varied speaking levels. In

O. Kang, S. Staples, K. Yaw, & K. Hirschi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching conference, (pp. 316–325). Iowa State University.

Pierrehumbert, J. & Hirschberg, J. 1990. The Meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan & M. E. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in Communication (pp. 271-311). MIT Press.

Selkirk, E. 2002. Contrastive FOCUS vs. presentational focus: Prosodic evidence from right node raising in English. In Bel Bernard & Isabelle Marlien (Eds.), Proceedings of the First International Speech Prosody Conference (pp. 643-646). Laboratoire Parole et Langage.

Terken, J., & Hermes, D. 2000. The perception of prosodic prominence. In M. Horne (Ed.), Prosody: Theory and experiment. Studies presented to Gösta Bruce (pp 89-127). Springer.

Tomlin, R. S., Forrest, L., Ming, M. P. & Myung, K. 1997. Discourse semantics. In Teun van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as structure and process (Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction 1), (pp. 63-112). Sage Publications.

Conference Presentation

Muller Levis, G., Levis, J., & Benner, S. 2014. Contrastive stress can be learned – But can it be taught at lower levels? Paper given at the Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching. Iowa State University.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejlll.v4i2.283

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2021 Charlotte Fofo Lomotey

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The research works published in this journal are free to be accessed. They can be shared (copied and redistributed in any medium or format) and\or adapted (remixed, transformed, and built upon the material for any purpose, commercially and\or not commercially) under the following terms: attribution (appropriate credit must be given indicating original authors, research work name and publication name mentioning if changes were made) and without adding additional restrictions (without restricting others from doing anything the actual license permits). Authors retain the full copyright of their published research works and cannot revoke these freedoms as long as the license terms are followed.

Copyright © 2017-2023. European Journal of Literature, Language and Linguistics Studies (ISSN 2559 - 7914 / ISSN-L 2559 - 7914). All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library. All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and standards formulated by Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002), the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing (2003) and  Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (2003) and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Copyrights of the published research works are retained by authors.