臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

隨著技術的進步，以提供即時視覺化語音反饋學習英語音調的電腦軟體已經變得很普遍（Levis ＆ Pickering, 2004）。通過顯示音調輪廓和聲音波形，電腦輔助語言學習（CALL）可以將語音以圖像呈現成視覺化（Hamlaoui ＆ Bengrait, 2016）。一款名為Praat（Boersma, 2001）的軟體，可讓語言學習者看見並分析語音，並用於增強超音段特徵如重音和音調的學習（Gorjian, Havati ＆ Pourkhoni, 2013)。
阿姆斯特丹大學語音科學學院的Paul Boersma和David Weenink（2015）研發之Praat，採用視覺反饋技術設計。Praat用於語音研究多於培訓訓練（O’Brien, 2011）。本文旨在研究台灣EFL學習者的英語音調以及Praat培訓對學習者音調的影響。
台灣南部科技大學30名應外系學生參加了這項研究。在為期四次的Praat培訓中，受試者完成了前測與後測。受試者產出的每個音節之基本頻率（F0）被存檔為數據，與標的語的語音和音調輪廓進行比較，且使用線上問卷評估了受試者對Praat培訓的認知看法。結果顯示，經過四次訓練後，所有受試者接受Praat訓練效果均達到了統計學差異；而且100％的受試者指出，他們所產出的適當英語音調可以表達說話者的情緒和態度。


關鍵字：英語音調、Praat、臺灣EFL學習者

With the advances of technology, computer software which provides immediate visualized speech feedback to improve English intonation has become common (Levis & Pickering, 2004). By showing the prosody contours and sound waveforms, speech can be visualized and represented graphically by computer-assisted language learning (CALL) (Hamlaoui & Bengrait, 2016). A piece of software called Praat (Boersma, 2001), which allows learners to visualize and analyze speech production, can be used to enhance supra-segmental features like stress and intonation (Gorjian, Havati & Pourkhoni, 2013).
Praat, developed by Paul Boersma and David Weenink (2015) at the institute of Phonetic Sciences at the University of Amsterdam, is designed with a visual feedback technique. Praat is employed for phonetic research purposes but not for training purposes (O’Brien, 2011). This paper aimed to examine the Taiwanese EFL learners’ English intonation and the effect of Praat training on their intonation.
Thirty first-year undergraduates at a university of technology in southern Taiwan participated in this study. Within four-session Praat pieces of training, the participants completed a pre- and post-test. The fundamental frequency (F0) of each syllable produced by the learners was saved as recording data and compared with the target model voice and contour. Learners’ perception of Praat training was evaluated by using an online questionnaire. The results reveal that the effectiveness of Praat training for all of the participants reached a statistical difference significantly after a four-session treatment and 100% of the participants pointed out that their appropriate English intonation could represent the speaker’s emotion and attitude.


Keywords: English intonation, Praat, Taiwanese EFL learners

TABLE OF CONTENTS
中文摘要 i
Abstract ii
Acknowledgements iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
List of Figures viii
List of Tables x
Chapter One: Introduction 1
1.1 Background and Motivation 1
1.2 Purposes of the Study 4
1.3 Research Questions 4
1.4 Overview of the Study 5
Chapter Two: Literature Review 6
2.1 The Prominence of Intonation 6
2.1.1 The definition of intonation 6
2.1.2 Different aspects of intonation 7
2.2 Tonal and Intonational Languages 10
2.2.1 Tonal language-Mandarin Chinese 10
2.2.2 Intonational language-English intonation 11
2.2.3 Intonation training 13
2.3 Technology and Intonation Training 15
2.3.1 Audio feedback 15
2.3.2 Audio-visual feedback 20
2.4 Empirical Studies of Applying Praat 27
Chapter Three: Methodology 33
3.1 Research Design 33
3.2 Participants 34
3.3 Materials 34
3.4 Instruments 37
3.5 Procedure 40
3.6 Data Collection 43
3.7 Data Analysis 44
Chapter Four: Results and Discussion 49
4.1 Statements 50
4.1.1 Sentence 1 50
4.1.1.1 Sentence 1-Male 51
4.1.1.2 Sentence 1-Female 51
4.1.2 Sentence 2 52
4.1.2.1 Sentence 2-Male 53
4.1.2.2 Sentence 2-Female 54
4.1.3 Sentence 3 54
4.1.3.1 Sentence 3-Male 55
4.1.3.2 Sentence 3-Female 56
4.1.4 Sentence 4 56
4.1.4.1 Sentence 4-Male 57
4.1.4.2 Sentence 4-Female 57
4.1.5 The results of the z-test 58
4.2 Yes-No Questions 59
4.2.1 Question 1 59
4.2.1.1 Question 1-Male 60
4.2.1.2 Question 1-Female 61
4.2.2 Question 2 61
4.2.2.1 Question 2-Male 62
4.2.3 Question 3 63
4.2.3.1 Question 3-Male 63
4.2.3.2 Question 3-Female 64
4.2.4 Question 4 64
4.2.4.1 Question 4-Male 65
4.2.4.2 Question 4-Female 65
4.2.5 The results of the z-test 66
4.3 Wh-questions 67
4.3.1 Question 1 67
4.3.1.1 Question 1-Male 67
4.3.1.2 Question 1-Female 68
4.3.2 Question 2 68
4.3.2.1 Question 2-Male 69
4.3.2.2 Question 2-Female 70
4.3.3 Question 3 70
4.3.3.1 Question 3-Male 71
4.3.3.2 Question 3-Female 72
4.4.4 Question 4 72
4.3.4.1 Question 4-Male 73
4.3.4.2 Question 4-Female 73
4.3.5 The results of the z-test 74
4.4 Tag Questions 75
4.4.1 Tag question 1 75
4.4.1.1 Tag question 1-Male 76
4.4.1.2 Tag question 2-Female 76
4.4.2 Tag question 2 77
4.4.2.1 Tag question 2-Male 77
4.4.2.2 Tag question 2-Female 78
4.4.3 Tag question 3 78
4.4.3.1 Tag question 3-Male 79
4.4.3.2 Tag question 3-Female 80
4.4.4 Tag question 4 80
4.4.4.1 Tag question 4-Male 81
4.4.4.2 Tag question 4-Female 81
4.4.5 The results of the z-test 82
4.6 Questionnaire Analysis 83
4.6.1 Evaluation of online questionnaire 85
Chapter Five: Conclusion 90
5.1 Major Findings 90
5.2 Pedagogical Implications of the Study 90
5.3 Limitations of the Study 91
5.4 Suggestions for Future Study 92
References 94
中文參考文獻 101
Appendix 1: Consent Form 102
Appendix 2: Consent form in Chinese version 104
Appendix 3: Background related to language questionnaire 105
Appendix 4: Consent Form for Native Speaker 106
Appendix 5: Reading materials for pre-test and post-test 108
Appendix 6: Reading materials for Praat Training 109
Appendix 7. Praat訓練英語音調學習者使用感受與意見調查問卷 111
Appendix 8. Perception of English intonation learning by applying Praat questionnaire 115


List of Figures
Figure 3.4.1. Praat objects for learners to record their voice 37
Figure 3.4.2. Praat picture window allows learners to depict their sound contour 38
Figure 3.4.3. Individual's intonation contour in Praat objects screen 38
Figure 3.4.4. F0 numerical value of each syllable 39
Figure 3.5.1. The timeline and the procedure of the study. 41
Figure 3.5.2, The post-test was conducted by all of the participants. 42
Figure 3.7.1. Huang's pitch analysis program. 45
Figure 3.7.2. Comparison to the native speaker between the pre- and post-tests. 46
Figure 4.1. F0 values of each syllable in Access. 50
Figure 4.1.1.1. Comparison between males and native speakers in Sentence 1. 51
Figure 4.1.1.2. Comparison between females and native speaker in Sentence 1. 52
Figure 4.1.2.1. Comparison between males and native speaker in Sentence 2. 53
Figure 4.1.2.2. Comparison between females and native speaker in Sentence 2. 54
Figure 4.1.3.1. Comparison between males and native speaker in Sentence 3. 55
Figure 4.1.3.2. Comparison between females and native speaker in Sentence 3. 56
Figure 4.1.4.1. Comparison between males and native speaker in Sentence 4. 57
Figure 4.1.4.2. Comparison between females and native speaker in Sentence 4. 58
Figure 4.2.1.1. Comparison between males and native speaker in Question 1. 60
Figure 4.2.1.2. Comparison between females and native speaker in Question 1. 61
Figure 4.2.2.1. Comparison between males and native speaker in Question 2. 62
Figure 4.2.2.2. Comparison between females and native speaker in Question 2. 62
Figure 4.2.3.1. Comparison between males and native speaker in Question 3. 63
Figure 4.2.3.2. Comparison between females and native speaker in Question 3. 64
Figure 4.2.4.1. Comparison between males and native speaker in Question 4 65
Figure 4.2.4.2. Comparison between females and native speaker in Question 4. 65
Figure 4.3.1. 1 Comparison between males and native speaker in Question 1 67
Figure 4.3.1. 2 Comparison between females and native speaker in Question 1 68
Figure 4.3.2.1. Comparison between males and native speaker in Question 2. 69
Figure 4.3.2.2. Comparison between females and native speaker in Question 2 70
Figure 4.3.3.1. Comparison between males and native speaker in Question 3. 71
Figure 4.3.3.2. Comparison between females and native speaker in Question 3. 72
Figure 4.3.4. 1. Comparison between females and native speaker in Question 4. 73
Figure 4.3.4.2. Comparison between females and native speaker in Question 4. 73
Figure 4.4.1.1. Comparison between males and native speaker in Question 1. 76
Figure 4.4.1.2. Comparison between females and native speaker in Question 1. 76
Figure 4.4.2.1. Comparison between males and native speaker in Question 2. 77
Figure 4.4.2.2. Comparison between females and native speaker in Question 2. 78
Figure 4.4.3.1. Comparison between males and native speaker in Question 3. 79
Figure 4.4.3.2. Comparison between females and native speaker in Question 3. 80
Figure 4.4.4.1. Comparison between males and native speaker in Question 4. 81
Figure 4.4.4.2. Comparison between females and native speaker in Question 4. 81
Figure 4.6. 1 Information background related to experience of learning English 83


List of Tables
Table 2.2.1 Example of Four Different Mandarin Tone Meanings 10
Table 3.7.1 Difference Compared to Native Speaker in Statements 47
Table 4.1.5.1 Difference Compared to Native Speaker in Statements 59
Table 4.2.5.1 Difference Compared to Native Speaker in Yes-No questions 66
Table 4.3.5.1 Difference Compared to Native Speaker in Wh-questions 74
Table 4.4.5.1 Difference Compared to Native Speaker in Tag-Questions 82
Table 4.6.2.1 Results of Four Aspects in the Questionnaire 85
Table 4.6.2.2 Learners' Survey Responses in English Intonation 86
Table 4.6.2.3 Learners' Survey Responses in Praat Software 87
Table 4.6.2.4 Learners' Survey Responses in Trainer's Instruction 88
Table 4.6.2.5 Learners' Survey Tesponses in Praat Training 89

References
Abuseileek, A. (2007). Computer-based pronunciation instruction as an effective
means for teaching stress. The Jalt Call Journal, 2(1−2), 3−14.
Agusalim, I. D., Kom, M. H. A. S., & Muhammad, A. F. (2014). Developing mobile
application of interactive English pronunciation training to improve EFL
students’ pronunciation skill. Journal of Education and Practice, 5(33),
135−140.
Ali, S. (2016). Towards the development of a comprehensive pedagogical
framework for pronunciation training based on adapted automatic speech
recognition systems. CALL Communities and Culture – Short Papers from
EUROCALL 2016, 7−13.
Barrett, L., & Hata, K. (2006). F0 characteristics of yes-no question
intonation Arabic and English: Disambiguation techniques for use in ASR. In
R. Hoffmann, & H. Mixdorff (Eds.), Speech Prosody 2006 (pp. 47). German: ISCA
Archive.
Boersma, P. (2001). Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot
International, 5(9), 341−345.
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2015). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer
software]. Retrieved June 15, 2018, from http://www.praat.org.
Cavus, N. (2016). Development of an intelligent mobile application for teaching
English pronunciation. Procedia Computer Science, 102, 365−369.
Chou, M. S. (2015). A study on Taiwanese Technological University students’
English reading intonation (Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taipei
University of Education, Taiwan).
Cobb, T. (2011). The complete lexical tutor. Retrieved from
http://www.lexutor.ca
Crystal, D. (1975). Prosodic features and linguistic theory. The English tone
of voice: Essays in intonation, prosody and paralanguage. London: Edward
Arnold.
Cucchiarini, C., Nejjari, W., & Strik, H. (2012). My pronunciation coach:
Improving English pronunciation with an automatic coach that listens.
Language Learning in Higher Education, 1(2), 365−376.
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciation
teaching: A research-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 379−397.
Elimat, A. K., & Abuseileek, A. F. (2014). Automatic speech recognition
technology as an effective means for teaching pronunciation. The JALT CALL
Journal, 10(1), 21−47.
Escudero, D., & Tejedor-Gare, C. (2015). Implementation and test of a serious
game based on minimal pairs for pronunciation training. Proceedings of SLaTE
2015.
Gilbert, J. B. (2012). Clear speech: Pronunciation and listening comprehension
in North American English. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gobb, T. (2011). The complete lexical tutor. Retrieved from
http://www.lexutor.ca
Gordon, J., Darcy, I., & Ewert, D. (2013). Pronunciation teaching and learning:
Effects of explicit phonetic instruction in the L2 classroom. In: J. Levis, &
K. LeVelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Pronunciation in Second Language
Learning and Teaching Conference (pp. 194−206). Ames, IA: Iowa State
University.
Gorjian, B., Hayati, A., & Pourkhoni, P. (2013). Using Praat software in
teaching prosodic features to EFL learners. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 84, 34−40.
Hamlaoui, N., & Bengrait, N. (2016). Using Better Accent Tutor and Praat for
learning English intonation. SSRN Electronic Journal, 3, 99−112.
Hancock, M. (2003). English pronunciation in use. Cambridge University Press.
Hirschi, K. (2018). Intonation and word stress in Georgian EFL learners’
utterances: Does Praat training help? International Journal of Multilingual
Education, 6(11), 47−60.
Huang, Y. H. (2005). Praat scripts for fetching pitch and formants of vowels
(Unpublished master’s thesis). National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan.
Hubbard, P., & Levy, M. (2006) Computer-assisted language learning: Content and
conceptualization. New York: Clarendon Press.
Jenkins, J. (2000). The Phonology of English as an international language.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jun, S. A., Vicenik, C., & Lofstedt, I. (2007). WPP, No. 106: Intonational
phonology of Georgian. Working Papers in Phonetics, 106, 41−57.
Kim, I. S. (2006). Automatic speech recognition: Reliability and pedagogical
implications for teaching pronunciation. Educational Technology and Society,
9(1), 322−334.
Koet, T. (2007). Polder English in Dutch ears (Ph.D. dissertation).
Utrecht/Amsterdam.
Lane, L. (2005). Focus on pronunciation 3. New York: Pearson Education.
Le, H. J., & Brook, J. (2011). Using Praat to teach intonation to ESL students.
Hawaii Pacific University TESOL Working Paper Series, 9(1,2), 2−15.
Levis, J., & Pickering, L. (2004). Teaching intonation in discourse using
speech visualization technology. System, 32(4), 505−524.
Liao, S. J. (2011) A study on Taiwanese English teachers' prosody (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan.
Mennen, I. (2015). Beyond segments: Towards a L2 intonation learning theory.
In: M. Avanzi, & S. Herment (Eds.), Prosody and language in contact prosody,
phonology and phonetics (pp. 171−188). Wales, UK: Springer Verlag.
Neri, A., Cucchuarini, C., & Strik, H. (2004). Segmental errors in Dutch as a
second language: How to establish priorities for CAPT. Proceedings of
InSTIL/ICALL 2004-NLP and Speech Technologies in Advanced Language Learning
Systems. Venice: Italy.
O’Brien, M. G. (2011). Teaching and assessing pronunciation with computer
technology. In: N. Arnold, & L. Ducate (Eds.), Present and future promises of
CALL: From theory and research to new directions in language teaching (pp.
375–406). Canada: CALIGO.
Ostrom, A. B. W. (1997). Acquisition of American English intonation patterns by
non-native speakers: Use of real-time computer-mediated visual feedback
(Ph.D. thesis). The University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved from
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/128462/.
Papadima-Sophocleous, S., Bradley, L., & Thouësny, S. (2016). CALL communities
& culture: Short papers from EUROCALL 2016. Dublin: Research-publishing.net.
Pickering, L., Hu, G., & Baker, A. (2012). The pragmatic function of
intonation: Cueing agreement and disagreement in spoken English discourse and
implications for ELT. In: J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Educational linguistics
pragmatics and prosody in English language teaching (pp. 199−218). Dordrecht:
Springer.
Saito, K. (2007). The influence of explicit phonetic instruction on
pronunciation teaching in EFL settings: The case of English vowels and
Japanese learners of English. Linguistics Journal, 3, 16−40.
Saito, Y., & Saito, K. (2016). Differential effects of instruction on the
development of second language comprehensibility, word stress, rhythm, and
intonation: The case of inexperienced Japanese EFL learners. Language
Teaching Research, 21(5), 589−608.
Seattle Learning Academy (2016). Pronunciation.com: American English
pronunciation. Retrieved from https://pronunciation.com
Strom ̈bergsson, S. (2016). Today’s most frequently used F0 estimation methods,
and their accuracy in estimating male and female pitch in clean speech. In:
W. Hess, & M. Cooke (Eds.), Interspeech 2016 (pp. 525−529). San Francisco,
CA:ISCA.
Szcepek-Reed, B. (2011). Beyond the particular: Prosody and the coordination of
actions. Language and Speech, 55(1), 13−34.
Tang, S. M., Zhuang, Z. J., & Wu, Z. X. (2005). Computer assisted English
recognition and pronunciation evaluation (Doctoral dissertation). National
Cheng Kung University, Taiwan.
Tanner, M. W., & Landon, M. M. (2009). The effects of computer-assisted
pronunciation readings on ESL learners' use of pausing, stress, intonation,
and overall comprehensibility. Language Learning & Technology, 13, 51−65.
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.
Wichmann, A. (2004). The intonation of please‐requests: A corpus‐based study.
Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1521–1549.
Wichmann, A. (2015). Functions of intonation in discourse. In: M. Reed & J. M.
Levis (Eds.), The Handbook of English Pronunciation (pp. 175–189). West
Sussex: UK.
Wilson, I. (2005). Using Praat and Moodle for teaching segmental and supra
segmental pronunciation. TESOL Quarterly, 3, 33–43.
Yangklang, W. (2013). Improving English stress and intonation pronunciation of
the first year students of Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat University through an
e-learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 91, 444–452.

中文參考文獻
湯士民、莊則敬、吳宗憲 (2005)。應用錯誤型態分析於英語發音輔助學習 (Doctoral
dissertation, National Cheng Kung University Institute of Computer Science
and Information Engineering)。國立成功大學資訊工程學系，台南市。
周美秀 (2015)。臺灣的科技大學學生英語語調之研究 (Master’s Thesis, National Taipei
University of Education )。國立臺北教育大學人文藝術學院兒童英語教育學系，未出版，台
北市。
廖淑蓉 (2011)。台灣英語教師語調及母音的研究 (Doctoral dissertation, National
Kaohsiung Normal University)。國立高雄師範大學英語學系，未出版，高雄市。