MARC 主機 00000cam 2200000 a 4500
001 AAI3614679
005 20161017114312.5
008 161017s2013 xx 000 0 eng d
020 9781303802805
035 (MiAaPQ)AAI3614679
040 MiAaPQ|beng|cMiAaPQ|dAS
100 1 Puri, Vandana
245 10 Intonation in Indian English and Hindi late and
simultaneous bilinguals|h[electronic resource] /|cVandana
Puri
300 1 online resource
500 Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 75-
07(E), Section: A
500 Adviser: Jennifer S. Cole
502 Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
2013
520 Very little has been said about the intonation system of
Hindi and Indian English. This study aims to contribute to
the field of intonation studies by bridging the gaps in
the understanding of intonation patterns of Hindi and
Indian English. By analyzing the speech of both late and
simultaneous bilinguals, this study aims to give a broader
prospective about the speech of Indian English-Hindi
bilinguals. The main objectives of this study are to
understand the intonation system of Indian English and
Hindi spoken in Delhi, India; to explore if simultaneous
bilinguals of Indian English and Hindi have two different
systems of intonation; and to explore if the intonation
system of simultaneous bilinguals is different from late
bilinguals. Three experiments were conducted in both
Indian English and Hindi investigating pre-boundary
lengthening (PBL), pitch accents and focus. This study
shows that simultaneous bilinguals of Hindi and Indian
English don't have two different systems of intonation.
They have a merged system probably because they acquired a
nativized variety of English; however, there are some
subtle features that mark their identity as separate from
the late bilinguals (e.g. the use of H*/H*L pitch accent).
With respect to the question of the difference between
late and simultaneous bilinguals, we find that in pitch
accents, late and simultaneous bilinguals have the same
system in Hindi but different systems in IE; in PBL, both
late and simultaneous bilinguals have the same domains of
PBL and in the focus experiment, we find that there are
statistically significant differences between late and
simultaneous bilinguals in RMS amplitude and F0 excursion
in Hindi and duration in IE. Here the late bilinguals
express focus with higher amplitude, a bigger F0 excursion
and longer duration than those of simultaneous bilinguals.
The results of the PBL experiment show that Hindi and
Indian English have pre-boundary lengthening and that the
PBL effects can be seen both on the final and the
penultimate syllable. The highest effects of pre-boundary
lengthening can be seen on the final stressed syllable.
Stress seems to significantly increase the effects of
lengthening on rhyme and syllable but not vowel. Also,
unlike Cambier-Langeveld, Nespor and Heuven (1997) where
the non-final syllables gets PBL when the final syllable
has a non-expandable vowel, in this study in spite all the
stressed final vowels being expandable, PBL effects can be
observed on the penultimate syllables. Simultaneous
bilinguals and late bilinguals don't have the same kind of
lengthening effects in both their L1s, however, there
doesn't seem to be any difference in the domain of pre-
boundary lengthening between simultaneous and late
bilinguals. Also, Simultaneous bilinguals have the same
domains of pre-boundary lengthening in both their
languages. The results of the pitch accent experiment
show that the main pitch contour used by late bilinguals
in Hindi and Indian English is a LH contour on every non-
final content word. Like late bilinguals, simultaneous
bilinguals use this LH pitch contour in Hindi as well.
However, in Indian English the simultaneous bilinguals use
two types of pitch contours: the Hindi LH and the American
/British English H*/H*L. Thus, simultaneous bilinguals use
a fusion system of pitch accents in their use of English,
but not in Hindi. The results of the focus experiment
show that in Indian English, the main acoustic correlates
of focal prominence are a bigger pitch excursion on the
focus element and post-focal reduction in duration, RMS
amplitude and pitch excursion. Hindi differs in that the
main acoustic correlates of focus include increased
duration as well as a pitch excursion on the focused
element and postfocal reduction in duration, RMS amplitude
and pitch excursion. Since in both Indian English and
Hindi there is a post-focal reduction in pitch range,
duration and RMS amplitude, this indicates that there is
post-focal compression. There is a difference between late
and simultaneous bilinguals in duration in Indian English
and RMS amplitude and pitch excursion in Hindi. With
respect to the question of these bilinguals having one or
two systems of intonation, it seems that understanding
language interference in the speech of late and
simultaneous bilinguals of a New English like Indian
English is not straightforward. It cannot be categorized
into simply static and dynamic interference, substratum
interference or simply fusion alone. A combination of all
these concepts is needed to explain the language
interaction in New Englishes. In the pitch accents
experiment simultaneous bilinguals display a fusion system
of intonation i.e. having both the Hindi and the British
English pitch accents in their IE. The speech of late
bilinguals in this study shows that there is static
interference (L1 L2). For instance, they use only the
Hindi LH pitch contour in both Hindi and IE. Similarly, in
the focus experiment we see both simultaneous and late
bilinguals use a bigger F0 excursion in narrow focus when
compared to broad and postfocus and both groups have post
focal deaccenting by having lower duration, RMS amplitude
and F0 range than narrow focus in both Hindi and IE. We
also see that both groups don't have a difference between
narrow and broad focus in terms of RMS amplitude. The
presence of higher amplitude, duration and F0 in British/
American English, but the absence of increase in amplitude
from broad focus to narrow focus in IE shows that this has
not come from British/American English into IE but rather
from Hindi to IE. All these factors show that there are
similar strategies used by both groups in terms of
expression of focus. Similarly, in PBL, these bilinguals
use the same domains of PBL. For simultaneous bilinguals,
this could be a facet of the language that they have
acquired from the nativized variety of English that they
acquired as an L1. In the context of simultaneous
bilinguals of New Englishes, I propose the term inherited
influence to explain this
590 School code: 0090
650 4 Literature
650 4 English literature
650 4 Language
710 2 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.|bLinguistics
773 0 |tDissertation Abstracts International|g75-07A(E)
856 40 |zDigital Dissertation Consortium|uhttp://ddc.elib.com.tw/
doc/3614679
