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