英语论文网

r Methodology.......... 37 
4.1 Research Questions......... 37 
4.2 Data Collection ..... 37 
4.2.1 Research Materials ......... 37 
4.2.2 Research Subjects and Recording Procedures ....... 40 
4.3 Data Annotation and Extraction ......... 41
Chapter Five Results and Discussions ............. 45 
5.1 Tonality Patterns............. 45
5.2 Tonicity Pattern .... 58 
5.3 Tone Patterns ........ 66 

Chapter Five Results and Discussions 

Based on the annotation and data obtained, the analyzation and discussion of the prosodic  features  of  both  Changchun  EFL  learners  and  American  standard  native speakers  will  be  carried  out  in  this  chapter,  mainly  from  the  aspects  of  tonality, tonicity and tone. 

5.1 Tonality Patterns  

One  of  the  significant  functions  of  intonation  is  dividing  the  long  speech  flow into  information  chunks  related  to  syntax.  More  straightforwardly  speaking,  the  first matter a speaker has to decide in communication is how to split the speaking materials into  chunks  (Wells,  2006).  This  division,  in  Halliday’s  system,  is  “tonality”,  which reflects speaker’ perception as well as organization of information structures. And the chunks  divided  are  IPs,  a  prosodic  unit  between  prosodic  phrase  and  utterance.  As  a fundamental  unit  of  intonation,  IP  commonly  embraces  a  high  co-occurrence frequency with syntax, demonstrating the relationships between intonation, syntax and information.  Figure 5.1 below illustrates the IP numbers segmented for each of the six stimuli and a total number calculated by both CC EFL learners and American NSs, where N1 to N6 in the horizontal axis indicates stimulus number and 0 to 500 in the vertical axis represents  IP  numbers  segmented  by  subjects.  It  is  clear  that  learners  produce  more intonational  phrases  constantly  than  NSs  either  individually  or  totally.  The  minimal difference  lies  in  stimulus  N1,  where  learners  segment  43  IPs,  approximately  1.4 times  of  native  speakers  (31  IPs),  and  the  maximal  difference  demonstrates  in  N5, which is phrased into 95 and 44 IPs respectively by learners and NSs, and the former one  is  about  2.2  times  as  much  as  the  latter  one.  On  the  whole,  CC  EFL  learners output 457 IPs, approximately 1.8 times of American NSs, who totally yield 256 IPs.  

.........

Conclusion

This  chapter  will  firstly  summarize  the  major  findings  obtained  through  the experimental study, then t本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。