CC BY
3□ывжаы
INTERNA'nONALJOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, LITERATURE AND CULTURE RESEARCHES МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЙ ЖУРНАЛ JIИ II I ВИСТИЧ EC КИ X. ЛИТЕРАТУРОВЕДЧЕСКИХ И КУЛЬТУРОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИИ
E-1SSN: 2667-4262
Atif/Citation: Uzun, T. (2024). Perception of prosodie speech features: final intonation and word stress for EFL learners. Uluslararasi Dil, Edebiyat veKultun Anaçtinmalan Dergisi (UDEKAD), 7 (2), s. 212-223. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37999/udekad.1449612
Tarik UZUN4
PERCEPTION OF PROSODIC SPEECH FEATURES: FINAL INTONATION AND WORD STRESS FOR EFL LEARNERS **
ABSTRACT
The acquisition of intelligible pronunciation in a second language (L2) hinges on successfully managing the perception and production of speech features. In this regard, prosodic speech features, particularly intonation and word stress are of critical importance. This study investigates the diagnostic perception test results of the learners of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) (N=125) in Turkish higher education context, analyzing their scores on intonation and word stress sections. The results reveal that participants performed better on identifying final intonation patterns compared to word stress items while both areas demonstrated certain challenges. Scores were lower for items with final falling intonation, particularly evident in interrogative wh- / how questions, suggesting complexities in processing this feature. Additionally, word stress accuracy decreased with increasing syllable count. No significant correlation was observed between intonation and word stress scores. These findings highlight the importance of recognizing intonation and word stress as distinct yet interconnected aspects of pronunciation, calling for effective instructional approaches to address these key components of L2 sound system.
Keywords: prosody, intonation, word stress, diagnostic assessment, English as a foreign language
BÜRÜNSEL KONUÇMA ÖGELER1N1N ALGILANMASI: YABANCI DIL OLARAK iNGlLlZCE ÖGRENENLER IçlN SÖZCE SONU EZGt VE SÖZCÜK VURGUSU_
ÖZET
îkinci dilde (D2) anla^ilabilir bir sesletimin edinilmesi konu^ma ögelerine yönelik algi ve üretim sûreçlerinin ba^arili biçimde yönetilmesini gerekli kilmaktadir. Bu noktada, bürünsel ögelerin, özel olarak da ezgi ve sözcük vurgusu büyük bir öneme sahiptir. Bu çali^ma, Türkiye yüksekögretim baglaminda yabanci dil olarak Ingilizce ögrenenlerin (N=125) tanilayici dinleme algisi testindeki yanitlari üzerinden ezgi ve sözcük vurgusu sonuçlarini incelemektedir. Ula^ilan bulgular, katilimcilarin sözce sonu ezgi görünümlerini tanilamada, sözcük vurgusu maddelerine oranla daha ba^arili olduklarini ancak her iki alanda da belirli zorluklar ya^adiklari göstermektedir. Sonuçlar, özellikle wh- / how sorularinda belirginle^en alçalan ezgi görünümlerinde elde edilen puanlarin görece daha dü§ük oldugunu göstermekte ve ezginin i^lenmesindeki karma^ik görüntüyü ortaya koymaktadir. Ek olarak, sözcük vurgusu dogrulugunun, seslem sayisi arttikça azaldigi belirlenmi^tir. Ezgi ve sözcük vurgusu puanlari arasinda anlamli bir bagintiya ise ula§ilamami§tir. Sonuçlar, ezgi ve sözcük vurgusunun ayri ancak baglantili boyutlar olduklarini, D2 ses dizgesinin bu önemli bile^enlerinin saglikli biçimde ele alinabilmeleri için etkili ögretim yakla^imlarina gereksinim bulundugunu göstermektedir.
Anahtar kelimeler: bürün, ezgi, sözcük vurgusu, tanilayici degerlendirme, yabanci dil olarak Ingilizce
* Ögr. Gör. Dr., Ankara Yildinm Beyazit Üniversitesi, Yabanci Diller Yüksekokulu, Ankara/Türkiye. E-posta: uzuntarik@aybu.edu.tr / Instructor Dr., Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University, School of Foreign Languages, Ankara/Türkiye. E-mail: uzuntarik@aybu.edu.tr
** This article partially reports on the findings of the unpublished conference presentation entitled "A diagnostic assessment ofpronunciation: Segmental and suprasegmental perceptions of EFL learners", orally delivered at the 15th METUInternational ELT Convention: Envisioning Future Paths.
Makale Bilgisi (Article Info): Arajtirma makalesi / Research Article, Makale Gelij Tarihi (Received): 09.03.2024, Makale Kabul Tarihi (Accepted): 05.06.2024
Introduction
Understanding the nature of spoken language and becoming functional users in an L2 involves work on diverse speech features for learners. To address this need, it is essential to place emphasis on pronunciation in L2 teaching and learning contexts. Pronunciation involves the perception and production of speech sounds and their role in meaning-making (Dalton & Seidlhofer, 2014). It is important to note that mispronunciations of individual sounds in speech, also known as segmentals or consonants and vowels, can result in communication breakdowns since they may be perceived as different phonemes or not recognized correctly at all within the target language context (Levis, 2018). However, pronunciation encompasses not only segmentals but suprasegmental orprosodic features of language as well.
Trask (2007) defines prosody as "variations in pitch, loudness, rhythm, and tempo (rate of speaking)" (p. 234). Aside from this largely phonological definition, the core components of prosody extend to word stress, rhythm, intonation, and sentence stress for L2 English teaching professionals (Murphy, 2017). Gilbert (2008) stresses the necessity of incorporating prosodic aspects into pronunciation teaching, noting the enhanced progress of learners who receive instruction on English prosody and their improved ability to recognize and interpret rhythmic and melodic cues. Furthermore, Levis and Grant (2011) emphasize the importance of addressing prosodic features in instruction, as they are more directly pertinent to speaking skills compared to individual segments, given their influence extends beyond single words to entire utterances. Empirical evidence supports the effectiveness of teaching prosodic speech features, resulting in enhanced comprehensibility, which refers to "perceived degree of difficulty experienced by the listener in understanding speech" (Munro & Derwing, 2015, p. 14). For instance, Gordon and Darcy (2016) reported in their study that the group receiving instruction in prosodic speech features was found to be more comprehensible, in other words, easier to understand by listeners. Similar findings were reported in Derwing et al.'s (1998) research, where improvements in comprehensibility and fluency were noted following instruction on prosodic speech features.
Word stress and intonation are two important prosodic features of L2 speech. According to Ladefoged and Johnson (2015), word stress is attributed to entire syllables rather than individual vowels or consonants, where stressed syllables are uttered with increased energy and prominence compared to unstressed ones. In other words, stressed syllables are pronounced longer, louder, and higher in pitch (the relative lowness or highness of the speaker's voice) (Celce-Murcia et al., 2017; Cutler, 2015; Derwing & Munro, 2015). In addition, vowels retaining their full and inherent sound quality are labelled as strong or full vowels, occurring typically in stressed syllables, except for /a/, identified as a weak vowel and often found in weak syllables (Skandera & Burleigh, 2005). Goodwin (2013) emphasizes that stress placement in English is also influenced by suffixation, with the primary stress often shifting to the syllable immediately preceding suffixes (e.g., -ic, as in eLECtric; -ity, as in elecTRICity) (p. 3). More specifically, several studies highlighted the importance of stress placement (e.g., Field, 2005; Hahn, 2004; Lewis & Deterding, 2018; Murphy, 2004; Uzun, 2022) and intonation (e.g., Holub, 2010; Sereno et al., 2015) for intelligible and/or comprehensible speech in different contexts.
Languages exhibit variations in stress patterns. For instance, English, Spanish, and Dutch are free-stress languages (Chun & Levis, 2020) and demonstrate changing patterns in stress placement. Specifically in English, vowels found in unstressed syllables are usually reduced (a
phonological phenomenon also known as vowel reduction) and tend to have a 'muffled' quality like that of /a/ (Katamba, 1996, p. 221), which also affects stress patterns. In English, shifts in stress placement convey different meanings within certain words (e.g., import as a noun versus import as a verb), whereas in French, stress consistently falls on the final syllable except in the cases of emphasis or contrast (Roach, 1992, p. 103). Similarly, languages like French are fixed-stress languages and the syllable stressed in words is the same (other examples include Finnish -first syllable, or Polish-penultimate syllable) (Cutler, 2015; Levis, 2018).
On the other hand, intonation is typically associated with "variations in the pitch of the speaking voice" (Brazil, 1997, p.1). Variation in pitch conveys diverse information, including personal characteristics like gender and age and nonlinguistic cues about the speaker's emotional state such as calmness, anger, happiness, or sadness (Ladefoged & Johnson, 2015). Overall, intonation can carry attitudinal, pragmatic, grammatical, and discoursal meanings (Levis & Wichmann, 2015). Regarding American English (AE) and British English (BE), the two varieties share a single system of intonation overall, mostly in frequencies and pragmatic choices rather than configurations like presence vs. absence of features (Bolinger, 1998). According to Grant (2016), the intonation in English typically falls at the end of statements providing information or expressing certainty (as in I lost my wallet. \) as well as wh- questions that request information (as in What's your dog's name? \) (pp. 95-96). In polar yes/no questions, on the other hand, final intonation rises in the end (as in Is it supposed to rain? /) (p. 97). Derwing and Munro (2015) similarly stress that intonation plays a linguistic role, with pitch potentially increasing towards the conclusion of a statement to indicate an interrogative intention (as in You're leaving now? /) (p. 59).
Despite the commonly held belief that pronunciation will be acquired naturally and requires no dedicated teaching, effective instruction in this area can lead to positive outcomes (Levis, 2022). Therefore, careful planning and consideration of all relevant variables are essential for successful implementation. An initial phase in developing effective pronunciation instruction involves conducting a needs analysis, also commonly referred to as a diagnostic assessment. This type of evaluation aids educators in identifying precise strengths and weaknesses in learners' pronunciation abilities (Knoch, 2017). As Celce-Murcia (2017) outlines, diagnostic assessments serve dual purposes: screening, which assesses learners' capabilities for specific tasks, and placement, which determines suitable levels based on proficiency. Pronunciation instructors should address both segmental and prosodic challenges, including non-target aspects, to meet learners' needs (Brinton, 2023); therefore, diagnostic assessment is an initial step in pronunciation instruction as well as recognizing the specific needs of learners.
Moreover, effective curriculum integration requires comprehensive efforts, and diagnostic assessment naturally forms a vital component of such procedures, too. In their proposal for integrating pronunciation into a curriculum, McGregor and Reed (2018) advocate for implementing a needs assessment as a crucial step, encompassing the planning process, encouraging learners' self-evaluation to heighten awareness of individual needs, and prioritizing specific speech features for instructional focus. In the context of Turkish higher education, a diagnostic assessment tool was used to gain insights into learners' pronunciation needs. This assessment addressed the following research questions regarding the prosodic speech features:
1. How do EFL students perform in a diagnostic perception test assessing final intonation patterns and word stress?
2. To what extent do individual scores on a test of final intonation perception correlate with scores on a word stress perception test?
Method
Data Collection
Data were collected using a diagnostic assessment test for pronunciation, accompanied by audio recordings (Baker, 2006) at the beginning of a classroom intervention. The test aimed to assess learners' perceptions of sound discrimination (i.e., same or different word pairs for minimal pair distinctions; 51 items), final intonation patterns (rise or fall; 10 items), and word stress placement (5 items). This study analyzed learners' perceptions of prosodie speech features; therefore, learners' scores for final intonation patterns and word stress placement were used for analyses. In Section II of the diagnostic test, final intonation items contained utterances of different lengths and types (i.e., affirmative, interrogative, and question tags). Learners were expected to listen to each item and mark the final intonation pattern as either a rise or a fall. As for word stress items, five sets with five words in each were presented, and learners were instructed to identify the word with a stress pattern differing from the others. For example, in a set of five disyllabic words (i.e., words having two syllables), four of them had the first syllable stressed while one had the second syllable stressed. The learners' task was to listen to the set of words and identify one word with a different stress pattern.
The test was conducted by pen and paper in participants' researcher classes equipped with high-quality speakers under the researcher's supervision. Participants were initially asked to complete consent and demographic forms, after which answer sheets were distributed. The researcher provided necessary instructions before each section, and test items were presented in the order provided by the resource. Test sections were administered following the completion of the outlined procedures.
This study received ethical approval from Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University Ethics Committee with a decision date of March 15, 2023, and approval number 03-37.
Participants
Participants (N=125) were B1 level students enrolled in the one-year mandatory preparatory English program at a state university in Turkiye. The participants were all native speakers of Turkish and EFL learners. They were expected to fulfill the requirements of the preparatory program and commence their academic studies in various faculties, including law, engineering, medicine, economics, and social sciences. Table 1 illustrates the demographic distribution of participants by gender and age group:
Gender N Age Group N
Female 79 17-25 117
Male 46 26-35 8
Total: 125
Table 1. Gender and age group
According to the data, female students constituted the majority, and most fell within the 1725 age range.
Data Analysis
Using Jamovi (2022), a statistical analysis software, participants' test scores were analyzed. The analyses included descriptive statistics (mean scores, percentages, and standard deviation). Additionally, possible correlations between intonation and word stress test scores were examined using Pearson's r correlation using the same software.
Findings and Results
Prosodic Error Characteristics
Descriptive analyses of final intonation and word stress scores indicate that participants attained higher scores in final intonation items (see Table 2). The participants' overall mean score for final intonation items was 6,22 out of 10 items, and 2,58 out of five for word stress items.
Final Intonation Items (N=10) Word Stress Items (N=5)
Mean Scores (N=125) 6,22 2,58
Table 2. Mean scores for test sections
A closer examination of the mean scores in each test section reveals more detailed findings. Out of the ten items in the intonation section, the test contained a total of five interrogatives (yes/no and wh-/how question types), three affirmative utterances, and two tag questions. Regarding the final intonation patterns, five utterances ended with a rise, and five with a fall intonation pattern. Table 3 presents a detailed outline of the intonation patterns of the items and descriptive findings obtained:
Item Number Utterance Type Intonation Pattern Number of Correct Answers (N=125) Percentage %
1 Interrogative (Yes/No) Rise 92 73,6
2 Affirmative Fall 65 53
3 Interrogative (Wh-/ How) Fall 63 50,4
4 Interrogative (Yes / No) Rise 84 67,2
5 Interrogative (Yes / No) Rise 82 65,6
6 Tag Question Rise 106 84,8
7 Interrogative (Wh-/How) Fall 68 54,4
8 Tag Question Fall 85 68
9 Affirmative Rise 78 62,4
10 Affirmative Fall 54 43,2
*Std. dev.: 2,04223
Table 3. Final intonation scores
Test scores indicate that participants achieved higher numbers of correct answers in items ending with a rising intonation, ranging between %65.6 and %84.8. Four of the five items with the lowest scores ended with a falling intonation (items 2, 3, 7, and 10). The success rates for these items ranged as low as 43.2%, with the highest rate of correct answers for a falling intonation item
achieved in item number 9, reaching 62.4%. The remaining four items of the top five all contained a rising final intonation. Participants seemed to have greater difficulty with wh- / how question items that typically end with a falling intonation, while scores went higher with interrogative polar (yes/no) questions that ended with a rising intonation. Item 2 was "Yes." and the falling intonation at the end of this short utterance was not clearly heard by almost half of the participants. This result implies that short utterances might be harder for learners to decode, especially if they end with a falling intonation. These results suggest an overall perceptual challenge in differentiating between final fall and rise intonation patterns, with a notably increased difficulty observed in identifying falling intonation.
Despite the limited number of items in the word stress section, the general trend is that success rates tend to drop as the numbers of syllables increase. As seen in Table 4, disyllabic words received higher percentage results ranging between %52,8 and %65,6, while the success rates of the remaining two items (one tri- and one tetrasyllabic) fall under %50.
Item Number Odd Word out in the Series Number of Syllables Stressed Syllable Number of Correct Answers (N=125) Percentage %
1 mistake 2 2 66 52,8
2 English 2 1 82 65,6
3 away 2 2 77 61,6
4 lemonade 3 3 58 46,4
5 conversation 4 3 39 31,2
*Std. dev.: 1,19315
Table 4. Word stress scores
The trisyllabic word (i.e., a word with three syllables) lemonade with its third syllable stressed was successfully differentiated among others by %46,4 of the participants. The success rate drops even lower with tetrasyllabic word (i.e., a word with four syllables) conversation which has the primary stress on its third syllable. Only %31,2 of the participants successfully marked it out among the remaining four with the same pattern of stress placement.
Correlation between Intonation and Word Stress Test Scores
Based on the second research question, possible correlations between participants' word stress and intonation scores were also examined via Pearson's r correlation (see Table 5). The obtained p-value of 0.18 indicates that there is no statistically significant relationship between the final intonation and word stress scores of participants, despite the presence of a positive correlation between these variables (p > 0.05).
Intonation Scores
Word Stress Scores Pearson's r df p-value 0.121 123 0.180
Table 5. Pearson correlation coefficient
To visualize these results, a scatter plot was generated to further examine the correlation between intonation and word stress scores (see Figure 1). The distribution of dots between the x and y axes offers further evidence of a positive yet weak linear relationship between intonation and word stress results.
6
5 4 •5 • • • •-1—
2
0 —• 4 •
2 6 10 12
*x-axis: final intonation results (0-10); y-axis: word stress results (0-5)
Figure 1. Scatter plot of final intonation and word stress scores
The scatter plot reveals a central density of dots with a minor additional density in the top right corner. These findings, as presented in Table 5 and Figure 1, suggest that while there may be a positive correlation between the two prosodic speech features in question, intonation and word stress, the relationship is not particularly strong. In other words, while there is variability in both intonation and word stress scores, they do not consistently increase or decrease together across all observations.
Conclusion
This study investigated EFL learners' performance on a diagnostic listening perception test, focusing on their final intonation and word stress test scores. The results suggest that EFL learners performed slightly better on intonation, achieving higher scores compared to word stress items; yet participants still seemed to experience certain degrees of difficulties in the perception of both features. Final intonation scores were lower for items featuring falling intonation, with interrogative wh- / how questions posing particular difficulty for participants. At this point, one possible reason for this observed challenge is the participants' preexisting knowledge or anticipation that interrogative wh- / how would consistently conclude with a rising intonation, similar to yes / no questions. This observation may indicate a potential influence from participants' first language (L1). In Turkish, the L1 of all the participants in this study, a typical final intonation pattern for yes / no questions is a fall while a slight rise is expected at the end of wh- / how questions with the question words (e.g., how, when, where) becoming prominent (Ozsoy, 2004). This is different from English final intonation patterns, which might be misleading the Turkish L1 listeners. Gussenhoven and Chen (2000) suggest that listeners' interpretation of intonation is influenced by their language background as well as by more universal, non-linguistic factors. It is important to note that intonation serves not only to differentiate linguistic elements like statements and questions but also holds significant importance in discourse-level interactions, managing turn-taking and conveying speakers' intentions (Chun & Levis, 2020). Atoye (2005) observed that even when speakers are familiar with intonation concepts and can accurately detect intonation variations, they may still struggle to interpret the intended meanings. In this regard, as Newton and Nation (2021) also argue, fostering conscious awareness of how linguistic features are produced, alongside perceptual training aimed at distinguishing these features in input, lays essential groundwork for effective production practice. The ability to perceive various intonation patterns and understand their implications emerges as a key aspect for both learners and educators to address, from the very first awareness raising activities to the actual production of the target speech features.
Regarding word stress, participants' test scores tended to decrease as the number of syllables increased, with the lowest scores observed in trisyllabic and tetrasyllabic words. This result is in line with other studies which also note the difficulties experienced in identifying multisyllabic words. In Alzi'abi's (2023) work, for instance, it was reported that while participants performed well in identifying stress compared to production tasks, they still encountered difficulties, particularly with tri- and tetrasyllabic words. Similarly, Ali Al-Thalab et al. (2018) found that listeners demonstrated decreased performance in trisyllabic words compared to disyllabic ones, aligning with the observation of heightened identification difficulties as the number of syllables increased. In a separate study, Liu (2017) examined Chinese EFL learners' tendencies of stress assignment and found disyllabic and trisyllabic words as areas where improper assignments took place.
Drawing from the study's findings, tailored recommendations will be offered to address the needs of learners encountering similar challenges with intonation and word stress. According to Murphy (2004), awareness raising about word-stress patterns, alongside providing lexical information embedded within words, is essential to enhance L2 speech intelligibility. Therefore, teachers should incorporate focused practice on word stress, particularly in multisyllabic words where learners tend to struggle, emphasizing patterns and rules governing stress placement. To this end, dedicated activities focused on multisyllabic and irregular stress patterns, incorporating minimal pair drills and stress marking, can serve this purpose and also help enhance word stress accuracy in learners. To be more specific, learners should be taught the main distinctions between sounds and letters in English, followed by hands-on activities on syllable counting. This foundation sets the ground for effectively realizing the syllable structure in English and placing stress onto the correct syllables on multisyllabic words. These activities can be enhanced with visual, auditory, and kinesthetic stimuli, prompting learners to identify stressed syllables in multisyllabic words using colors, sounds, or physical movements. Field (2005) suggests integrating word stress recognition into language teaching activities to help learners segment continuous English speech effectively, an essential skill for listening comprehension requiring consistent practice. Another technique for addressing word stress in instruction is proposed by Carreao (2023). In his work, Carreao suggests integrating short poems such as tankas and haikus into classroom activities, enabling syllable counting, and encouraging learners to self-assess their pronunciation through creative activities. In another study, Hi§manoglu (2012) found that internet-based video lessons proved to be more effective than regular pronunciation teaching in learners' understanding of primary stress in English.
As for intonation, the focus of instruction should be to highlight the communicative use and value of it as final intonation has this capability in English, especially in interaction (Levis, 1999; Muller Levis & Levis, 2016). Uzun and Celik Uzun (2022) recommend dramatization as a beneficial tool for effectively addressing final intonation patterns in English. According to the researchers, teachers can benefit from the collaborative nature, creativity, learner-centeredness, and adaptability of a step-by-step introduction of final intonation patterns through a drama technique called Glottodrama. Muller Levis and Levis (2016) suggest bridging activities for presenting and practicing final intonation patterns. The authors underline that bridging activities aim to keep the balance between controlled and communicative practice, providing learners with the opportunity to focus on pronunciation while also dealing with additional linguistic elements such as meaning and task demands. For instance, they suggest transforming traditional, complete
dialogues into short sentence dialogues to illustrate the potential for syntactically incomplete utterances and facilitate the observation of intonation's contribution to speech (e.g., Full form: Are you leaving? - Short form: You leaving?).
While this study provides insights into the relationship between intonation and word stress among EFL learners, certain limitations should be acknowledged. First, the sample size of 125 participants may not fully represent the diversity of EFL learners, and thus, the generalizability of the findings may be limited. Additionally, the use of a single diagnostic test to assess intonation and word stress perception and the limited number of test items may not capture the full range of learners' abilities in these areas. Future research could address the limitations of this study by employing larger and more diverse samples of EFL learners, including participants from different proficiency levels and language backgrounds. The complexity of phonological processing highlighted in this study suggests the need for further research on the interaction between intonation and word stress in language learning. Additionally, employing multiple measures to assess prosodic features beyond intonation and word stress, such as rhythm and speech rate, would provide a more comprehensive understanding of learners' perceptions of prosodic speech features.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Dr. Hatice Karaaslan and Dr. F. Munevver Saat9ioglu for their support in this study.
References
Ali Al-Thalab, H. S., Yap, N. T., Nimehchisalem, V., & Rafik-Galea, S. (2018). Perception of English lexical stress: Some insights for English pronunciation lessons for Iraqi ESL learners. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 26, 209-224.
Alzi'abi, S. E. (2023). Arab learners' stress perception and production of English multisyllable items. Journal of Experimental Phonetics, 32, 111-130. https://doi.org/10.1344/efe-2023-32-111-130
Atoye, R. O. (2005). Non-native perception and interpretation of English intonation. Nordic Journal of African Studies, 14 (1), 26-42.
Baker, A. (2006). Ship or sheep? An intermediate pronunciation course. Cambridge University Press.
Bolinger, D. (1998). Intonation in American English. In D. Hirst, & A. D. Cristo (Eds), Intonation systems: A survey of twenty languages (pp. 45-55). Cambridge University Press.
Brazil, D. (1997). The communicative value of intonation in English. Cambridge University Press.
Brinton, D. M. (2023). Effective pronunciation teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of practical second language teaching and learning (pp. 281-295). Routledge.
Carreao, V. (2023). Using poetry to assess pronunciation and word stress. Speak Out!, 68, 15-24.
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., Goodwin, J. M., & Griner, B. (2017). Teaching pronunciation: A coursebook and a reference guide (2nd Ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Chun, D. M., & Levis, J. M. (2020). Prosody in second language teaching: Methodologies and effectiveness. In C. Gussenhhoven & A. Chen (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language prosody (pp. 619-630). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198832232.013.41
Cutler, A. (2015). Lexical stress in English pronunciation. In M. Reed & J. M. Levis (Eds), The handbook of English pronunciation (pp. 106-124). Wiley Blackwell.
Dalton, C., & Seidlhofer, B. (2014). Pronunciation. Oxford University Press.
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2015). Pronunciation fundamentals: Evidence-based perspectives for L2 teaching and research. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Wiebe, G. (1998). Evidence in favor of a broad framework for pronunciation instruction. Language Learning, 48, 393-410. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00047
Field, J. (2005). Intelligibility and the listener: The role of lexical stress. TESOL Quarterly 39(3), 399-423. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588487
Gilbert, J. (2008). Teaching pronunciation: Using the prosody pyramid. Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin, J. (2013). Pronunciation teaching methods and techniques. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 1-10). Blackwell Publishing.
Gordon, J., & Darcy, I. (2016). The development of comprehensible speech in L2 learners: A classroom study on the effects of short-term pronunciation instruction. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 2(1), 56-92. https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.2.1.03gor
Grant, L. (2016). Well-said: Pronunciation for clear communication (4th Ed.). Cengage Learning.
Gussenhoven, C., & Chen, A. (2000). Universal and language-specific effects in the perception of question intonation. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP) (pp. 91-94). https://doi.org/10.21437/ICSLP.2000-216
Hahn, L. D. (2004). Primary stress and intelligibility: Research to motivate the teaching of suprasegmentals. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 201-223. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588378
Hi§manoglu, M. (2012). Teaching word stress to Turkish EFL (English as a foreign language) learners through internet-based video lessons. US-China Education Review, 2(1), 26-40.
Holub, E. (2010). Does intonation matter? The impact of monotony on listener comprehension. The Interpreters' Newsletter, 15, 117-126.
Katamba, F. (1996). An introduction to phonology (8th Ed.). Longman.
Knoch, U. (2017). What can pronunciation researchers learn from research into second language writing? In T. Isaacs & P. Trofimovich (Eds.), Second language pronunciation assessment: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 54-71). Multilingual Matters.
Ladefoged, P., & Johnson, K. (2015). A course in phonetics (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Levis, J. M. (1999). Intonation in theory and practice, revisited. TESOL Quarterly, 33(1), 37-63. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588190
Levis, J. M. (2018). Intelligibility, oral communication, and the teaching of pronunciation. Cambridge University Press.
Levis, J. M. (2022). Teaching pronunciation: Truths and lies. In C. Bardel, C. Hedman, K. Rejman, & E. Zetterholm (Eds.), Exploring language education: Global and local perspectives (pp. 3972). Stockholm University Press.
Levis, J. M., & Grant, L. (2011). Integrating pronunciation into ESL/EFL classrooms. TESOL Journal, 12(2), 13-19. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1949-3533.2003.tb00125.x
Levis, J. M., & Wichmann, A. (2015). English intonation - Form and meaning. In M. Reed & J. M. Levis (Eds). The handbook of English pronunciation (pp. 175-189). Wiley Blackwell.
Lewis, C., & Deterding, D. (2018). Word stress and pronunciation teaching in English as a lingua franca contexts. The CATESOL Journal, 30(1), 161-176.
Liu, D. (2017). The acquisition of English word stress by Mandarin EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 10(12), 196-201.
McGregor, A., & Reed, M. (2018). Integrating pronunciation into the language curriculum: A framework for teachers. The CATESOL Journal, 30(1), 69-94.
Muller Levis, G., & Levis, J. M. (2016). Intonation bridging activities: Meaningful practice for final intonation. In J. M. Levis, H. Le, I. Lucic, E. Simpson, & S. Vo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th pronunciation in second language learning and teaching conference (pp. 229- 235). Iowa State University.
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (2015). A prospectus for pronunciation research in the 21st century: A point of view. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 1(1), 11-42. https://doi .org/10.1075/jslp.1.1.01mun
Murphy, J. (2004). Attending to word stress while learning new vocabulary. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 67-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(03)00019-X
Murphy, J. (2017). Suprasegmentals: Thought groups, prominence, word stress, intonation, and pitch jumps. In J. Murphy (Ed.), Teaching the pronunciation of English: Focus on whole courses (pp. 31-69). The University of Michigan Press.
Newton, J. M., & Nation, I. S. P. (2021). Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking (2nd Ed.). Routledge.
Ozsoy, S. (2004). Turkge'ninyapisi -1: Sesbilim. Bogazi9i Universitesi Yayinlari.
Roach, P. (1992). Introducing phonetics. Penguin.
Sereno, J., Lammers, L., & Jongman, A. (2015). The relative contribution of segments and intonation to the perception of foreign-accented speech. AppliedPsycholinguistics, 37(2), 303322. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716414000575
Skandera, P., & Burleigh, P. (2005). A manual of English phonetics and phonology. Narr Verlag.
The Jamovi Project (2022). Jamovi. (Version 2.3) [Computer Software]. https://www.jamovi.org
Trask, R. L. (2007). Language and linguistics: The key concepts. Routledge.
Uzun, T. (2022). The salient pronunciation errors and intelligibility of Turkish speakers in English. MEXTESOL Journal, 46(1), 1-15.
Uzun, T., & Celik Uzun, E. (2022). Using glottodrama for teaching final intonation in English. In J. Levis & A. Guskaroska (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference (pp. 1-6). Brock University. https://doi .org/10.31274/psllt.13364
Ethical Statement/Etik Beyan: Bu gali§manin hazirlanma surecinde bilimsel ve etik ilkelere uyuldugu ve yararlanilan tum gali§malarin kaynakgada belirtildigi beyan olunur. Bu gali§ma Ankara Yildinm Beyazit Universitesi Etik Kurulu'ndan 15 Mart 2023 karar tarihi ve 03 -37 onay numarasi ile etik onay almi§tir. / It is declared that scientific and ethical principles have been followed while carrying out and writing this study and that all the sources used have been properly cited. This study received ethical approval from Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University Ethics Committee with a decision date of March 15, 2023, and approval number 03-37.
Cati^ma beyani/Declaration of Conflict: Cali§mada ki§i ya da kurumlar arasi gikar gati§masinin olmadigi beyan olunur. / It is declared that there is no conflict of interest between individuals or institutions in the study. Telif Hakki&Lisans/Copyright&License: Yazarlar dergide yayinlanan gali§malarinin telif hakkina sahiptirler ve gali§malari CC BY-NC 4.0 lisansi altinda yayimlanmaktadir. / Authors publishing with the journal retain the copyright to their work licensed under the CC BY-NC 4.0
