2007 年12 月 中国英语教学 （双月刊） Dec．2007

第 30 卷　第6 期 CELEA Journal（Bim onthly） Vol．30 No．

6

THE ENGLISH INTONATION OF CHINESE EFL LEARNERS ：

A COMPARATIVE STUDY

Tao Rui
The Second North－West University for Ethnics

Abstract
　　This research ，grounded in the theory of discourse intonation ，investigates Chinese EFL learners
intonation features in interactive context．Its research findings reveal that Chinese EFLlearners differ fro m
British native speakersin their application of tone units ，pro minence selection and tone choice．It further points
out that these intonation features are caused on the one hand by Chinese EFLlearners relatively lo w English
proficiency level and on the other hand by theirlack of awareness of the co m m unicative and discourse function
of intonation．Based on these findings ， this research proposes that a discourse－
based awareness－
raising approach
to intonation teaching in the input－ poor Chinese EFL context might be of pedagogical necessity and
effectiveness．

Key w ords
discourse intonation ；Chinese EFLlearners intonation features ；
tone units ；pro minence selection ；
tone choice ；
the co m m unicative and discourse function of intonation

Background
Over the past tw o decades ，with the popularity of co m m unicative approach to language teaching ， the
co m m unicative and discourse function ofintonation has been re m arkably highlighted（Celce－Murcia 1996 ；
Jenkins 2004 ；Brazil 1985 ， 1997 ；Roach 2000） ．So m e research（Prator 1971 ；McNerney ＆ Mendelsohn
1992 ；Derwing 1998 ，2003 ）points out that supreseg m ental features ，in particular intonation ，have a
great im pact on the co m prehensibility and intelligibility of the co m m unication between non－ native and
native speakers．Other research ， grounded in Brazil s discourse m odel ，has been conducted to investigate
non－ native speakers intonation features co m pared with native speakers（Hewings 1995 ， 1993 ；Goh 2001 ，
2000 ；Pickering 2001 ） ． These research findings reveal that non－ native speakers ，such as Indonesian ，
Korean ，and Singaporean m ay have intonation features ，w hich differ fro m native speakers．Pickering
（2001 ） points out Chinese learners differ fro m native speakers in the application of tone choice．
However ， there is still a lack of syste m atic investigation on intonation features of Chinese EFLlearners
and consequently leave such questionslargely unanswered ： in w hat way ，Chinese EFLlearners intonation
features differ fro m native speakers ；w hat pedagogical im plication can these differences provide for
intonation teaching in EFL classroo m ． Responding to these questions ，this study aims to investigate
Chinese EFLlearners intonation features in interactive context．It syste m atically co m pares six Chinese
learners intonation features with British native speakers both in a reading aloud activity and interview ．
It then further explores the reasons resulting in these differences and the im plication for the pedagogical
instruction on intonation teaching in EFL context．

Proble m
Intonation ，defined as variation in pitch m ove m ent （ Gu m perz 1982 ；Brazil 1995 ，1997 ；Roach
34
 CELEA Journal 76

2000），carries im portant discourse and co m m unication function in terms of inform ation structuring and
rapport building between participants in discourse．This co m m unicative function has been dra m atically
highlighted in the Chinese EFL curriculu m in recent years due to the influence of the co m m unicative
approach to language teaching．One sound e m bodim entis the declaration by the Chinese nationalsyllabus
for tertiary education that English m ajor students ，by the end of their second－ year college study ，should
be capable of m astering the discourse and co m m unicative function of intonation ，such as conveying the
new and old inform ation and of co m m unicating with native speakers with appropriate intonation．This
declaration calls for an effective pedagogical instruction in the EFL classroo m on the co m m unicative
function of intonation in discourse． However ，the current teaching approach and m ethod in the EFL
classroo m see m failing to provide such instruction． The adopted teaching approach ，for instance ，is
m ainly a gra m m ar－
based one ，w hich ，rather than informs the learner of the co m m unicative function of
discourse in context ，ascribes the tone choice to the sentence type．The teaching m ethod still places the
lion s share on the teaching of seg m ental features and pronunciation is m ainly trained in isolated w ords
and sentences．

Responding to these proble ms ，the present research ，m aking a co m parison of six Chinese EFL
learners application of tone choice and pro minence selection with native speakers both in a reading aloud
activity and interview ，aims to identify Chinese EFL learners intonation features differing fro m the
native speaker ，and m ean w hile provides so m e tentative explanation for these differences．By doing this ，
it atte m pts to provide so m e valuable pedagogicalim plications for intonation teaching in the Chinese EFL
classroo m so as to help EFLlearners m eet both the require m ents of the national syllabus and their ow n
sociocultural and psychological needs as Zhang s research （2004 ） shows that Chinese EFL learners
socioculturally and psychologically hold a preferable attitude towards the standard British English and
atte m pt to achieve native－ like intonation．

Literature review
The present research is grounded in the m odel of discourse intonation outlined in Brazil（1985 ，
1997） ．In line with this m odel ，intonation carries significant co m m unicative and discourse function．The
choice of intonation is therefore context－ dependent and determined by the real－ tim e assessm ent of shared
and unshared knowledge between the speaker and hearer in their interactive context．This m odel consists
of four syste m atic intonation choices ：pro minence ，tone choice ，key and termination．It assu m es that
speakers ，in accordance with the interactive context ，choose to highlight w ords by m aking the m
pro minent ； to attach tone choice to the tone unit ； and to select relative pitch level on pro minent w ordsin
the syste m of Key and Termination．Pro minence is defined as the highlighting of a w ord in context so as
to indicate m eaning selection fro m a range of choices．In other w ords ，w hen a w ord is m ade pro minent
it s m arked as being selective in the prevailing context of interaction．For instance ， in B s response in the
constructed exchange ：

A ：Is yours the blue and w hite car ？

B ：No ， it s red and w hite．

Red is m ade pro minent because it represents a selection fro m tw o colors ：blue or red．（ Hewings
1995 ：29） ．Tone choice in this m odel is either proclaiming（fall）or referring（fall－ rise）．In choosing a
proclaiming tone ， the speaker assu m es thatthe inform ation conveyed in context ofinteraction is“new ”to
the listener ，w hereas in choosing a referring tone ，the speaker projects a context w here the conveyed
inform ation has been shared． These choices are m ade within the tone unit．In accordance with the
transcription convention of this m odel ， tone unit boundaries are m arked with “／ ／”．Pro minent syllables
are in upper case． The m ain w ord or syllable ，w hich carries the tone choice within a tone unit ，is
underlined and the letter“p”and“r”is put at the beginning of the tone unit to present the proclaiming
and referring tone．

Under this m odel ，great deals of research（Hewings 1995 ，1993 ；Goh 2001 ，2000 ；Pickering 2001）
are conducted to syste m atically co m pare intonation features of non－ native learners and that of native
speakers．The research findings suggest that non－ native learners of English at every level of proficiency
encounter proble ms in applying tone choice and pro minence． Hewings（1993 ），for instance ，m aking a
35
 The English Intonation of Chinese EFLlearners ：A Co m parative Study 　 Tao Rui

co m parison of the tone choice and pro minence distribution of native and non－ native speakers both in
parallel readings of a scripted dialogue and in spontaneous speech ， finds a preference for falling tones of
non－ native learners fro m Korea ，Greece ，and Indonesia in situations w here native speakers choose rising
tones for social interaction． He also finds that non－ native learners are likely to produce m ore m ultiple－
pro minence tone units．Wennerstro m （1994 ， 1997 ，cited in Pickering ）reports that Japanese ，Thai and
Chinese speakers tend to use falling tones at boundaries between related propositions w here native hearers
w ould anticipate rising tones．She also points out that the mism atch of learners intonation use with that
of native speakers has a potential for the listener s misunderstanding the speaker s intent at an
interpersonal level and is likely to da m age the cross－ cultural co m m unication between the m ． Hewings
（1995），by m aking a contrastive study of the intonation of native speakers and Indonesian learners in
parallel readings of a scripted dialogue reports that Indonesian learners tend to use falling tone in those
contexts w here there are a strong tendency for native speakers to select rising tone．Goh（2001 ，2000），
based on data fro m naturally occurring context such as the on－ air interview and inform al exchanges in
public places ， investigates intonation features of Malaysian and Singaporean learners．She points out that
w hile native speakers assign pro minence on w ords that indicate m eaning choice ，both Malaysian and
Singaporean learners tend to place pro minence on non－ selective w ords ； and their use of falling ，rising and
level tones in context are not consistent with that of native speakers． Pickering （2001 ），based on a
co m parison of tone choice in classroo m presentation given by 6 native speakers and 6 Chinese Teaching
Assistants ，reports that tone choice contributes to co m m unication failure between the Chinese teaching
assistant and their native students as the tonal co m position of the Chinese teaching assistant s discourse is
characterized with a noticeable higher nu m ber of level and falling tones and fewer rising tones．

As a w hole ，these research findings reveal that Chinese EFL learners ，like other non－ native
speakers ，m ay have intonation features differing fro m native speakers ，such as their tendency of choosing
proclaiming tone in context w here a referring tone is contextually appropriate．Based on this ， the present
research adopts Brazil s discourse m odel to explore the following tw o research questions ：

Q1 ：What are Chinese EFL learners intonations features in terms of their tone units ，tone choice
and pro minence selection in reading aloud activity and spontaneous speech ？
Q2 ：What factors caused these intonation features ？

Data collection
Participants
The participants were 6 first－
year English m ajors in a teacher s college in China．They have received
half－year training on pronunciation and intonation ，a co m pulsory course for their English language
education．The pronunciation training was m ainly focused on seg m ental features ，such as vowels ，and
consonants．The intonation training ，though giving priority to tone ，ascribes tone selection to sentence
types．These six participants were selected rando mly．

Procedure
The data were collected fro m tw o resources．One was fro m the six participants pair－
reading aloud
tw o scripted dialogues（see Appendix 1 ），originating fro m a textbook for learners of English by Brazil
（1994）：the other was fro m an interview with three of the m ．All these data were digitally recorded and
were saved as audio files on a co m puter for the later data analysis．

The day before the audio－ recordings were m ade ，the six participants were paired rando mly． Each
pair was given copies of the tw o scripted dialogues and was inform ed to fa miliarize the mselves with the
roles and context by practicing reading aloud the script in pairs．At recording ， the six participants read
aloud the tw o dialogues pair by pair．

The interview data was recorded im m ediately after their dialogue reading．This interview ，centering
on the topic of their future job ，consists of three m ajor interviewing questions．To ensure the interview
was as close to a spontaneous speech as possible ， the three participants were not inform ed of the topic of
the interview until the beginning of the recording．At recording ，they were individually interviewed by
the researcher．
36
 CELEA Journal 76

Method of data analysis

These tw o types of data fro m reading aloud and interview were first transcribed auditorily by the
researcher in accordance with Brazil s （1997 ）transcription convention （see Appendix 2 for detailed
outline of the transcription convention） ．To ensure the reliability of the auditory analysis ，the researcher
also rando mly selected several subjects tone selection for an instru m ental analysis by PRAAT software．
Figure 1 and Figure 2 give the analysis of pitch contours by PRAATsoftware and under the figures are the
transcriptions by the researcher． The pitch contours in these tw o figures justify the accuracy of the
auditory analysis．Based on the transcription ， tw o co m parisons were conducted．

／／r is THATthe Title／／

Figure 1．The pitch contour of EFL1

／／p is THATthe Title／／

Figure 2．The pitch contour of EFL2

Co m parison 1
The transcribed data fro m the six participants reading aloud was co m pared with Brazil s recordings

37
 The English Intonation of Chinese EFLlearners ：A Co m parative Study 　 Tao Rui

of native speakers speech．To ensure the co m parison was conducted in a m anageable scale ，only ten lines
（see Appendix 3），w hich had been transcribed by Brazil in the original tw o dialogues ，were chosen for
co m parison．The co m parative focus was on tone unit including the length of the tone units and the
nu m ber of pro minent syllables within each tone unit ；pro minence selection and tone selection．The length
of tone units and the frequency of tone choice of the six EFL subjects and the native speakers are first
quantitatively counted and then a close qualitative analysis of extracts fro m the data is provided． The
pro minence selection is m ainly analyzed qualitatively based on the extracts fro m the data．

Co m parison 2
To ascertain the findings of intonation features in the reading aloud activity also extend to the m ore
spontaneous speech ， the transcribed interview data fro m three participants was co m pared with that fro m
the reading aloud activity．The focus was similarly on the tone unit length ， the nu m ber of the pro minent
syllables ，pro minence selection and tone choice．The length of tone units in the interview is counted and
co m pared with that in reading aloud activity w hereas the pro minence selection and tone choice are
co m pared based on the analysis of extract．

Findings and discussion

Bear in mind the tw o research questions in the present study ：1． What are Chinese EFL learners
intonation features in reading aloud activity and interview ；2． What factors caused these features ，this
section will present and discuss the m ajor findings in terms of tone unit ，pro minence selection and tone
choice．

（a）Tone unit
Tw o m ain differences were observed between the six Chinese EFL learners（refer to as the EFL
subjects）and the British native speakers（refer to as the NS）．
The first difference lies in the length of tone unit．Shorter tone units are found in the speech of the
EFLsubjects．This is evident both in the reading aloud activity and the interview ． Table 1 gives the
average nu m ber of w ords per tone unit in the ten lines for the EFL and NSsubjects．

Table 1．The length of tone units in reading aloud and interview

NS EFL1 EFL2 EFL3 EFL4 EFL5 EFL6

Total w ords 63 63 63 63 63 63 63

Reading aloud Total tone units 11 20 16 19 18 15 14

Words per tone unit 5．7 3．2 3．9 3．3 3．5 4．2 4．6

Total w ords 85 141 167

Interview Total tone units 31 66 88

Words per tone unit 2．7 2．1 1．9

　　This table shows w hile the NSsubject adopts relatively long tone units ，the EFLsubject tends to use
the shorter tone units containing fewer w ords．For instance ，in the reading aloud activity ，the NSsubject
treats the following line as one tone unit ：

　　Line8 ／／p perHAPs i could go by aNOther route／／

The six EFLsubjects ，in contrast ，divide it into tw o or three tone units．

EFL2 ：／／p perhaps／／p i could GO ／／p by aNOther ROUTE ／／

EFL4 ：／／p perHAPs／／p i could GO by aNOther ROUTE／／
EFL6 ：／／r perHAPs I COULD go by／ ／aNOther ROUTE ／／
This tendency is even m ore evident in the interview and the tone units are m uch shorter than that in
38
 CELEA Journal 76

the reading aloud activity．

EFL1 ：／／o AND ／／p I ／／p al WAYS ／／p DREAM ／／p to be a TEAcher and TEACH STUdents ／／p
aBOUT m y COllege to／ ／the m SELVs ／／
EFL3 ：／／p I VEry LIKE ／／p TEACH ／／p SOME KNOWledge ／／p to ／／p m y STUdents ，／／p
beCAUSE ／ ／p MY FAther is a TEAcher／／
EFL5 ：／／I m GLAD to／ ／p tell YOU ／／o i WANT TO ／／beCOME ／／o a／
／ENGlish transLAtor／／
The second difference lies in the nu m ber of pro minent syllables／w ords within tone units．The EFL
subject tends to assign relatively m ore syllables／w ords pro minence within tone units w hereas the NS
subject conforms to the assu m ption by Brazil（1985 ，1997）thatthere are at m osttw o pro minent syllables／
w ords within each tone unit． This can be observed in these fairly typical exa m ples fro m the reading
aloud ：

NS ：line 9 ／ ／p HOW m uch LUggage do you have／／

EFL2 ：／ ／P HOW m uch LUggage do you HAVE／／
EFL5 ：／ ／ r how MUCH ／ ／p LUggage／／p do YOU have／／
EFL6 ： ／／r HOW MUCH LUggage／ ／p do you HAVE ／／
This tendency is even m ore evidentin the interview in w hich the tone unit so m etim es m erely contains
one single w ord．

EFL1 ：／／p FIRst／／p I ll STUdy Very HARD ／／AND ／／TO ／

／HAVE a GOOD pronunciAtion AND ／／
so m e KNOWledge／ ／p aBOUT ENGlish／／
EFL5 ：／／o BUT ／／o I／／P THOUGHT ／／o I ／／can t CONtrol MY DREAM ．／／
（b）Pro minence selection
The EFLsubject tends to assign pro minence to the w ords that indicate non－ selective m eaning in the
interactive context and not to assign pro minence to the w ords ，w hich do carry selective m eaning ，e．g．
NSA ：／／r is THATthe TITle ？／／
NSB ：／／r i THINK so／／
NSA ：／／r It ISn t the title of a NOvel／／
In the final line ，the NS subject highlights “isn t” and “novel” to convey the new unshared
inform ation and doesn t highlight the w ord“title”w hich is shared inform ation in this context． Whereas ，
the EFLsubjects either assign pro minence to the non－ selective w ord“title”or regard the selective w ords
as non－selective ones ，e
．g．
EFL1 ：／／r it isn t the TITle of a NOvel／／
EFL2 ：／／p it ISn t the TITle of a NOvel／／
EFL3 ：／／p it ISn t the TITle of a NOvel／／
EFL4 ：／／r it ISn t the TITle／ ／p of a NOvel／／
EFL5 ：／／p it ISn t the TITle of a Novel／／
This tendency is also evident in the interview activity ，e
．g．
Interviewer ：w hat do you want to do in the future ？
EFL5 ：／ ／o I m GLAD to ／／p TELLYOU ／／o i WANT TO ／／o beCOME ／／o a／／ p ENGlish
transLAtor ，／／
The EFL5 ，w hen answering the interviewer sinquiry ， not only assigns pro minence to the w ords with
selective m eanings such as“English translator”but also assigns pro minence to“you”and“to”w hich carry
no selective m eanings in this context．Another exa m ple is fro m EFL1 ：

Interviewer ：w hat do you want to do in the future ？

EFL1 ：／ ／p In the FUture ／／p FIRst／／p I WANTto be a TEAcher／／
In accordance with the context ，“in the future”and“want”are given inform ation by the interviewer
and therefore convey no selective m eaning．
39
 The English Intonation of Chinese EFLlearners ：A Co m parative Study 　 Tao Rui

（c）Tone selection
A m ajor difference in tone choice is that the EFLsubjects select falling tone m ore frequently in the
context w here the native speakers tend to choose the referring tone． Table 2 shows the average
percentage of the choice of proclaiming and referring tone respectively by the EFL and NSsubjectsin the
ten lines in the reading aloud activity．

Table 2．The average percentage of tone choice in reading aloud activity

Tone choice

Proclaiming（falling） Referring（falling－
rising）

NS 55 ％ 45 ％

EFL1 70 ％ 30 ％

EFL2 94 ％ 6％

EFL3 100 ％ 0％

EFL4 72 ％ 29 ％

EFL5 60 ％ 40 ％

EFL6 64 ％ 36 ％

　　A further analysis reveals that there is so m e conformity in the selection of proclaiming tone by the
EFL and NSsubjects in the reading aloud activity．However ，this conformity see ms only existing w here
sentence types are easy to identify for EFLlearners ， such as the Wh－ question ：

NS ：／／p HOW m uch LUggage do you have／／

EFL1 ：／／p how MUCH LUggage／／p do you HAVE ／ ／
NS ：／／p but W HAT about m y TIcket／／
EFL6 ：／ ／p but W HAT about m y TIcket／／
NS ：／／p W HEN were you hoping to TRAvel／／
EFL2 ：／ ／p W HEN were you Hoping to TRAvel／／
NS ：／／p And W HEN does it get to YORK ／／
EFL1 ：／ ／p AND ／／p W HEN does it get to YORK ／／
Once the sentence type is elusive to identify ，for instance ，a state m ent sentence with a question
m ark ，the six subjects ，see ming to be confused with its sentence type ，diverge in their tone selection．
So m e treat it as a question and hence choose referring tone w hile others treat it as a state m ent and
therefore select a proclaiming tone ：

NS ：／／r you ve LOOKed in the biography section／／

EFL1 ：
／／p you ve LOOked in the／／r biOgraphy SECtion／／
EFL2 ：／ ／p you ve LOOKed in the／／p biOgraphy SECtion／／
NS ：／／r it ISn t the title of a NOvel／／
EFL1 ：／ ／r it isn t the TItle of a NOVel／／
EFL2 ：／ ／p it ISN t the TItle of a NOVel／／
The analysis also shows that EFLsubjects tend to select proclaiming tone in those situations w hen NS
subjects select referring tone．This often occurs w hen the NSsubjects choose the referring tone to project
an inform ation－ shared context and build up rapport ：

NSA ：
／／it ISn t the title of a NOvel／／
NSB ：／／r well ，I DON t THINKit is／／r but the PROBle m IS／／p I m NOT quite SURE／／
NSB chooses the referring tone in the second tone unit to show that the m essage“there is a proble m
existing”has been well－ know n and shared in the interactive context ，and then chooses the proclaiming
40
 CELEA Journal 76

tone to convey the new inform ation．In addition ， the choice of the referring tone in the first and second tone
unit works together to help NSB build up rapport with the listener as he is expressing his disagreement．In
contrast ，the EFLsubjects choose a proclaiming tone despite the interactive context ，．g．
e

EFL1 ：／／p BUT ／ ／p the PROble m IS／／p I m NOT QUITE SURE ／／

EFL2 ：／／p but the PROble m IS／／p I m NOT QUITE SURE ／／
EFL3 ：／／p BUT ／ ／p the PROble m IS／／p I m NOT QUITE SURE ／／
EFL4 ：／／p but THE proble m IS／／p I m NOT QUITE SURE ／／
EFL6 ：／／p but the PROble m IS／／p I m NOT QUITEsure／／
This tendency is also evident in the interview ，e．g：

Interviewer ：w hat do you want to do in the future ？

EFL1 ：／ ／p In the FUture ／／p FIRst ／／p I WANTto be a TEAcher／／
Since the m essage“in the future”is initiated by the interviewer and therefore is shared inform ation ，
in accordance with Brazil s discourse m odel（1985 ， 1997）， a referring tone should be selected here rather
than a proclaiming tone．The similar evidence is also found in the other EFLsubjects ：

Interviewer ：w hat do you want to do in the future ？

EFL3 ： ／／p I ／／p HOPE ／／p I／／p MY DREAM ／／p I COMEto a TEAcher in the FUture／／
To su m up ，the present study reveals that Chinese EFL learners ，co m pared with native speakers ，
have the following intonation features in discourse ：

（1）use shorter tone units ；

（2）assign relatively m ore syllables／w ords pro minence within tone units ；
（3）assign pro minence to non－ selective w ords and not to assign selective－m eaning w ords ；
（4）select proclaiming tone in the context where the British native speakers tend to select referring tone ；
（5）conform to the NSin e m ploying the proclaiming tone．
A tentative explanation for those intonation features might be associated with Chinese EFLlearners
English proficiency level ，and their lack of awareness of discourse intonation．In accordance with the
m odel of discourse intonation ，tone unit might be defined as a unit of forward planning of speech
（Hewing 1995 ：37）．In this sense ，Chinese EFLlearners dividing the speech into shorter tone units with
m ore pro minent w ords might account for their relative difficulties in preplanning a speech．Due to their
low English proficiency level ，EFL learners are unable to speak a foreign language as fluently and
auto m atically as native speakers do．Consequently ， they need m ore tim e to conceptualize ， form ulate and
then articulate a m essage（Ellis 1994 ） ．This also explains EFL subjects tendency of using shorter tone
units in the interview than they do in the reading aloud activity ，given a spontaneous speech m ay place
m ore pre－planning pressure on the m than just reading aloud a m essage fro m a given text．Furtherm ore ，
this tendency of dividing speech into shorter tone units with relatively m ore w ords／ syllables assigned
pro minence is also found pervasive a m ong other Non－ British speakers such as the Indonesian ，Korean ，
and Singaporean （Hewing 1993 ，1995 ；Goh 2000 ） ．These previous findings ，together with the present
study further prove that Non－ British English learners tendency of using shorter tone units with m ore
pro minent syllables／w ords might result fro m their relatively low English proficiency level．

In relation to the six Chinese EFL subjects intonation features of assigning non－ selective w ords ，of
selecting contextually inappropriate tones ，the reason might be due to their lack of awareness of the
co m m unicative and discourse function of intonation．In accordance with the discourse intonation m odel
（Brazil 1985 ，1997 ；Hewings 1995 ），native speakers rely on the interactive context to assign the
pro minent w ords and m ake tone choice ，of w hich the proclaiming and referring tone are used to convey
unshared and shared inform ation a m ong the interactants．However ， the evidence fro m the present study
suggests that Chinese EFLlearners ，w hen m aking pro minence selection and the tone choice ， are unaware
of the interactive context and the im portant co m m unicative and discourse function of the English
intonation． One typical m anifestation of such lack of awareness is their inappropriately choosing
proclaiming tone in context w here the referring tone is contextually appropriate．
41
 The English Intonation of Chinese EFLlearners ：A Co m parative Study 　 Tao Rui

This lack of awareness of discourse intonation might be associated with their EFL context and the
EFL classroo m instruction．In the Chinese EFL context ， learners have little opportunities to be exposed
to naturally occurring spoken English and to co m m unicate with native speakers．This prevents the m fro m
self－discovering and being aware of how the intonation are m anipulated by native speakers to convey their
co m m unicative intent in naturally occurring discourse．The lack of native input in an EFL context also
shifts the burden of providing the awareness－ raising activity to the EFL classroo m ．However ， the current
pronunciation instructions in the EFL classroo m haven t fulfilled the mission of raising EFL learners
awareness of the co m m unicative function of intonation in discourse． Rather than that ，in the EFL
classroo m ，a gra m m atical approach to teaching intonation has been adopted．The underpinning of this
approach is tone choice corresponds to the sentence type（ Halliday 1970 ） ．It is ，for instance ，assu m ed
that rising tone is used for the Yes／No question w hereas falling tone suits for Wh－ questions and the
declaratives．The im pact of this approach on the EFL learners is well exe m plified in their intonation
features of tone selection．Bear in mind that we have claim ed that there is conformity on how the EFL
and NS deploy the proclaiming tone． However ，the further analysis reveals the conformity only exists
w here sentence types are easy to identify for EFLlearners ， such as Wh－ questions．Once the sentence is a
state m ent with a question m ark ，EFLlearners ， unable to recognize its sentence type ，are likely to diverge
in the tone choice．So m e treatit as a state m ent and therefore choose the proclaiming tone w hereas others
regard it as a question and therefore choose the referring tone． This reveals w hile NS depends on the
interactive context to m ake the tone choice ，Chinese EFL subjects ，influenced by the gra m m atical
approach ，ascribe the tone choice to the sentence type．In other w ords ， the apparent conformity in how
the NSand the EFLsubject e m ploy the proclaiming tone further reveals EFLlearners lack of awareness
of discourse intonation as they ascribe the tone choice to the sentence type．

To date ，we can draw a conclusion that w hile Chinese EFL learners lack an awareness of the
discourse intonation caused by theirinput－ poor EFLcontext ， the current EFLclassroo m instruction with a
gra m m atical approach to teaching intonation has failed to assist the learners to raise such awareness．

Conclusion
This research ，based on a qualitative investigation on tw o types of data fro m the reading aloud and
interview ， reveals that Chinese EFL learners differ fro m British native speakers in their application of
tone units ，pro minence selection and tone choice．These intonation features result fro m tw o factors．One
is Chinese EFLlearners relatively low English proficiency level ，w hich results in their using shorter tone
units with m ore pro minent w ords ；another is their lack of awareness of the co m m unicative and discourse
function of intonation ，w hich results in their choice of contextually inappropriate pro minence and tone．
It further points out that this lack of awareness of discourse intonation might be caused by the input－ poor
Chinese EFL context and the current gra m m atical approach－ based classroo m instruction to intonation
teaching．In this sense ， the awareness－ raising activity ，being able to build learners fa miliarity with the
role of intonation in discourse （ Anderson－ hsieh 1990 ；Pickering 2001 ）should be provided in the EFL
classroo m so as to raise EFL learners awareness of the co m m unicative and discourse function of
intonation．To achieve this purpose ， the EFL classroo m instruction should ：

（i）adopt a discourse－
based approach to teaching intonation as m any previous studies have proved this
approach is able to raise learners awareness of the co m m unicative and discourse function of
intonation（Zhang 2005 ；Goh 1994 ， ）．In addition ，the availability of large a m ount of teaching
m aterials m akes this approach feasible in the EFL classroo m （ Bradford 1988 ；Brazil 1994 ；
Hewings 1993） ．
（ii）involve m ore contextualized speech ，such as dialogues ，conversations ，and co m m unicative
activities so as to ensure learners can learn the intonation pattern in a m eaningful contextinstead
of in isolated w ords or sentences．
（iii）provide EFLlearners an explicit explanation to the discourse intonation instead of a traditional
repetition drills instruction（Celce－Murcia 1996）

Despite the above－m entioned findings and im plications ，the present research is only a sm all－ scaled
synchronic qualitative study and therefore ， the future study m ay need to expand the sa m ple and involve
m ore participants so as to investigate w hether intonation features found in the above－m entioned six EFL
42
 CELEA Journal 76

subjects are also evident in a m ajority of Chinese EFLlearners．The future study m ay also diachronically
investigate the im pact of a discourse－ based awareness－
raising approach to teaching intonation in the
Chinese EFL classroo m so that the e m pirical evidence can be obtained to testify the efficiency of this
approach in EFL context．

References
Anderson－Hsieh ， J．1990． Teaching supraseg mentals to international teaching assistants using field－ specific
materials． English for Specific Purposes 9 ： 195－ 214．
Bradford ，B ．1988．Intonation in Context．Cam bridge ：Cam bridge University Press．
Brazil ，D ．1985． The Com municative Value of Intonation in English．Birmingham ：Birmingham university press．
Brazil ，D ．1994． Pronunciation for Advanced Learners of English．Cam bridge ：Cam bridge University Press．
Brazil ，D ．1997． The Com municative Value of Intonation．Cam bridge ：Cam bridge University Press．
Brazil ，D ．，M ．Coulthard ＆C ．Johns．1980． Discourse Intonation and Language Teaching．London ：Long man．
Celce－Murcia ，M ．，D ． Brinton ＆J． Good win．1996． Teaching Pronunciation ：A Reference for Teachers of
English to Speakers of Other Languages．Cam bridge ：Cam bridge University Press．
Derwing ，T ．M ．，M ．Munro ＆G ． Wiebe．1998．Evidence in favor of a broad framew ork for pronunciation
instruction． Language Learning 48／ 3 ：393－ 410．
Derwing ，T ． M ．＆ M ．Rossiter．2003．The effects of pronunciation instruction on the accuracy ，fluency ，
and co m plexity of L2 accented speech． Applied Language Learning 13／ 1 ：1－17．
Ellis ，R ．1994． The Study of Second Language Acquisition．Oxford ：Oxford University Press．
Francis ，R ．1990．The intonation of fixed expressions read aloud．In M ．Hewings（Ed． ）． Papersin Discourse
Intonation（pp．22－ 46） ．Birmingham ：University of Birmingham ．
Goh ，C ．C ． M ．1994．Exploring the teaching of discourse intonation． RELC Journal 25／ 1 ：77－98．
Goh ，C ．C ． M ．2000． A discourse approach to the description of intonation in Singapore English．In A ．
Bro w n（Ed． ）． The English Language in Singapore ：Research on Pronunciation （pp．35－ 45 ）．Singapore ：
Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics．
Goh ，C ．C ． M ．2001． Discourse intonation of English in Malaysia and Singapore ：im plications for wider
co m m unication and teaching． RELC Journal 32／ 1： 92－ 105．
Goh ，C ．C ． M ．2005．Discourse intonation variants in the speech of educated Singaporeans．In A ．Bro w n ，
D ．Deterding ＆E．L．Lo w （Ed． ）． English in Singapore ：Phonetic Research on a Corpus（pp．92－ 105 ）．
Singapore ：Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics．
Gu m perz ， J．J．1982a． Discourse Strategies．Cam bridge ：Cam bridge University Press．
Halliday ，M ．1970． A Course in Spoken English ：Intonation．Oxford ：Oxford University Press．
Hewings ，M ．1993． Pronunciation Tasks ： A Course for Pre－ intermediate Learners． Cam bridge ：Cam bridge
University Press．
Hewings ，M ．1993．Intonation choices in the English of non－ native speakers ：An exploratory study．In A ．
Sancgez－Macarro ＆R ．Carter（Ed． ）．Linguistic Choice across Genres ：Variation in Spoken ＆ Written English
（pp．317－ 337） ．USA ：John Benjamins Publishing Co．
Hewings ，M ．1995．The English intonation of native speakers and Indonesian learners ：Aco m parative study．
RELC Journal 26／ 1： 27－45．
Jenkins ， J．2004．Research in teaching pronunciation and intonation． Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24 ：
109－ 125．
McNerney ，M ．＆D ． Mendelsohn．1992．Suprasege mentals in the pronunciation class ：Setting priorities．In
P．Avery ＆S．Ehrlich（Ed． ）． Teaching American English Pronunciation（pp．185－ 196） ．Oxford ：Oxford
University Press．
Pickering ，L．2001． The role of tone choice in im proving ITA co m m unication in the classroo m ． TESOL
Quarterly 35／ 2 ：233－255．
Prator ，C ．1971．Phonetics vs．Phone mics in the ESL classroo m ：When is allophonic accuracy im portant ？
TESOL Quarterly 5 ： 61－72．
Roach ，P．1991． English Phonetics and Phonology ：A Practical Course．Cambridge ：Cambridge University Press．
Zhang ，L．J．2005．Awareness－ raising in the English teachers preparation phonology classroo m ：Student voices and
sociocultural and psychological considerations．I．T．L Review of Applied Linguistics 145 ： 219－ 268．

43
 The English Intonation of Chinese EFLlearners ：A Co m parative Study 　 Tao Rui

Appendix 1

Dialogue 1
Bookseller ：Good m orning．Can Ihelp you ？
Custo m er ：I m looking for a book by Sutcliffe．It s a life of Arnold．
Bookseller ：Alife of Arnold．Let m e see ，now ．Is that the title ？
Custo m er ：Ithink so．
Bookseller ：It isn t the title of a novel ？
Custo m er ：Well ， Idon t think it is．But the proble m is ，I m not quite sure．
Bookseller ：Isee．You ve looked in the biography section ？
Custo m er ：Is that near the m aps and things ？Over there ？
Bookseller ：That right．
Custo m er ：Yes ，I ve looked there．But Ican t see it．
Bookseller ：You don t know w ho the publisher is ？
Custo m er ：Sorry ，no．
Bookseller ：Would you mind waiting a m o m ent ，w hile Iserve thislady ， and then I llsee w hat Ican do for
you．
Custo m er ：Thank you．

Dialogue 2
Traveler ：Can you help m e ，please ？ I m traveling to York ，but apparently ， the train Iwas going go catch
has been cancelled．
Assistant ：The train to York． When were you hoping to travel ？
Traveler ：On the eleven forty－ eight．And on the indicator board it says it s cancelled．
Assistant ：Eleven－ forty－ eight to York．That right．There see ms to be so m e trouble on the line they ve
had to take it off．The next direct train is at the thirteen twenty．
Traveler ：Thirteen twenty．And w hen does it get to York ？
Assistant ：It gets to York at fifteen ten．
Traveler ：Oh ，Lord ！Perhaps Icould go by another route ，by an earlier train ？
Assistant ：Just a m o m ent．How m uch luggage do you have ？
Traveler ：Only this bag．
Assistant ：Because if you don t mind changing ，you could go via Manchester．There s a train due out in－
hang on－ just five minutes．
Traveler ：Which platform will that be ？
Assistant ：Fro m platform tow ．But you ll have to change．
Traveler ： Idon t mind that．But w hat about m y ticket ？Can Iuse the sa m e ticket ？
Assistant ：Let m e look．That OK ，yes．It s just the sa m e fare．
Traveler ：And w hat tim e will that get m et there ？
Assistant ：At fourteen forty－ eight． About twenty minutes before the direct train． But you ll have to
hurry．Platform tw o－ change at Manchester．
Traveler ：Thanks ！

Appendix 2
Transcription conventions

H High Key
M Mide Key
L Low Key
Pfalling tone
P ＋ rising－ falling tone
r falling－
rising tone
r ＋ rising tone
44
 CELEA Journal 76

o level tone
／／　／／tone unit boundaries
（　）utterance with intonation
YES pro minent syllables／w ords are written in uppercase letters
YEStonic syllable／w ord are written in uppercase letter and underlined

Appendix 3
Ten lines transcribed by Brazil

1．／／r is THATthe TItle ／／

2．／／r it ISn t the title of a NOvel／／
3．／／r but the PROBle m IS／／p i m NOT quite SURE ／／
4．／／r you ve LOOKed in the biOGraphy section／／
5．／／r is THAT near the MAPs and things／／
6．／／p W HEN were you hoping to TRAvel／／
7．／／p and W HEN does it get to YORK ／／
8．／／p perHAPs i could go by aNOther route／／
9．／／p HOW m uch LUggage do you have／／
10．／／p but W HAT about m y TIcket／／

（．．．continued fro m p．24）

Table 2－
1．Attention Levels of Sa m ple 1 and Sa m ple 2
M D L P Total

Utterance 54 27 38 43 150
Sa m ple 1
Percentage（％） 36 18 25．3 28．7 108

Utterance 105 46 132 34 285

Sa m ple 2
Percentage（％） 36．8 16．1 46．3 11．9 111．1
M ＝ m etacognitive level attention ；D ＝discourse level attention ；L ＝linguistic level attention ；P ＝ personal
co m m ents．

（．．．continued fro m p．82）

Pollard ，A ．2002． Reflective Teaching．London ，New York ：Continuu m ．
Richards ，J． C ． ＆ C ． Lockhart． 1994． Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classroom ． Cam bridge ：
Cam bridge University Press．
Rodgers ，C ．2002．Defining reflection ：Anotherlook atJohn Dewey and reflective thinking． Teachers College
Record 104／
4 ：842－ 866．
Schon ，D ．A ．1987． Educating the Reflective Practitioner．San Francisco ：Jossey－Bass．
Scrivener ， J．2002．Learning Teaching A Guidebook for English Language Teachers．Shanghai ：Shanghai Foreign
Language Education Press．
Van Manen ，M ．1977．Linking ways of knowin g within ways of being practical． Curriculum Inquiry 6 ：205－
228．
Zhu ，Xiaoyan．2004． The Development of Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Novice Secondary School Teachers of
English．Nanjing ：Nanjing Normal University Press．

45