Влияние просодических особенностей на запоминание (исследование на основе судебных шоу)
8 12
Ключевые слова:
юридическая терминология, запоминание слов, судебные шоу, интонационные модели, восприятие.Аннотация
Целью данного исследования является анализ влияния просодических особенностей на восприятие и запоминание слов участниками после просмотра судебных шоу. На основе полученных результатов опроса, проведенного среди 18 респондентов с высоким уровнем владения английским языком, проведена работа по выявлению и анализу вероятности влияния просодических характеристик с помощью количественного, акустического и статистического анализа ANOVA. Основное внимание уделялось выявлению связи между просодическими характеристиками, такими как интонация, высота тона, акцент, и их влиянием на запоминание юридических и нейтральных терминов. Выбраны два фрагмента популярных судебных шоу — «Судебные дела» и «Divorce Court». Результаты показали, что юридические термины чаще запоминались из программ на русском языке, что связано с более формальным стилем и акцентированными просодическими элементами, в то время как эмоционально окрашенные высказывания из шоу на английском языке приводили к запоминанию фраз, не связанных с юридической тематикой. Просодический анализ выявил, что изменения высоты тона, акцентуации и эмоциональной окраски повышают восприимчивость аудитории к определенным фразам. Результаты подчёркивают роль просодии в формировании восприятия юридических медиапрограмм.
Библиографические ссылки
REFERENCES
Baird V.A., Gangl A. Shattering the myth of legality: The impact of the media’s framing of Supreme Court procedures on perceptions of fairness // Political Psychology. – 2006. – Vol. 27. – №. 4. – P. 597-614. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00518.x 2. Boda Z., Medve-Bálint G. How perceptions and personal contact matter: The individual-level determinants of trust in police in Hungary // Policing and society. – 2017. – Vol. 27. – №. 7. – P. 732-749. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2015.1053479
Surette R., Kampe K. The media and criminal justice policy and practices // Advancing criminology and criminal justice policy. – Routledge, 2016. – P. 428-440. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315737874
Fujisaki H. Prosody, models, and spontaneous speech // Computing prosody: Computational models for processing spontaneous speech. – New York, NY: Springer US, 1997. – P. 27-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-2258-3_3
Dahan D. Prosody and language comprehension // Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science. – 2015. – Vol. 6. – №. 5. – P. 441-452. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1355
Arvaniti A. The phonetics of prosody. – 2020. – P. 1-47. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://repository.ubn.ru.nl/bitstream/handle/2066/221313/221313.pdf?sequence=1 (date of access 28.07.2024)
Kurumada C., Roettger T. B. Thinking probabilistically in the study of intonational speech prosody // Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science. – 2022. – Vol. 13. – №1. – P. e1579. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1579
Vinson C. D., Ertter J. S. Entertainment or education: How do media cover the courts? // Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. – 2002. – Vol. 7. – №4. – P. 80-97. https://doi.org/10.1177/108118002236351
Karno V. Remote Justice: Tuning in to Small Claims, Race, and the Reinvigoration of Civic Judgment //Consciousness and Ideology. – Routledge, 2017. – P. 325-346. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315259604
Lorenzo-Dus N. Real disorder in the court: An investigation of conflict talk in US television courtroom shows //Media, Culture & Society. – 2008. – Vol. 30. – №1. – P. 81-107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443708088613
Bond J. The Cost of Canada’s Legal Aid Crisis: Breaching the Right to State-Funded Counsel within a Reasonable Time //Crim. LQ. – 2012. – Vol. 59. – P. 28. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2129558 (date of access 28.07.2024)
Whitt R. J. Auditory evidentiality in English and German: The case of perception verbs //Lingua. – 2009. – Vol. 119. – №. 7. – P. 1083-1095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.11.001
Efron R. What is perception? //Proceedings of the Boston Colloquium for the Philosophy of Science 1966/1968. – Dordrecht : Springer Netherlands, 1969. – P. 137–173.
Goldstein E. B. (ed.). Encyclopedia of perception. – Sage, 2010. – 1179 p.
Bartoshuk L. M. Sensation and Perception //The Cambridge Handbook of the Intellectual History of Psychology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. – 2019. – P. 88-110. [Electronic resource]. URL: http://sonify.psych.gatech.edu/~walkerb/classes/perception/readings/Bartoshuk-2019-history.pdf (date of access 03.08.2024)
Moore B. C. J. The role of temporal fine structure processing in pitch perception, masking, and speech perception for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired people //Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology. – 2008. – Vol. 9. – P. 399-406. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10162-008-0143-x (date of access 28.07.2024)
Altvater-Mackensen N., Fikkert P. The acquisition of the stop-fricative contrast in perception and production //Lingua. – 2010. – Vol. 120. – №8. – P. 1898-1909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.02.010
Remez R. E. Perceptual organization of speech //The handbook of speech perception. – 2021. – P. 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119184096.ch1
Vouloumanos A. Speech Perception //Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource. – 2015. – P. 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0315 20. Gwilliams L. How the brain composes morphemes into meaning //Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. – 2020. – Vol. 375. – №1791. – P. 20190311. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0311
Magnuson J. S., Nusbaum H. C. Acoustic differences, listener expectations, and the perceptual accommodation of talker variability //Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and performance. – 2007. – Vol. 33. – №2. – P. 391. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0096-1523.33.2.391
Kiefte M., Nearey T. M. Theories and models of speech perception //The Routledge handbook of phonetics. – Routledge, 2019. – P. 289-313. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429056253
Stilp C. Acoustic context effects in speech perception //Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science. – 2020. – Vol. 11. – №. 1. – P. e1517. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1517
Cutler A., Dahan D., Van Donselaar W. Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review //Language and speech. – 1997. – Vol. 40. – №2. – P. 141-201. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099704000203
Szczepek Reed B. Beyond the particular: Prosody and the coordination of actions //Language and Speech. – 2012. – Vol. 55. – №1. – P. 13-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830911428871
Zellers M. Prosodic variation and segmental reduction and their roles in cuing turn transition in Swedish //Language and Speech. – 2017. – Vol. 60. – №3. – P. 454-478. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830916658680
Kussepova G. T. et al. Verification of communicative types in the judicial public space of media discourse in the USA, Kazakhstan and Russia as a psycholinguistic marker of fact-checking //Amazonia Investiga. – 2023. – Vol. 12. – №61. – P. 131-144. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.61.01.14
Hasse J. Places and their voices: what becomes perceptible through the audible // Annual Review of the Faculty Of Philosophy – 2022. – Vol. 47. – №1. – P. 15-26. https://doi.org/10.19090/gff.2022.1.15-26
Clayards M. et al. Perception of speech reflects optimal use of probabilistic speech cues //Cognition. – 2008. – Vol. 108. – №. 3. – P. 804-809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.04.004
Smagulova J. Ideologies of language revival: Kazakh as school talk //International Journal of Bilingualism. – 2019. – Vol. 23. – №3. – P. 740-756. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006916684920
Luchkina T., Ionin T. The effect of prosody on availability of inverse scope in Russian //Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. – 2015. – Vol. 23. – P. 418-437.
Xue G. et al. Greater neural pattern similarity across repetitions is associated with better memory //Science. – 2010. – Vol. 330. – №6000. – P. 97-101. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1193125
Oliphant G. W. Repetition and recency effects in word recognition //Australian Journal of Psychology. – 1983. – Vol. 35. – №3. – P. 393-403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470211003687546
Paulmann S., Pell M. D. Contextual influences of emotional speech prosody on face processing: How much is enough? //Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience. – 2010. – Vol. 10. – №2. – P. 230-242. https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.10.2.230
Herrera-Bennett A. et al. Emotion-modulated recall: Congruency effects of nonverbal facial and vocal cues on semantic recall //Collabra: Psychology. – 2022. – Vol. 8. – №1. – P. 31601. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.31601
Schirmer A., Gunter T. C. Temporal signatures of processing voiceness and emotion in sound //Social cognitive and affective neuroscience. – 2017. – Vol. 12. – №6. – С. 902-909. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsx020
Reed B. S., Reed B. S. Prosody in conversation //Prosodic orientation in English conversation. – 2007. – P. 1-32. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://library.uc.edu.kh/userfiles/pdf/28.Prosodic%20orientation%20in%20English%20conversation%20.pdf (date of access 28.07.2024)
Pycha A. Phonological and morphological roles modulate the perception of consonant variants //Linguistics Vanguard. – 2021. – Vol. 7. – №1. – P. 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2020-0025
