THE INFLUENCE OF PROSODIC FEATURES ON MEMORIZATION (A STUDY BASED ON COURT SHOWS)
9 12
Keywords:
legal terminology, word recall, court shows, intonation patterns, perception.Abstract
This study aims to analyze the impact of prosodic features on participants’ perception and recall of words after watching courtroom shows. Based on the results of a survey conducted among 18 respondents with a high level of English proficiency, the study investigates and analyzes the potential influence of prosodic characteristics using quantitative, acoustic, and ANOVA-based statistical analysis. The focus was on identifying the connection between prosodic features such as intonation, pitch, and accent, and their influence on the memorization of legal and neutral terms. Two fragments of popular court shows were selected - “Sudebnyi Dela” and “Divorce Court”. The results showed that legal terms were more often remembered from the Russian program, which was associated with a more formal style and accented prosodic elements, while emotionally charged statements from the American show led to the memorization of phrases unrelated to legal topics, but possessing vivid prosodic characteristics. Prosodic analysis revealed that changes in pitch, accentuation and emotional coloring increase the audience’s susceptibility to certain phrases. The results highlight the role of prosody in shaping the perception of legal media programs.
References
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
