Typology of Prosodic Phrasing in Japanese Dialects ... - So-net

More documents

Recommendations

Info

“One-pattern accent” vs. “accentless” • Most of the Japanese scholars subcategorize the [-lexical tones] dialects into two groups: – “One-pattern accent” dialects: Miyakonojo, Kobayashi, etc. – “Accentless” dialects: Kumamoto, Koriyama, etc. • The division between the two types of dialect has been a point of controversy (Ramsey 1998; Yamaguchi 1998) • Their distinction has not been explicit enough in past works – … because the past works were focused on word-level prosody • The difference lies in the intonational systems: specifically, in the level of prosodic phrasing above the word “One-pattern accent” vs. “accentless” • “One-pattern accent” dialects – Dialects such as Miyakonojo and Kobayashi – All the prosodic words* exhibit a pitch rise from the penultimate syllable to the final (Hirayama 1951; Shibata 1951; Uwano 1989, among many others) • So-called ‘high-tailed pattern’ ‘flower’ ‘nose’ ha na ha na plus particle -ga ha na -ga ha na -ga plus particle -kara ha na -ka ra ha na -ka ra “One-pattern accent” vs. “accentless” • “Accentless” dialects – Dialects such as Kumamoto and Koriyama – Hirayama (1968) • “There are no words which have their inherent accent patterns, and they are pronounced non-systematically” – There is widespread myth that pitch patterns in the “accentless” dialects are random – In the “accentless” dialects as well, there is a regular linguistic pitch control, which is equivalent to other dialects (Maekawa 1990; 1994b; 1997a for Kumamoto and Fukui dialects) – The “one-pattern accent” and “accentless” dialects can not be distinguished in the light of the regularity in pitch patterns “One-pattern accent” vs. “accentless” 300 Kobayashi dialect (“One-pattern accent”) 120 0.5 1 Time (sec) Saburo:-ga Akemi-o nagut-ta. ‘Jack punched Mary.’ 260 100 0.5 1 1.5 2 Time (sec) Saburo:-ga Akemi-koto buttobasi-ta-n-da-wai. ‘Jack punched Mary.’ 300 FOC 120 0.5 1 Time (sec) Saburo:-ga Akemi-o nagut-ta. ‘Jack punched Mary.’ Koriyama dialect (“Accentless”) 260 FOC 100 0.5 1 1.5 2 Time (sec) Saburo:-ga Akemi-koto buttobasi-ta-n-da-wai ‘Jack punched Mary.’ “One-pattern accent” vs. “accentless” • “One-pattern accent” dialects – The dialect-specific pitch pattern never spans over two prosodic words (Uwano 1998b; Igarashi 2006) – It is not necessary to postulate a (tonally marked) prosodic phrase above the prosodic word • “Accentless” dialects – The dialect-specific pitch pattern can span over two prosodic words – The domain for the pitch pattern should be a prosodic phrase above the prosodic word – It is necessary to postulate a prosodic phrase which tonally merges prosodic words i.e. Accentual Phrase (cf. P&B 1988 for Tokyo Japanese; Jun 1998 for Seoul Korean) Utterance Accentual phrase Prosodic word 300 FOC 120 0.5 1 Time (sec) Saburo:-ga Akemi-o nagut-ta. ‘Jack punched Mary.’ Kobayashi dialect (“One-pattern accent”) Alternative [-dephrasing] representation α υ α α ω ω ω Syllable σ σ σ σ σ σ σ σ σ σ σ Tone tier L H L H L H 260 FOC 100 0.5 1 1.5 2 Time (sec) Saburo:-ga Akemi-koto buttobasi-ta-n-da-wai. ‘Jack punched Mary.’ Koriyama dialect (“Accentless”) [+dephrasing] υ υ “Dephrasing” Accentual phrase α ω σ σ σ σ ω α ω σ σ σ σ σ σ σ σ σ σ σ σ L H L H L cf. Maekawa (1990, 1997) for Kumamoto dialcet 4
Dephrasing in “accentless d.” Kumamoto “accentless” [-lexical tones, +dephrasing] WH question Non-WH question Maekawa (1997) Dephrased Dephrasing in “accentless d.” Yamagata “accentless” [-lexical tones, +dephrasing] 200 Dephrased Left-branching Dephrased 200 Right-branching Dephrased (My data) ( ω ω )α Nan-no miyut-to-ne? What do you see? ( ω )α ( ω )α Nan-ka miyut-to-ne? Do you see anything? ( ω ω )α ( ω ω )α 50 0.5 1 1.5 Time (sec) Ziro: yomu-to nemutaku naru. I become sleepy if Jack reads. ( ω )α ( ω )α ( ω ω )α 50 0.5 1 1.5 Time (sec) Ziro:-wa nomu-to nemutaku naru. Jack becomes sleepy if he drinks. Koriyama “Accentless” [-lexical tones, +dephrasing] 250 Dephrased WH question 250 Non-WH question (My data) Dephrased 280 Omuta “accentless” [-lexical tones, +dephrasing] Left-branching Dephrased 280 Right-branching Dephrased (My data) 120 ( ω ω ) α ( ω ) α ( ω ) α 0.5 1 Time (sec) Nani-ga mien-dai? What do you see? 120 0.5 1 Time (sec) Nani-ka miek-kai? Do you see anything? ( ω ω )α ( ω ω )α 150 0.5 1 1.5 2 Time (sec) Ziro:kun-ga yomu-to nemuku naru-te-ne. I become sleepy if Jack reads. ( ω )α (ω)α (ω ω ) α 150 0.5 1 1.5 2 Time (sec) Ziro:kun-wa nomu-to nemuku nara-su-mon-ne. I become sleepy if Jack reads. Dephrasing in [+lexical tones] dialects • Tokyo dialect [+lexical tones] – A typical dialect that shows dephrasing • The dialect has a prosodic phrase above the word whose boundary is marked by a rise (Kawakami 1957) • The boundary-marking rise is formulated by P&B (1988) as the left-edge H tone of accentual phrase • Kyoto-Osaka dialect [+lexical tones] – A typical dialect that show no dephrasing • It is a common observation that in Kyoto-Osaka dialect the tone patterns of words are preserved in sentence (Yamada et al. 1982; Sugito 2001) • P&B (1988) also suggest the lack of dephrasing and accentual phrase in Osaka dialect Typology of prosodic phrasing • [±dephrasing] is independent from [±lexical tones] [±lexical tones] - - + + [±dephrasing] - + + - “One-pattern accent” dialects Miyakonojo, Kobayashi, etc. “Accentless” dialects Kumamoto, Koriyama, etc. Tokyo, etc. Kyoto-Osaka, etc • The proposed typology captures similarities and differences in prosodic phrasing across the boundary of the major dialectal classification between [+lexical tones] and [-lexical tones] Conclusion 1. Introduction 2. The methodology for data collection 3. Typology of prosodic phrasing 4. Conclusion • This presentation was a glimpse of my ongoing research on an intonation typology of Japanese dialects • Highlighting the prosodic phrasing in the dialects without lexical pitch specification([-lexical tones]), it was proposed that Japanese dialects could be classified into those with accentual phrase ([+dephrasing]) and those without it ([-dephrasing]) • It was also shown that the feature [±dephrasing] was independent of the feature [±lexical tones] 5
Page 1 and 2: Typology of Prosodic Phrasing in Ja
Page 3: 200 FOC 60 0.5 1 1.5 2 Yamada-ga Na
Page 7: Sensitivity to syntactic branching

Typology of Prosodic Phrasing in Japanese Dialects ... - So-net

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?