Introduction · 2008-02-02 · 2 Procedure z“Simulation task” Sentence design Translation From standard Japanese to dialect Reading of the sentences & recording Analysis of produced

1

Typology of Prosodic Phrasing Typology of Prosodic Phrasing in Japanese Dialectsin Japanese Dialects

Yosuke IgarashiJapan Society for the Promotion of Science,

National Institute for Japanese [email protected]

1. Introduction

2. The methodology for data collection

3. Typology of prosodic phrasing

4. Conclusion

IntroductionIntroductionCross-linguistic comparison of intonation is now in ferment more intense than ever (Gussenhoven 2004; Jun 2005)This has become possible since the emergence of a common framework, the Autosegmental Metrical (AM) model (Pierrehumbert 1980; Ladd 1996)

Japanese language has played a leading role in the development of the AM theory of intonational phonology (Poser 1984; Beckman and Pierrehumbert 1986; Pierrehumbert and Beckman (P&B) 1988)Current works on Japanese intonation are built on long-time research on prosody in Japan (Yamada 1892; Sakuma 1919; Jinbo 1925; Miyata 1928; Hattori 1929; Kindaichi 1937; Arisaka 1941)It is the description of Japanese dialects that had stimulated the traditional prosodic works (Hatori 1929, 1931, 1933; Kindaichi 1937, 1943, 1974; Hirayama 1960, Tokugawa 1962)

IntroductionIntroductionSince the beginning of the 1930’s extensive research has been done to describe the word-levelprosodic systems of all existing dialectsThere have been several attempts to classify word-level prosodic systems of dialects– Diachronic classification

(Kindaichi 1937, Hirayama 1960)– Synchronic classification

(Uwano 1989, Hayata 1999)

Despite great effort devoted to the description of word-level prosody, surprisingly few studies have been devoted to phrase-level prosody, or intonationof dialects (Uwano 1984; Kori 1987, 2007; Maekawa 1990 et seq.)

Kindaichi’s“accent map”

Adopted from Akinaga ed. (2002: pp. 1)

IntroductionIntroduction

The goal of my ongoing research is to develop an intonational typology of the Japanese dialects with focus on their prosodic phrasing

Classification of Japanese dialects on the basis of prosodic phrasing will be proposed, highlighting the dialects without lexical pitch specification (the most understudied group of dialects)

In this presentation

1. Introduction



4. Conclusion

2

ProcedureProcedure“Simulation task”

Sentence design

TranslationFrom standard Japanese to dialect

Reading of the sentences& recording

Analysis of produced sentencesRecording

Sentence designSentence designSentences contain linguistic factors that are known to affect the prosodic phrasing in Tokyo (standard) Japanese (Kubozono 1988, P&B 1988; Maekawa 1991, 1994a; Kori 1997)

– WH focus– Textual focus– Syntactic branching

These factors are reported to influence the prosodic phrasing in Japanese dialects (Kori 1987, 2006; Maekawa 1990, 1997a; Igarashi 2006, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c)

Sentence designSentence design

Tokyo dialect: Pitch range expansion in the WH word congruent with range compression in post-focal words (Maekawa 1991; see also Ishihara 2003; Kitagawa 2005)

Process in which words in WH domain are grouped together into a larger prosodic phrase

WH focus

7070

150150

0.5Time (sec)

7070

150150

0.5Time (sec)

WH question Non-WH question

Expansion

Compression

Na’ni-ga mie’ru?What do you see?

WH

Tokyo dialect

Na’ni-ka mie’ru?Do you see anything?

cf. Maekawa (1991)

WH focus

WH

Kobayashi dialect Igarashi (2006)

5050

170170

0.5Time (sec)

WH question

Reduction

Expansion

Nan-ga miyuk-ke?What do you see?

5050

170170

0.5Time (sec)

Non-WH question

Nan-ka miyuk-ke?Do you see anything?

Koriyama dialect (My data)

WH

Nani-ga mien-dai?What do you see?

Nani-ka miek-kai?Do you see anything?

120120

250250

0.5 1Time (sec)

WH question

120120

250250

0.5 1Time (sec)

Non-WH question


Tokyo dialect: Pitch range expansion in the focused word congruent with range compression in post-focal words (P&B 1988; Kori 1997; Maekawa 1997b, Ito 2002)

The processes are similar to that for WH focusFukuoka dialect has two distinct ways of prosodic phrasing; one for WH focus and the other for textual focus– WH focus: lexical pitch accents are deleted at all in the

WH domain (Hayata 1985; Kubo 1989; see also Smith 2005)

– Textual focus: the similar to Tokyo dialect (Igarashi 2007c)

Textual focus

Textual focus

Goshogawara dialect Igarashi (2007b)

Tokyo dialect

7070

200200

0.5 1 1.5Time (sec)

FOC

7070

200200

0.5 1 1.5Time (sec)Ina’gaki-no inakaya’kuza-ni nagur-are-ta

I was punched by a local gang in Inagaki.Ina’gaki-no inakaya’kuza-ni nagur-are-taI was punched by a local gang in Inagaki.

FOC

Expansion Expansion

Compression Compression

100100

350350

0.5 1 1.5 2Time (sec)

100100

350350

0.5 1 1.5 2Time (sec)

FOC

Ina’gaki-no inakaya’kuza-sa hutak-ae-taI was punched by a local gang in Inagaki.

Ina’gaki-no inakaya’kuza-sa hutak-ae-taI was punched by a local gang in Inagaki.

FOC

Expansion Expansion

Compression Compression

cf. Kori (1997)

3

Tokyo dialectWH focus

6060

200200

0.5 1 1.5 2Time (sec)

6060

200200

0.5 1 1.5Time (sec)

FOC WH

6060

200200

0.5 1 1.5 2Time (sec)

FOC

Textual focus

Yamada-ga Na’oya-to Na’gano-de mo’miji-o mi’ta-tte?Did Yamada enjoy the autumn leaves with Naoya in Nagano?

Ya’mano-ga Na’oya-to Na’gano-de mo’miji-o mi’ta-tte?Did Yamada enjoy the autumn leaves with Naoya in Nagano?

Da’re-ga Na’oya-to Na’gano-de mo’miji-o mi’ta-no?Who enjoyed the autumn leaves with Naoya in Nagano?

Fukuoka dialectWH focusTextual focus

Igarashi (2007c)

120120

350350

0.5 1 1.5 2Time (sec)

120120

350350

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5Time (sec)

120120

350350

0.5 1 1.5 2Time (sec)

FOC WHFOC

Yamada-ga Na’oya-to Na’gano-de mo’miji-o mi’ta-tte?Did Yamada enjoy the autumn leaves with Naoya in Nagano?

Ya’mano-ga Na’oya-to Na’gano-de mo’miji-o mi’ta-tte?Did Yamada enjoy the autumn leaves with Naoya in Nagano?

Da’re-ga Na’oya-to Na’gano-de mo’miji-o mi’ta-to?Who enjoyed the autumn leaves with Naoya in Nagano?


Tokyo dialect: Right-branching syntactic boundary introduces pitch range expansion, while left-branching boundary does not (Kubozono 1988)

Similar processes have been observed for other dialects (e.g. Maekawa 1997 for Fukui & Kumamoto dialects; Igarashi 2007b for Goshogawara dialect; Igarashi 2007c for Fukuoka dialect)

Syntactic branching

Syntactic branching

Tokyo dialect

7070

170170

0.5 1 1.5 2Time (sec)

7070

170170

0.5 1 1.5 2Time (sec)

Left-branching Right-branching

[[Na’gano-no oba’atyan-ni] [ringo-o morat-ta.]]I was given an apple by the grandmother in Nagano.

[Na’gano-de [oba’atyan-ni [ringo-o morat-ta.]]]In Nagano, I was given an apple by a grandmother.

Boundary

Expansion

Fukuoka dialect

100100

300300

0.5 1 1.5 2Time (sec)

100100

300300

0.5 1 1.5 2Time (sec)


[[Na’gano-no oba’atyan-ni] [ringo morat-ta-to-tte.]]I was given an apple by the grandmother in Nagano.

[Na’gano-de [oba’atyan-ni [ringo morat-ta-to-tte.]]]In Nagano, I was given an apple by a grandmother.

Boundary

Expansion

Igarashi (2007c)

cf. Kubozono (1988); Kori (1997)

1. Introduction



4. Conclusion

Outline of the proposed typologyOutline of the proposed typology[±lexical tones]– Presence or absence of lexical tones

“Lexical tones” = lexically specified pitch

[±accent]– Presence or absence or accent

“Accent” = lexical designation of the location for lexical tones

[±dephrasing]– Presence or absence of dephrasing

(or presence or absence of accentual phrase)“Dephrasing” = prosodic process in which two or more prosodic words are conjoined together into an accentual phrase

[[±±lexical toneslexical tones]]Japanese - “pitch accent language” (Trubetzkoy 1939)

Quite a few Japanese dialects, however, have no lexical pitch specification at all (like Seoul Korean)Japanese dialects are divided by a feature [±lexical tones]

[-lexical tones]

[-lexical tones]

[-lexical tones]

[-lexical tones]

Adopted from Akinaga ed. (2002: pp. 1)

[-lexical tones]

The prosodic structure of the [-lexical tones] dialects has been sparsely examined– Maekawa’s (1990 et seq.)

works on Kumamoto and Fukui dialects ([-lexical tones])

– Kori’s (2006) recent experimental investigation of Kumamoto dialect ([-lexical tones])

4

““OneOne--pattern accentpattern accent”” vs. vs. ““accentlessaccentless””

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

““OneOne--pattern accentpattern accent”” vs. vs. ““accentlessaccentless””“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’

-kaha na ra-gaha naha na

-kaha na ra-gaha naha na

‘flower’

‘nose’

plus particle -ga plus particle -kara


“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


120120

300300

0.5 1Time (sec)

Kobayashi dialect　(“One-pattern accent”)

Saburo:-ga Akemi-o nagut-ta.‘Jack punched Mary.’

120120

300300

0.5 1Time (sec)


FOC

100100

260260

0.5 1 1.5 2Time (sec)

Koriyama dialect　(“Accentless”)

Saburo:-ga Akemi-koto buttobasi-ta-n-da-wai.‘Jack punched Mary.’

100100

260260

0.5 1 1.5 2Time (sec)

FOC

Saburo:-ga Akemi-koto buttobasi-ta-n-da-wai‘Jack punched Mary.’

“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 wordsi.e. Accentual Phrase (cf. P&B 1988 for Tokyo Japanese; Jun 1998 for Seoul Korean)


120120

300300

0.5 1Time (sec)


FOC

100100

260260

0.5 1 1.5 2Time (sec)

FOC

Saburo:-ga Akemi-koto buttobasi-ta-n-da-wai.‘Jack punched Mary.’

σ σ σ σ σ σ σ σ σ σ σ

ω ω ω

υ

σ σ σ σ σ σ σ σ

ω ω

σ σ σ σ σ

ω

σ σ σ

Prosodic word

Syllable

Utterance υ




ω ω ω

υ


ω ω

υ

σ σ σ σ σ

ω

σ σ σ

α α

Prosodic word

Syllable

Utterance



Accentual phrase

“Dephrasing”


ω ω ω

υ


ω ω

υ

σ σ σ σ σ

ω

σ σ σ

α α

Prosodic word

Syllable

Utterance

Accentual phrase



Accentual phraseααα

Alternative representation


ω ω ω

υ


ω ω

υ

σ σ σ σ σ

ω

σ σ σ

α α

Prosodic word

Syllable

Utterance



Accentual phrase


ω ω ω

υ


ω ω

σ σ σ σ σ

ω

σ σ σ

Prosodic word

Syllable

Utterance υ




ω ω ω

υ


ω ω

υ

σ σ σ σ σ

ω

σ σ σ

α α

Prosodic word

Syllable

Utterance



Accentual phrase

“Dephrasing”


ω ω ω

υ


ω ω

υ

σ σ σ σ σ

ω

σ σ σ

α α

Prosodic word

Syllable

Utterance

Accentual phrase



Accentual phraseααα

Alternative representation


ω ω ω

υ


ω ω

υ

σ σ σ σ σ

ω

σ σ σ

α α

Prosodic word

Syllable

Utterance



Accentual phrase


ω ω ω

L H L H L H

υ


ω ω

H L H L

υ

σ σ σ σ σ

ω

σ σ σ

α α

Prosodic word

Syllable

Tone tier

Utterance

Accentual phrase




ω ω ω

L H L H L H

υ


ω ω

L H L H L

υ

σ σ σ σ σ

ω

σ σ σ

α α

Prosodic word

Syllable

Tone tier

Utterance



Accentual phrase

cf. Maekawa (1990, 1997) for Kumamoto dialcet

[-dephrasing] [+dephrasing]

5

Dephrasing in Dephrasing in ““accentless d.accentless d.””Kumamoto “accentless” [-lexical tones, +dephrasing]

Maekawa (1997)

WH question Non-WH question

Nan-no miyut-to-ne?What do you see?

Nan-ka miyut-to-ne?Do you see anything?

( ω ω )α

Dephrased

( ω )α ( ω )α

Koriyama “Accentless” [-lexical tones, +dephrasing]

120120

250250

0.5 1Time (sec)

Non-WH question

120120

250250

0.5 1Time (sec)

WH question

Nani-ka miek-kai?Do you see anything?

Nani-ga mien-dai?What do you see?

Dephrased

( ω ω ) α ( ω ) α ( ω ) α

(My data)

Dephrasing in Dephrasing in ““accentless d.accentless d.””Yamagata “accentless” [-lexical tones, +dephrasing]

(My data)

Omuta “accentless” [-lexical tones, +dephrasing]

5050

200200

0.5 1 1.5Time (sec)

Left-branching

Ziro: yomu-to nemutaku naru.I become sleepy if Jack reads.

( ω ω )α ( ω ω )α5050

200200

0.5 1 1.5Time (sec)

Dephrased Dephrased

( ω )α ( ω )α ( ω ω )α

Dephrased

Ziro:-wa nomu-to nemutaku naru.Jack becomes sleepy if he drinks.

Right-branching

150150

280280

0.5 1 1.5 2Time (sec)

Left-branchingDephrased

( ω ω )α ( ω ω )α

Ziro:kun-ga yomu-to nemuku naru-te-ne.I become sleepy if Jack reads.

150150

280280

0.5 1 1.5 2Time (sec)

Right-branching

( ω )α (ω)α (ω ω ) α

Ziro:kun-wa nomu-to nemuku nara-su-mon-ne.I become sleepy if Jack reads.

DephrasedDephrased

(My data)

Dephrasing in [+lexical tones] dialectsDephrasing in [+lexical tones] dialectsTokyo 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 phrasingTypology of prosodic phrasing[±dephrasing] is independent from [±lexical tones]

The proposed typology captures similarities and differences in prosodic phrasing across the boundary of the major dialectal classification between [+lexical tones] and [-lexical tones]

Kyoto-Osaka, etc-+Tokyo, etc.++

“Accentless” dialects Kumamoto, Koriyama, etc.

+-

“One-pattern accent” dialectsMiyakonojo, Kobayashi, etc.

--[±dephrasing][±lexical tones]

1. Introduction



4. Conclusion

ConclusionConclusionThis presentation was a glimpse of my ongoing research on an intonation typology of Japanese dialectsHighlighting 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]

6

Konec

AppendixAppendix

Dephrasing in [+lexical tones] dialectsDephrasing in [+lexical tones] dialects

Kyoto-Osaka dialect [+lexical tones]– A typical dialect that show no dephrasing– Many researchers have observed the tonal processes

specific for Kyoto-Osaka, which can be interpreted as the lack of dephrasing (Yamada et al. 1982; Sugito 2001)

– Pierrehumbert & Beckman (1988) also suggest the lack of dephrasing and accentual phrase in Osaka dialect

“It is a common observation that in Osaka and the other western dialects the tone patterns of words are much better preserved inrunning speech, a remark that suggests that these languages do not have the widespread dephrasing that joins words together into accentual phrases so readily in Tokyo. Indeed, it is likely that Osaka entirely lacks an accentual phrase” (P&B 1988: 229)

7070

150150

0.5 1Time (sec)

7070

150150

0.5 1Time (sec)

σ σ σ σ

ω

α

σ σ σ σ

ω

α

μμμμ μ μμμ

L H L H L

σ σ σ σ

ω

α

σ σ σ σ

ω

μμμμ μ μμμ

L H L

7070

150150

0.5 1Time (sec)

7070

150150

0.5 1Time (sec)

σ σ σ σ

ω

α

σ σ σ σ

ω

α

μμμμ μ μμμ

L H HL L H L

σ σ σ σ

ω

α

σ σ σ σ

ω

μμμμ μ μμμ

L H HL L

Naomi-no omiyage Naomi-no omiyage

Na’oya-no omiyage Na’oya-noomiyage

‘Naomi’s souvenir’ ‘Naomi’s souvenir’

‘Jack’s souvenir’ ‘Jack’s souvenir’

“Dephrasing”

“Dephrasing”

PerspectivesPerspectives

(Igarashi 2006)

7575

180180

0.5 1 1.5Time (sec)

7575

180180

0.5 1 1.5Time (sec)

Kobayashi dialect [-lexical tones, -dephrasing]Left-branching Right-branching

[[Nagano-n baatyan-kai] [ringo moro-ta-yo.]]I was given an apple by the grandmother in Nagano.

[Nagano-de [baatyan-kai [ringo moro-ta-yo.]]]In Nagano, I was given an apple by a grandmother.

Boundary

The [-dephrasing] dialects seem to be insensitive to syntactic branching (Igarashi 2006)

The possibility of this inter-dialectal correlation should be explored in future research

Osaka dialect [+lexical tones, -dephrasing]

Kagoshima dialect [+lexical tones, -dephrasing](Work in progress)

100100

300300

0.5 1 1.5 2Time (sec)

100100

300300

0.5 1 1.5Time (sec)


[[Nagano-no baatyan-ni] [ringo moro-ta.]]I was given an apple by the grandmother in Nagano.

[Nagano-de [baatyan-ni [ringo moro-ta.]]]In Nagano, I was given an apple by a grandmother.

Boundary

6060

200200

0.5 1 1.5Time (sec)

6060

200200

0.5 1 1.5Time (sec)

Boundary

[[Nagano-no baatyan-ni] [ringo moro-ta.]]I was given an apple by the grandmother in Nagano.


[Nagano-de [baatyan-ni [ringo moro-ta.]]]In Nagano, I was given an apple by a grandmother.

PerspectivesPerspectives

(Work in progress)

7

Sensitivity to syntactic branchingSensitivity to syntactic branching

(Igarashi 2006)

7575

180180

0.5 1 1.5Time (sec)

7575

180180

0.5 1 1.5Time (sec)

Kobayashi dialect [-lexical tones, -dephrasing]Left-branching Right-branching

[[Nagano-n baatyan-kai] [ringo moro-ta-yo.]]I was given an apple by the grandmother in Nagano.

[Nagano-de [baatyan-kai [ringo moro-ta-yo.]]]In Nagano, I was given an apple by a grandmother.

Boundary

The [-dephrasing] dialects seem to be insensitive to syntactic branching

Tokyo dialect [+lexical tones, +dephrasing]

7070

170170

0.5 1 1.5 2Time (sec)

7070

170170

0.5 1 1.5 2Time (sec)


[[Na’gano-no oba’atyan-ni] [ringo-o morat-ta.]]I was given an apple by the grandmother in Nagano.

[Na’gano-de [oba’atyan-ni [ringo-o morat-ta.]]]In Nagano, I was given an apple by a grandmother.

Boundary

Fukuoka dialect [+lexical tones, +dephrasing]

100100

300300

0.5 1 1.5 2Time (sec)

100100

300300

0.5 1 1.5 2Time (sec)


[[Na’gano-no oba’atyan-ni] [ringo morat-ta-to-tte.]]I was given an apple by the grandmother in Nagano.

[Na’gano-de [oba’atyan-ni [ringo morat-ta-to-tte.]]]In Nagano, I was given an apple by a grandmother.

Boundary

Igarashi(2007c)

Sensitivity to syntactic branchingSensitivity to syntactic branching

Tokyo dialectTokyo dialect

o mi ya ge

ω

μ μ μ μ

σ σ σ σ

o ni gi ri

ω

μ μ μ μ

HL

σ σ σ σ

6060

140140

0.5Time (sec)

6060

140140

0.5Time (sec)

Unaccented word Accented word

o mi ya ge o ni gi ri

KyotoKyoto--Osaka dialectOsaka dialectContrast in accentedness– Unaccented vs. accented

Contrast in ‘register’– High-beginning vs. low-beginning

nasa ka ka ra

sisa gi ka ra

iya sa ka ra

goi ti ka ra

nasa ka ga

sisa gi ga

iya sa ga

goi ti ga

nasa ka

sisa gi

iya sa

goi ti

unaccented

accented

accented

unaccented

Low-beginning words

High-beginning words

Ikeda (1942), Wada 1957, Nakai(1987), Uwano (1989)

KyotoKyoto--Osaka dialectOsaka dialect

7070

250250

0.5Time (sec)

High-beginning words

unaccented unaccentedaccented accented

7070

250250

0.5Time (sec)

7070

250250

0.5Time (sec)

7070

250250

0.5Time (sec)

no ri mo no na mi no ri o mi ya ge o ni gi ri

Low-beginning words

rina mi no

ω

μ μ μ μ

H

σ σ σ σ

HL Lnono ri mo

ω

μ μ μ μ

H

σ σ σ σ

Hgeo mi ya

ω

μ μ μ μ

L

σ σ σ σ

Hrio ni gi

ω

μ μ μ μ

L

σ σ σ σ

HL L

Documents

Introduction · 2008-02-02 · 2 Procedure z“Simulation task” Sentence design Translation From standard Japanese to dialect Reading of the sentences & recording Analysis of produced