Journal of Japanese Linguistics 32 (2016)

Triple operations of rendaku processing: Native Chineseand Korean speakers learning Japanese!

Katsuo Tamaoka1, Kyoko Hayakawa2, and Timothy J. Vance3
1
Nagoya University, 2Kwansei Gakuin University, and 3National Institute forJapanese Language and Linguistics

The present study investigated a hypothesis proposing the involvement of threeoperations in processing Japanese sequential voicing (rendaku): a
lexical-specific operation, an etymology-specific operation, and a rule-based
operation. Second language (L2) learners of Japanese are in the process ofconstructing an L2 mental lexicon of Japanese, and this lexicon is assumed todisplay a clear contrast between rule-based and etymology-specific occurrencesof rendaku in early-stage learning and lexical-specific rendaku at later stages asa result of memory-based lexical learning. Native Chinese (N=32) and Korean(N=32) speakers learning Japanese, matched for their lexical and grammaticalknowledge, avoided applying rendaku in compounds with a medial voiced
obstruent in the second element, indicating that Lyman’s Law is an active
principle even in L2 acquisition. Both L2 learner groups also showedsensitivity to lexical strata by distinguishing Japanese-origin words (wago)
from Sino-Japanese words (kango) and alphabetic loanwords (gairaigo). Thus,
as factors of rendaku processing, Lyman’s Law is considered rule-based whilelexical stratum is considered etymology-specific. In contrast, both L2 learnergroups showed a low occurrence of rendaku both for Lyman’s Law exceptions(i.e., X+basigo) and for infrequent or rare words (i.e., X+zyootyuu). These
instances can be considered memory-based, lexical-specific rendaku, which L2
learners must acquire as individual lexical items. This study indicated that all
three described operations were used by L2 Japanese speakers to process
rendaku.
Areas of interest: rendaku, triple operations, Lyman’s Law, lexical strata, L2
Japanese learners

1. Introduction
In Japanese, when two words or morphemes are compounded, the initialconsonant of the second element may be voiced; the compound of ao ‘blue’ andsora ‘sky’ becomes aozora ‘blue sky’. This morphophonological phenomenon iscalled sequential voicing or rendaku. Rendaku refers to the voicing of the initial!

	 This paper was presented at the 148th Meeting of the Linguistic Society of Japan held at Hosei
University, Tokyo, Japan in June 7-8, 2014, and supported by the National Institute for Japanese
Language and Linguistics (NINJAL) Rendaku Project (principal researcher: Timothy J. Vance).

32 Katsuo Tamaoka, Kyoko Hayakawa, & Timothy J. Vance

voiceless obstruent in the second element of a compound word (e.g., Haraguchi,
2001; Irwin, 2005; Itô & Mester, 1986, 2003; Kubozono, 2005; McCawley, 1968;
Otsu, 1980; Rosen, 2001; Vance, 1979, 1987, 2005, 2008, 2014a, 2014b). Morethan 30,000 rendaku compounds are listed in the rendaku database (Irwin, 2012;
Irwin & Miyashita, 2016). Basically, the following initial voiceless consonants insecond elements turn into the voiced consonants (Vance, 2016): /f/~/b/ fue ‘flute’to bue, /h/~/b/ hati ‘bee’ to bati, /t/~/d/ tori ‘bird’ to dori, /k/~/g/ kame ‘turtle’ togame, /c/~/z/ cuna or tuna ‘rope’ to zuna, /s/~/z/ sara ‘dish’ to zara, /č/~/ǰ/ tikara/čikara/ ‘power’ to zikara, and /š/~/ǰ/ sina /šina/ ‘item’ to zina /ǰina/. Yet, it is not
the case that all second elements of compounds begin with a voiced obstruent. It
is also not obvious when rendaku should or should not apply in compounds. In
the compound kotori ‘a small bird,’ the first element ko ‘small’ is combined withthe second element tori ‘bird,’ and the initial consonant /t/ of the second element‘bird’ is not voiced to /d/. In contrast, when the same morpheme ko ‘small’ iscombined with hako ‘box’ to produce a compound, the initial consonant /h/ isvoiced to /b/, producing kobako ‘a small box.’ As this pair of examples indicates,
rules for rendaku seem to be very difficult to identify. However, this study showsthat L2 learners take advantage of multiple operations when processing rendaku.
2. Triple operations in rendaku
This paper proposes that three possible operations can be used to process
rendaku. The seemingly random distribution of rendaku suggests that somecompound words are lexically specified as words that will undergo rendaku,
while others are not. This can be understood as a lexical-specific process. For
instance, when the first element mugi ‘wheat’ and the second element hatake‘field’ are combined, the initial consonant of the second element /h/ is voiced to/b/, resulting in mugibatake ‘wheat field.’ However, when naga ‘long’ andsikaku ‘square’ are combined, the first consonant /s/ of the second element is notvoiced as /z/, but remains voiceless as nagasikaku ‘rectangle.’ Once native
Japanese speakers have learned these compounds, such as voiced mugibatake‘wheat field’ and voiceless nagasikaku ‘rectangle,’ they are stored in the mental
lexicon independent from their elements (mugi ‘wheat’ and hatake ‘field,’ andnaga ‘long’ and sikaku ‘square’). The irregularity of rendaku occurrences leads
to the proposal that lexical-specific memory plays a role in understanding the
distribution of rendaku, and that compound words are stored with phonologicalinformation about whether or not they co-occur with rendaku in the mental
lexicon (i.e., phonological representations) as a result of learning eachcompound.
Although rendaku seems to occur randomly in compounds, there are cases
where the distribution of rendaku is clearer. Lyman’ Law is proposed as at least
one consistently-applicable rule governing rendaku. Lyman’s Law, named after
Benjamin Smith Lyman (for details see Itô & Mester, 1986, 2003; Kawahara &Sano, 2014; Kubozono, 2005; Kubozono & Ota, 1998; Otsu, 1980; Vance, 2005,

Triple operations of rendaku processing 33

2007, 2008), stipulates that the existence of a voiced obstruent in a second
element prohibits rendaku. For instance, the second element kaze ‘wind’ iscombined with haru ‘spring’ in harukaze ‘spring wind,’ and with kami ‘divine’in kamikaze ‘divine wind’. The word kaze already contains a voiced obstruent, so
the initial consonant /k/ is not voiced to /g/. There is, however, a well-known
exception to Lyman’s Law; the compound of nawa ‘rope’ and hasigo ‘ladder’appears with rendaku as nawabasigo ‘rope ladder’ (Kindaichi, 1976).
Lyman’s Law is discussed as a particular case of the Obligatory Contour
Principle (OCP). The OCP is a melodic level principle that prevents similar or
identical phonological features from being repeated (e.g., Leben, 1973;
Goldsmith, 1976; McCarthy, 1986). In case of Lyman’s Law, when the second
element of a compound word contains a voiced obstruent, rendaku is blocked to
avoid having two voiced obstruent in a single element. As such, Lyman’s Law
can be considered rule-based.
Another possible operation used in governing the distribution of rendaku
one that is etymology-specific. Rendaku most commonly occurs among Japaneseorigin words wago, in only a few cases in Sino-Japanese words kango (Okumura,
1955; Vance, 1996, 2007), and very seldom in alphabetic loanwords gairaigo(Irwin, 2011; Takayama, 1999). Some kango do exhibit rendaku in compounds.
For instance, a compound of kabusiki ‘stock’ and kaisya ‘company’ ispronounced kabusikigaisya ‘joint-stock company’ as the initial consonant /k/ ofthe second element becomes voiced /g/. According to Nakagawa (1966), rendaku
among kango is a barometer for ‘nativization.’ Irwin (2005) says that the
proportion of words exhibiting rendaku is approximately 90% for wago, 20% for
kango mononoms, 10% for kango binoms, and negligible for gairaigo. Thus,
rendaku is restricted by Japanese lexical strata (e.g., Irwin, 2005; Itô and Mester,1986, 2003; Kubozono, 1995). Native Japanese speakers formulate the rendaku
etymology-specific operation based on the lexical type of the elements includedin the compound (wago, kango, and gairaigo). Because rendaku is most frequent
when combining wago elements, this process can be understood as an
etymology-specific operation.
The present study proposes three different types of operations for rendaku
processing. The triple operations can be also understood in the framework ofphonological processing. Max Coltheart and his colleagues (e.g., M. Coltheart,
Curtis, Atkins & Haller, 1993; M. Coltheart, & Rastle, 1994) proposed adual-route model for phonological processing of visually-presented stimuli. Thismodel explains that real words are processed by addressed phonology as wholeword units stored in the mental lexicon. Given that compounds including
phonological information (with/without rendaku) could be possibly stored aswhole words in memory, this addressed phonology route might be applied to
produce compounds with rendaku. In contrast, the dual-route model alsosuggests that pronounceable English nonwords are processed by assembled
phonology applying grapheme-to-phoneme conversion rules. Other groups of

34 Katsuo Tamaoka, Kyoko Hayakawa, & Timothy J. Vance

researchers utilizing the dual route models (e.g., V. Coltheart & Laxon, 1990;
Patterson, 1986) suggests a sub-lexical or sub-word assembly of phonology,
which could be by a group of letters or morphemic unit.
For rendaku, this paper proposes that the process of assembled phonology
could be two-fold. Lyman’s Law could be regarded as one aspect of assembled
phonology when gathering phonological units, which functions likegrapheme-to-phoneme conversion rules as proposed by the original dual route
model (e.g., M. Coltheart et al., 1993, 1994). When native Japanese speakers
perceive the inclusion of a voiced obstruent in the second element, they stop thevoicing of the second element’s initial obstruent. Since rendaku is produced
when combining two morphemes or words, lexical strata can be regarded asanother type of assembled phonology (e.g., V. Coltheart & Laxon, 1990;
Patterson, 1986). When combining lexical elements, information about the
specific lexical element, such as whether that element is wago or kango, or evengairaigo, affects voicing. As such, rendaku can be understood as an extension of
the dual route model, that is, addressed and assembled phonology. However, inthe case of rendaku processing, assembled phonology should be interpreted as
two different operations, the purely phonological rule-based assembly (e.g.,
Lyman’s Law) and the etymological-specific phonological-unit assembly (i.e.,
lexical strata).
The study of children with various deficiencies has contributed to a better
understanding of rendaku processing. Fukuda and Fukuda (1994), for example,
investigated rendaku in Japanese specifically language-impaired (SLI) children.
Their study found that these SLI children were unlikely to voice the second
elements of non-frequent and novel compounds. Fukuda and Fukuda (1994)
suggested that the SLI children appeared to rely heavily on item-specificmemory. Furthermore, Fukuda and Fukuda (1999) investigated the production of
rendaku in six Japanese SLI children and age-matched non-SLI children. Theirstudy indicated that SLI children did not voice most of the initial obstruents ofthe second elements in non-frequent and novel compounds. In contrast, theage-matched non-SLI children did voice the appropriate obstruents of allcompounds. Fukuda and Fukuda (1994, 1999) concluded that SLI children either
did not have or were unable to construct a productive rule of rendaku. SLI
children seem to use only their lexical-specific memory or addressed phonology
when processing rendaku. They also seem to be hindered in rule-based
assembled rendaku production. In any case, as SLI children appear to use only asingle type of processing, the lexical-specific approach, no further investigationis possible regarding rendaku in these participants.
An event-related potential (ERP) study by Kobayashi, Sugioka, and Ito(2014) clearly showed the triple operations of rendaku processing, although they
proposed a Dual Mechanism Model of rule-based and memory-based processing.
The ERP study by Kobayashi et al. (2014) contained three rendaku types, each ofwhich showed a different EEG pattern. The existence of three ERP patterns

Triple operations of rendaku processing 35

seems to support a theory of three operations, rather than a theory of bipartite
operations.
The first pattern was observed in rendaku-immune words. Some words andmorphemes of Japanese origin (i.e., wago) are never voiced. These words arecalled rendaku-immune (Irwin, 2009). For example, the Japanese-origin word,
hime ‘princess’ is not voiced (i.e., no rendaku) no matter what it is combinedwith. Examples of this are kaguyahime ‘the Moon Princess’ from the Tale of the
Bamboo Cutter, sirayukihime ‘Snow White,’ utahime ‘songstress’ etc. (takenfrom Asai, 2014). These rendaku-immune words were presented to native
Japanese speakers in the unvoiced/non-rendaku (i.e., hime) and voiced/rendaku(i.e., *bime) conditions embedded in a sentence. It should be noted that the issueof rendaku immunity only arises for words etymologically classified as wago,
since kango and gairaigo words are typically rendaku-immune. Compared to therendaku condition, the non-rendaku condition for rendaku-immune words
elicited a negativity at the time range of 300-600 ms (interpreted as a LAN
component, but it could also be interpreted as a N400 component) and apositivity around 400-800 ms (interpreted as P600). The N400 is the negativeelectrical brain activity observed around 400 ms in response to meaningful andpotentially meaningful stimuli (e.g., Kutas & Federmeier, 2000) while the P600
is the positive electrical brain activity elicited by rule-based syntactic re-analysis
phenomena (e.g., Friederici, 2002; Hagoort, 2003). Since both N400 and P600
were elicited for the condition of rendaku-immune words in wago lexical stratum,these words could be conceptually activated first (N400), and resist rendaku(P600) when making a compound because of the rendaku-immune property. Thiscan be considered as an instance of etymology-specific processing.
The second pattern was observed in rendaku avoidance due to Lyman’s Law.
Kobayashi et al. (2014) presented a compound word with and without rendaku(e.g., sunakabe with no rendaku, and *sunagabe; cf. kabe ‘wall’). Lyman’s Law
systematically constrained the distribution of rendaku in all Kobayashi et al.’s
stimuli – the initial obstruent of the second element could not be voiced. Because
this resistance to rendaku is rule-based, we expect a P600 to be elicited. The ERP
result indeed showed a positivity in the time range of 400 – 800 ms (interpreted
as P600). Taking this as an evidence for implementation of Lyman’s Law,
Kobayashi et al. (2014) suggested that rule-based processing of rendaku is also
possible.
The third pattern was observed in a condition involving neither Lyman’s
Law nor rendaku-immunity. Kobayashi et al. (2014) again presented a second
element of a compound word with and without rendaku. For example, thecompound of mame ‘small’ and kai ‘shellfish’ were combined as *mamekai ‘pea
shellfish’ without rendaku, and as mamegai with rendaku. In this pair, the voiced
condition (rendaku) is correct while the voiceless condition (non-rendaku) is
incorrect. Since the voiceless condition is incorrect, E400 is expected to beobserved. In fact, the voiceless (non-rendaku) condition elicited a broad

36 Katsuo Tamaoka, Kyoko Hayakawa, & Timothy J. Vance

negativity in the time range of 300 – 800 ms (interpreted as N400), whencompared with the voiced (rendaku) condition. This result suggests that thevoiceless condition was understood as containing a semantic violation. Thus,
native Japanese speakers presumably understand these voiced (rendaku)
compound words as an activation of a whole word using a lexical-specificoperation.
Kobayashi et al. (2014) proposed the Dual Mechanism Model on the basis of
the model proposed by Pinker (1991, 1994, 1999). Pinker’s model hypothesizedthat the regular past tense is accomplished by rule-based regularity, just adding
the morphemic inflection -ed, whereas the irregular past tense is processed withanalogical memory. The ERP studies displayed the different ERP patterns forregular and irregular past tense in English (Morris & Holcomb, 2005) and inGerman (Penke, Weyerts, Gross, Zander, Münte, & Clahsen, 1997; Weyerts,
Penke, Dohrn, Clahsen, & Münte, 1997). However, Pinker’s model of verbal
processing for past tense is not directly related to phonological processing. The
ERPs of Kobayashi et al. (2014) displayed the three ERP patterns depending on
the three different types of voiced/voiceless compounds (Kobayashi et al., 2014).
We rather consider that these patterns support the triple operation processing
model for rendaku; the pattern of both the N400 (or LAN) and P600 components
for the etymology-specific operation applied to compounds with rendaku
immune second elements, the pattern of only the P600 component for therule-based operation applied to compounds involving Lyman’s Law, and thepattern of only the N400 component for the lexical-specific operation applied tocommon rendaku compounds.
3. Five predictions about rendaku and L2 learners of Japanese
In L2 Japanese language education, rendaku seems not to have received muchattention. Nakazawa, Vance, Irwin and Lyddon (2016) gave a rendaku survey to
234 Chinese-speaking students studying the Japanese language at Ming Chuan
University in Taipei, Taiwan. Regarding the knowledge of rendaku, only 18
students responded that they were ‘very familiar with it’ (7.69%). 190 students
had ‘heard of it’ (81.20%), 24 students had ‘never heard of it’ (10.26%), and 2
students gave no response (0.85%). When asked how they deal with learning
rendaku, 77 students responded ‘I just memorize’ (32.9 %), 50 students said ‘I
use strategies to some extent’(21.37%), 102 students said ‘I am not muchinterested’ (43.59%), and 5 students did not respond (2.14%). A majority ofthese L2 students had heard of rendaku, but did not pay much attention to it.
Given these responses, it might expected that, since the mental lexicon of theseL2 learners is not clearly established during the learning process, they would
display a clear contrast at least between rule-based and lexical-specific rendaku.
L2 learners might implicitly perceive rules of Lyman’s Law and the tendencies
in lexical strata (e.g., rendaku mostly occurs in wago) in the early-stages ofJapanese learning. In contrast, since they simply memorized compounds notTriple operations of rendaku processing 37

covered by these regularities, relatively rare compounds with rendaku will beacquired in the later stages as a result of memory-based lexical-specific learning.
By carrying out three experiments, the present study investigated five
predictions involving the triple operations of rendaku: (1) the rule-based
operation for Lyman’s Law, (2) the lexical-specific operation for the Lyman’s
Law exception X+basigo, involving, to some degree, an etymology-specificoperation for the first element, and (3) lexical-specific and etymology-specificfor X+zyootyuu. The present study also examined an additional factor that might
influence rendaku by comparing two groups of learners with different first (L1)languages: Chinese and Korean.
Prediction #1 involves Lyman’s Law (for details, see Itô & Mester, 1986,
2003; Kawahara & Sano, 2014; Kubozono, 2005; Kubozono & Ota, 1998; Otsu,
1980; Vance, 2005, 2007, 2008), which states that rendaku does not occur when
the second element of a compound word contains a medial voiced obstruent.
Nakazawa et al. (2016) also questioned students on their knowledge of Lyman’s
Law. Only 5 students responded themselves as ‘very familiar with it’ (2.14%),50 students had ‘heard of it’ (21.37%), 174 students had ‘never heard of it’(74.36%), and 5 students did not respond (2.14%). Since L2 learners of Japanese
had little knowledge of Lyman’s Law according to the survey by Nakazawa et al.
(2016), we might expect the L2 learners in our study not to apply this rule.
However, on the other hand, if L2 learners can implicitly internalize Lyman’sLaw, they would show sensitivity to this rule. The first experiment tests whether
L2 learners demonstrate such a sensitivity to Lyman’s Law by measuring L2
learner’s judgments for compounds containing second elements with/without
voiced obstruents and first elements of different etymologies.
Prediction #2 also involves Lyman’s Law. A well-known exception to
Lyman’s Law (Kindaichi, 1976; Otsu, 1980) is nawabasigo ‘rope ladder,’ a
compound of nawa ‘rope’ and hasigo ‘ladder’. The word hasigo contains avoiced obstruent, but native Japanese speakers frequently voice its initialconsonant in compounds: X+basigo (Ihara & Murata, 2006). Although L2
learners with advanced Japanese proficiency most probably know nawa andhasigo, they would be unlikely to know that the second element of hashigo
should be voiced as basigo when forming a compound. In such a case, following
Lyman’s Law, L2 learners will not voice the initial consonant of the second
element: nawahasigo. The second experiment tests whether L2 learners treat
X+basigo compounds as exceptions to Lyman’s Law.
Prediction #3 involves lexical strata, i.e., the etymological categories wago,
kango and gairaigo. Rendaku occurs more frequently when the second element
is a wago, whereas it rarely occurs when the second element is a kango or
gairaigo. Itô and Mester (2003) stated that “the class membership of the firstmember plays no role in the realization of linking morphemes” (p. 147). They
provided three different examples of etymological types for first elements
combined with the second elements tayori ‘news’ and hanasi ‘a story’:38 Katsuo Tamaoka, Kyoko Hayakawa, & Timothy J. Vance

ume-dayori ‘news of plum blossoms’ (ume ‘plum’+ tayori) for a wago firstelement, kankyoo-banasi ‘a talk about environment’ (kankyoo ‘environment’ +hanasi) for a kango first element, and supootsu-dayori (supootu ‘sports’ + tayori)
for a gairaigo first element (for more details see Itô & Mester, 2003, p. 147).
Based on these examples, where rendaku occurs in compounds with firstelements of three different etymological types, Itô and Mester concluded thatcharacteristics of first elements have no influence on the rendaku of a second
element. However, an experimental study by Ihara and Murata (2006) indicatedthat native Japanese speakers voice the initial consonant of hasigo ‘ladder’ more
frequently when the first element is wago (e.g., naga ‘long’: nagabasigo) thanwhen the first element is kango (e.g., tetusei ‘iron’) or gairaigo (e.g., sutenresu‘stainless steel’). Thus, the etymological type of the first element does seem toaffect rendaku in the second element, and this characteristic is considered as a
type of the etymology-specific operation. Thus, it is predicted that L2 learners ofJapanese may develop sensitivity to the lexical stratum of the first element. The
second experiment also investigates whether L2 learners demonstrate suchsensitivity.
Prediction #4 is derived from a previous study by Tamaoka and Ikeda (2010)
regarding X+zyootyuu. Syootyuu is a traditional Japanese alcoholic drink which
is usually made from barley, sweet potato, rice, buckwheat, or brown sugar. The
word syootyuu can be combined with the name of the particular main ingredient
to produce a compound word. As a result, the initial consonant in syootyuu (sy =[ɕ]) frequently becomes voiced (zy = [(d)ʑ]). In fact, native Japanese speakers
displayed high rendaku ratios in these X+zyootyuu compounds (Tamaoka &Ikeda, 2010): (1) a wago imo ‘sweet potato’+shoochuu showed the highest
frequency of voicing at 93.83%, (2) a wago kome ‘rice’+shoochuu (88.89%) anda wago soba ‘buckwheat’+shoochuu (84.69%) showed similar percentages, (3) awago mugi ‘wheat’+shoochuu (72.59%) showed a significantly lower rate ofvoicing than imo, kome or soba, and (4) a kango kokutoo ‘brownsugar’+shoochuu’ (56.44%) was the lowest. These syootyuu compounds arelexically learned in each case by native Japanese speakers. However, L2 learners
will not be so familiar to these X+zyootyuu compounds, so they may not be able
to apply rendaku to the second element syootyuu in a manner similar to native
Japanese speakers. Therefore, it is predicted that L2 learners simply combine
syootyuu without rendaku, resulting in lower rendaku ratios for all X+zyootyuu
compounds.
Prediction #5 involves the influence of the learner’s first language (L1) on
rendaku. Korean has a phenomenon called sai-sori that resembles rendaku(Labrune, 2013). The result of combining mul ‘water’ and koki ‘meat’ ismulk’oki ‘fish’ (where k is lax and k’ is tense). In contrast, Chinese does notprovide its native speakers with anything similar. Although third-tone sandhi
results in a pitch change, it does not create a segmental change. Thus, Prediction#5 is that native speakers of Korean will be more sensitive to Japanese rendaku

Triple operations of rendaku processing 39

than native speakers of Chinese. Two L2 groups (Chinese and Korean) werecompared in all three experiments.
In order to investigate these five predictions, the present study conducted
three rendaku experiments with two different groups of Chinese and Korean L1
speakers learning L2 Japanese. This study aims to show that L2 learners makeuse of three separate operations when dealing with rendaku: rule-based,
etymology-specific and lexical-specific operations.
4. Experiments
4.1 Participants
Native Chinese (N=32; 20 females and 12 males) and Korean (N=32; 17 females
and 15 males) speakers, who had been living in Japan and majoring in various
subjects at Japanese universities, participated in the three experiments reported
here. The two groups were similar in age at the time of the experiments. The 32
Chinese students had an average age of 25 years and one month with a standard
deviation of three years and two months, while the 32 Korean students had an
average age of 24 years and six months with a standard deviation of three years
and 10 months, t(62)=0.70, ns.
A questionnaire regarding Japanese learning was administered to allparticipants. The two groups were similar with respect to how long they had been
studying Japanese (six students did not report, but these responses were treatedas missing values for this calculation, and their data was still included in theexperiments): the 30 Chinese-speaking learners who responded had studied anaverage of six years and zero months with a standard deviation of two years andfour months, while the 28 Korean-speaking learners who responded had studied
an average of five years and nine months with a standard deviation of two years
and 11 months. There was no statistically significant difference in length ofJapanese study between the two groups, t(56)=0.34, ns. The two groups also did
not differ with respect to length of residence in Japan. The average for the 31
Chinese participants who responded was two years and 3 months, and theaverage for the 30 Korean participants who responded was two years and fourmonths, t(59)=0.611, ns. Self-reported Japanese usage (hours per week, speaking
and listening) was also very similar, with 31 Chinese speakers reporting an
average of 10.6 hours and 30 Korean speakers reporting and average of 10.4
hours. Again, there was no significant difference, t(59)=0.140, ns.
More importantly, the Japanese proficiency levels of all participants were
measured by a lexical knowledge test (Miyaoka, Tamaoka, & Sakai, 2011) and agrammatical knowledge test (Miyaoka, Tamaoka, & Sakai, 2014). The lexical
knowledge test consisted of 48 questions (maximum points = 48) sub-divided
into 12 wago, 12 kango, 12 gairaigo and 12 function words. This test has beenused in many previous studies, and displays a very high Cronbach’s alphareliability: N = 278, M = 22.06, α = 0.87 for native Chinese speakers learning
Japanese in China (Chu & Tamaoka, 2013), N = 127, M = 32.32, α = 0.85 for40 Katsuo Tamaoka, Kyoko Hayakawa, & Timothy J. Vance

native Chinese speakers learning Japanese in China (Yamato, Tamaoka, & Chu,
2013), N = 238, M = 27.34, α = 0.85 for native Chinese speakers learning
Japanese in China (Komori, Tamaoka, Saito, & Miyaoka, 2014), and N = 78, M= 28.42, α = 0.88 for native Korean speakers learning Japanese in Korea(Tamaoka, Miyaoka, Kim, & Lim, 2011). In the present study, no statisticallysignificant difference in lexical knowledge test scores was found between the 32
native Chinese speakers (M = 38.63, SD = 4.67) and the 32 native Koreansspeakers (M=39.00, SD=5.66), t(62)=0.29, ns. In addition, their mean scores,
showing about 80 percent accuracy, were much higher than those in the previous
studies conducted on students learning Japanese at universities in China andKorea. This suggests that the participants in the present study had rich Japanese
vocabularies.
The grammatical knowledge test consisted of 36 questions (maximum points= 36) sub-divided into 12 questions regarding morphological inflections, 12questions regarding local dependency, and 12 questions regarding complex
structure. This test also showed a very high Cronbach’s alpha reliability of N =278, M = 23.43, α = 0.88 for native Chinese speakers learning Japanese in China(Chu & Tamaoka, 2013), but a relatively lower reliability of N = 127, M = 27.86,
α = 0.69 for native Chinese speakers learning Japanese in China (Yamato,
Tamaoka, & Chu, 2013). No significant difference in scores on the grammaticalknowledge test was found between the 32 native Chinese speakers (M = 31.97,
SD = 2.13) and the 32 native Koreans speakers (M = 32.69, SD = 2.26), t(62)=1.31, ns. The mean scores of both L1 groups were about 90 percent accuracy,much higher than the previous studies conducted on students at universities in
China. This suggests that the participants in the present study had an advanced
understanding of Japanese grammar.
The Chinese and Korean learners of Japanese in the present study weresimilar in multiple respects and had attained highly advanced lexical andgrammatical knowledge, which makes it possible to directly compare theresponses of these two groups in the three rendaku experiments.
4.2 Experiment 1 – Rule-based operation of Lyman’s Law
The phonological process of rendaku is not introduced systematically in Japanese
language education for foreign students at Chinese and Korean universities. As
reported by Nakazawa et al. (2016), Chinese L1 speakers learning L2 Japaneselack conscious awareness of rendaku, although they are somewhat aware of
rendaku. Therefore, the participants in the present study were expected to havelittle knowledge of Lyman’s Law.
4.2.1 Stimuli
Experiment 1 used eight compounds: four with and four without a voiced
obstruent in the second element. The compounds with a voiced obstruent in thesecond element were 黒羊 kuro+hituzi‘black sheep,’親雀 oya+suzume‘parent

Triple operations of rendaku processing 41

sparrow,’鉄釘 tetu+kugi‘iron nail,’and 合鍵 ai+kagi‘duplicate key’. Lexical
stratum (wago, kango, or gairaigo) was determined for each element. Word
frequency was also recorded, based on the Mainichi Newspaper corpus(containing all articles published between 2000 and 2010). Finally, each item’slevel on the Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) created by the JapanFoundation and Association of International Education, Japan (2004) was
determined (1st to 4th, or 0 for unlisted items). The lexical stratum, frequency,
and JLPT level of each item are as follows: oya (wago, 24166, 2nd), suzume(wago, 1339, 0), tetu (kango, 5128, 2nd), kugi (wago, 2014, 2nd), a(u) (wago,
9331, 3rd), kagi (wago, 10653, 4th), kuro (wago, 37153, 4th), hituzi (wago, 2629,0), huru(i) (wago, 4101, 4th), and tanuki (wago, 865, 0). The compounds with novoiced obstruent in the second element were 歯車 ha+guruma ‘gear,’ 生魚
nama+zakana ‘raw fish,’ 蜜蜂 mitu+bati ‘honeybee’ and 古狸 huru+danuki‘old raccoon’. The lexical stratum, frequency, and JLPT level of theseelements are: ha (wago, 4591, 4th), kuruma (wago, 29746, 4th), nama (wago,
7382, 2nd), sakana (wago, 7716, 4th), mitu (kango, 714, 2nd), and hati (wago,
670, 0). Although four of the elements were not included in the JLPT, theseelements are considered familiar, high-frequency words or morphemes.
4.2.2 Procedure
All participants were presented with two versions of the compound and asked to
select which was correct: the compound with or without voicing of the initialconsonant of the second member of the compound. For example, 生 魚
nama+zakana was written in kanji and hiragana as 生 (なま) ＋ 魚 (さかな).
The two choices were presented in hiragana:なまさかな namasakana (without
rendaku) and なまざかな	 namazakana (with rendaku). Participants were asked
to check one pronunciation or the other for each item. This same method was
employed in all three experiments. Table 1 shows the number of students who
selected each pronunciation for each item. The label “voiced” denotes thepronunciation with rendaku, i.e., with a voiced consonant at the beginning of thesecond element, and the label “voiceless” label denotes the pronunciation
without rendaku, i.e., with a voiceless consonant at the beginning of the second
element.
4.2.3 Analysis and results
In order to determine the strength of the factors influencing the voiced/voicelessdecisions, a decision tree analysis was used in the present study. A decision tree
analysis depicts the results in a tree-like graph referred to as a dendrogram.
Decision trees are commonly used in operations research to help identify astrategy most likely to reach a goal. In the present study, a decision tree analysis(more specifically, a classification tree analysis for predicting a categoricalvariable; IBM SPSS Statistics Version 21.0) with the chi-squared automatic

42 Katsuo Tamaoka, Kyoko Hayakawa, & Timothy J. Vanceinteraction detector (CHAID) algorithm was used to predict voiced/voiceless (i.e.,±rendaku) decisions by three variables: (1) first language (e.g., L1 language), (2)presence or absence of a medial voiced obstruent in the second element of thecompound, and (3) the identity of the four different words of each type, the two
types being with or without a voiced obstruent in the second element. The
decision tree analysis also provided an overall estimate of relative risk. In thisanalysis, it was 24.02% with a standard error of 1.89%, suggesting that 78.98%
of voiced/voiceless decisions were correctly classified by the three variables.
Table 1Frequencies of voiced/voiceless decisions by Chinese and Koreans in Experiment 1

Note: Gray-colored columns indicate correct responses. White-colored columns indicate
incorrect responses

The results of the decision tree analysis are depicted in the decision tree
dendrogram in Figure 1. The dendrogram clearly indicates that, regardless of L1(automatically excluded in the tree), all participants were likely to avoid applying
rendaku in compounds containing a voiced obstruent in the second element:
28.91% for compounds with a voiced obstruent in the second element (Node #1),
versus 77.73% for compounds without (Node #2) [χ2(1)=122.61, p<.001]. The
difference in the rendaku percentage between the two categories was very large(48.82%), supporting the conclusion that Lyman’s Law is a rule-based principle
adhered to even by L2 learners of Japanese. This result was not related to a
speaker’s L1.
The factor of stimulus differences ranked below the robust factor of
Lyman’s Law in the dendrogram. The detailed differences among stimulus
compounds are shown in Figure 1 for both types of compound (i.e., those withand those without a medial voiced obstruent in the second element). In the caseof compounds involving Lyman’s Law (inclusion of a voiced obstruent in thesecond element), the compound with the kango first element tetu (56.25%) was
voiced more frequently than the compounds with the wago first elements (seeNode #5 in Figure 1). This pattern indicates that the wago first elements wereTriple operations of rendaku processing 43

recognized and favored the voiceless form in accordance with Lyman’s Law. In
contrast, in the case of compounds without a voiced obstruent in the second
element, the kango first element mitu (and the wago huru) showed a lower
rendaku ratio of 65.62%, compared to the high ratios for the wago first elements,ha (100%) and nama (79.69%). These results partly support sensitivity toetymology.
4.2.4 Discussion
Regardless of the participant’s L1, Experiment 1 showed a clear contrast
between the second elements of the compounds with/without voiced obstruents.
Those compounds without voiced obstruents displayed a high rendaku ratio,
whereas rendaku was avoided in those with voiced obstruents. Therefore, therule-based operation of Lyman’s Law was well-perceived by both L1 Chineseand L1 Korean participants. This result was different from Nakazawa et al.
(2016), which reported that L1 Chinese speakers displayed an equally highrendaku rate for both compounds with and without voiced obstruents in second
elements. The different results between the present study and Nakazawa et al.
(2016) could be caused by Japanese language proficiency. The participants in thepresent study were highly advanced in both their lexical and grammaticalknowledge of Japanese, and had been studying at a university in Japan.
Nakazawa et al. (2016) investigated students living in Taiwan, who may have nothad enough lexical knowledge to implicitly learn Lyman’s Law. In addition,
Experiment 1 partially showed a partial sensitivity to the etymology of the firstelement of the compound, suggesting that participants had some degree ofawareness of the etymology-specific operation
4.3 Experiment 2 – Lexical-item-specific rendaku: An exception to Lyman’s
Law
Experiment 2 examined the occurrence of rendaku in L2 learners’ Japanese byusing first elements from three different lexical strata (wago, kango and gairaigo)
in compound words with the second elements hasigo and hasami.
4.3.1 Stimuli
The first elements, nawa, tetusei, and sutiiru, were used with hasigo, and hagane,
and tetusei, and sutiiru were used with hasami. The lexical stratum, frequency,
and JLPT level of these elements are: nawa (wago, 461, 2nd), tetusei (kango,
552, tetu=2nd, sei=3rd), sutiiru (gairaigo, 693, 0), hagane (wago, 304, 0), hasigo(wago, 847, 2nd), and hasami (wago, 954, 2nd).

44 Katsuo Tamaoka, Kyoko Hayakawa, & Timothy J. VanceTriple operations of rendaku processing 45

4.3.2 Procedure
Experiment 2 utilized the same procedure as in Experiment 1, where participants
were asked to choose a reading with or without rendaku.
4.3.3 Analysis and results
The numbers of Chinese and Korean students who selected the rendaku
pronunciation (voiced) and the non-rendaku pronunciation (voiceless) in eachcase are reported in Table 2. A decision tree analysis was conducted to predictthe voiced/voiceless decisions by (1) native language (Chinese and Korean), (2)lexical stratum of the first element, and (3) second element (hasigo and hasami).
The overall estimate of relative risk in the analysis was 39.58% with a standard
error of 2.50%. The result of the decision tree analysis is drawn as a dendrogramin Figure 2.
Table 2
Voiced/voiceless decisions for X-hasigo and X-hasami by native Chinese andKorean speakers

	
  

	
  

As shown in the decision tree dendrogram of Figure 2, lexical strata eliciteddifferences in that wago (55.47%) in Node #1 had a higher rendaku frequency
than both kango and gairaigo together (37.11%) in Node #2 [χ2(1)=11.72, p<.01].
The decision tree automatically combined both kango and gairago, indicatingthat these two categories showed a similar ratio trend. No difference wasindicated in wago (no tree is grown from Node #1), so neither the Chinese nor
the Korean L1 group differed in rendaku decisions between the exceptional
X+basigo compound (nawa+hasigo) and non-exceptional X+basami compound(hagane+hasami). Neither L1 group had acquired nawabasigo ‘rope ladder’, an
exceptional case that must be learned as a special lexical item. Additionally, as
seen in Node #3 and Node #4 in Figure 2, Chinese learners were less likely than
Korean learners (by a margin of 13.28%) to apply rendaku in compounds withthe kango first element tetusei. This could be due to their L1, since Chinese
speakers have a clear sense of kango, which are unlikely to undergo rendaku.

46 Katsuo Tamaoka, Kyoko Hayakawa, & Timothy J. Vance

Figure 2. Lexical strata and Chinese/Korean L1 Languages for voiced/voicelessdecisions
Note: N=64 (32 Chinese and 32 Koreans).

4.3.4 Discussion
As Tamaoka, Ihara, Murata, and Lim (2009) demonstrated, native Japanese
speakers are sensitive to the lexical strata of both the first and the second element
when determining whether a specific second element will have rendaku. The
present study has also demonstrated sensitivity to lexical strata by showing thatboth Chinese and Korean L1 speakers learning Japanese differentiated wago
from kango and gairaigo when determining the distribution of rendaku. Thus,
the behavior of L2 Japanese learners is consistent with the idea that rendaku in
different lexical strata must involve an etymology-specific operation. In addition,
Experiment 2 indicated that L1 Chinese learners of Japanese were sensitive tothe lexical stratum of kango, whereas L1 Korean learners were not.
4.4 Experiment 3 – Lexical-item specific rendaku in syootyuu
The word syootyuu can be combined with the name of a particular main
ingredient to produce a compound word. Syootyuu is one of the few kango words
that undergoes rendaku. Native Japanese speakers voice the initial consonant insyootyuu frequently in such compounds (Tamaoka & Ikeda, 2010). Given thisbehavior, compounds with syootyuu as the second element are assumed to beTriple operations of rendaku processing 47

memorized as specific lexical items. Experiment 3 examined how L2 learners ofJapanese have acquired this type of lexical-specific items.
4.4.1 Stimuli
The five ingredients imo ‘sweet potato,’ kome ‘rice,’ soba ‘buckwheat,’ mugi‘barley’ and kokutoo ‘brown sugar’ were compounded with syootyuu toinvestigate whether L1 Chinese and L1 Korean learners of L2 Japanese voice theinitial consonant of the second element syootyuu in the same way as native
Japanese speakers do. The lexical stratum, frequency, and JLPT level of eachword were: soba (wago, 5947, 4th), imo (wago, 1432, 0), mugi (wago, 1379, 0),kome (wago, 5439, 3rd), kokutoo (kango, 71, 0), and syootyuu (kango, 1521, 0).
Kokutoo is less frequently used than the other words.
4.4.2 Procedure
Experiment 3 used the same procedure as with Experiments 1 and 2, whereparticipants were required to select either a rendaku (voiced) or non-rendaku(voiceless) pronunciation of each compound.
4.4.3 Analysis and results
The voiced/voiceless frequencies for X-zyootyuu rendaku are shown in Table 3.
Table 3 shows a clear overall trend for L1 Chinese and L1 Korean learners. As
with Experiments 1 and 2, Experiment 3 also used a decision tree analysis, topredict voiced/voiceless decisions by (1) the first elements of the five ingredients,
i.e., imo, kome, soba, mugi and kokutoo, and (2) the L1 (Chinese and Korean) of
the Japanese learners. The decision tree analysis drew no dendrogram (a total
voiced frequency of 79 or 24.69%, and a total voiceless frequency of 241, or
75.31%), suggesting neither the ingredients (the first elements) nor the native
language affected rendaku. In other words, no difference in rendaku ratios wasfound for the first element of the compounds, and this trend did not differ
between L1 Chinese and L1 Korean speakers. To make sure this null difference
was real, a 5 (five ingredients) × 2 (voiced or voiceless) chi-square test of
independence was separately conducted for each language group. There were nodifferences among the five ingredients for either the L1 Chinese speakers[χ2(4)=1.93, ns] or the L1 Korean speakers [χ2(4)=1.77, ns].

48 Katsuo Tamaoka, Kyoko Hayakawa, & Timothy J. Vance

Table 3
Voiced/voiceless decisions for X-zyootyuu by L1 Chinese and L1 Korean learnersof Japanese

Unlike native Japanese speakers (Tamaoka & Ikeda, 2010), the voiced(rendaku) ratios are very low for both L1 Chinese and L1 Korean speakers.
Tamaoka and Ikeda (2010) reported a rendaku trend among 405 native Japanese
speakers from six different prefectures (or regions): Kagoshima, Oita, Fukuoka,
Yamaguchi, Hiroshima, and Shizuoka. Regardless of regional differences native
speakers showed a very high rendaku rate in imo+zyootyuu at 93.83%,
kome+zyootyuu at 88.89%, soba+zyootyuu at 84.69% and mugi+zyootyuu at
72.59%, and a relatively low rate in kokutoo+zyootyuu at 56.44%. In order tomake the differences between learners of Japanese and native Japanese speakers
visually clear, voiced (rendaku) ratios are depicted in Figure 3. In contrast to thehigh frequency of rendaku in syootyuu for native Japanese speakers (Tamaoka &Ikeda, 2010), rendaku rates for L1 Chinese and L1 Korean speakers learning
Japanese were very low, ranging from 18.75% to 31.25% (see also Table 3).
4.4.4 Discussion
Experiment 3 showed very low voiced (rendaku) ratios for L1 Chinese and L1
Korean speakers. We interpret these results as indicating that these Chinese andKorean speakers learning Japanese are unaware that syootyuu can undergo
rendaku. This trend of low voiced ratios in the responses of the L2 learners
supports the theory that X-zyootyuu compounds are a part of the lexical-specificoperation. The absence of such a tendency in the L1 Chinese and L1 Koreanlearners of Japanese also supports the idea that syootyuu is not marked by thelexical-specific operation in the L2 learner’s mental lexicon. It should be notedthat kokutoo is kango, so one might wish to draw the conclusion that kango areless prone to rendaku than wago. In fact, native Japanese speakers applied
rendaku following kokutoo less frequently than following other ingredient names(Tamaoka & Ikeda, 2010). However, since the lengths of the first and second
elements affect rendaku frequency (Tamaoka et al., 2009), four-mora
CV+CV+CV+V kokutoo cannot be directly compared to the other first elements,
which all have two-mora (C)V+CV structure (imo, kome, soba, mugi).

Triple operations of rendaku processing 49

Figure 3. Voiced ratios for X-zyootyuu by L1 Chinese and L1 Korean speakers
and native Japanese speakers
Note: Thirty-two Chinese, 32 Koreans, and 405 native Japanese. The frequencies ofvoiced ratios among native Japanese speakers were taken from Tamaoka and Ikeda(2010).

5. Overall discussion
Using L1 Chinese and L1 Korean learners of L2 Japanese, the present study
attempted to demonstrate the triple operations of rule-based, etymology-specificand lexical-specific rendaku operations (see Section 2), an assumption drawn
from Kobayashi et al. (2014). This notion of triple operations is also consistent
with the phonological processing of the dual route model, addressed andassembled phonology (e.g., M. Coltheart, Curtis, Atkins, & Haller, 1993; M.
Coltheart & Rastle, 1994). With the addition of sub-lexical or sub-word
assembly of phonology (e.g., V. Coltheart & Laxon, 1990; Patterson, 1986),
assembled phonology is interpreted as two different operations, the rule-based(e.g., Lyman’s Law) and the etymological-specific (i.e., lexical strata).
Kobayashi et al. (2014) clearly displayed three different ERP patterns for thethree types of rendaku operations: the single P600 pattern for the rule-based
operation (Lyman’s Law), the double N400 (or LAN) and P600 pattern for the
etymology-specific operation, and the single N400 pattern for the lexical-specificoperation. Within the framework of the triple rendaku operation theory, five50 Katsuo Tamaoka, Kyoko Hayakawa, & Timothy J. Vance

predictions (see Section 3) for L1 Chinese and L1 Korean learners of Japanese
were evaluated using the results of the three experiments (see Section 4) reported
in the present study.
The rule-based operation of Lyman’s Law was consistently observed inboth L1 Chinese and L1 Korean speakers learning L2 Japanese. Given Lyman’sLaw (see Itô & Mester, 1986, 2003; Kawahara & Sano, 2014; Kubozono, 2005;
Kubozono & Ota, 1998; Otsu, 1980; Vance, 2005, 2007, 2008), L1 Chinese andL1 Korean speakers were expected to avoid rendaku in compounds containing avoiced obstruent in the second element (Prediction #1). Experiment 1 indicatedthat learners’ L1 background was not a factor, since both L1 Chinese and L1
Korean speakers were likely to avoid applying rendaku when it would violate
Lyman’s Law. Although differences among stimulus compounds were found(see Figure 1), these were observed within the overall robust trend governed by
Lyman’s Law. Thus, combined with results from native Japanese speakers (Ihara& Murata, 2006; Tamaoka et al., 2009), these results are consistent with the ideathat Lyman’s Law reflects a principle as a sub-case of the OCP (e.g., Goldsmith,
1976; Leben, 1973; McCarthy, 1986), which refers to the tendency to avoid
repetition of the same or similar phonological features.
The compound word nawabasigo ‘rope ladder’ is a well-known exception
to Lyman’s Law (Kindaichi, 1976; Otsu, 1980). Murata (1984) reported a highrendaku rate for native Japanese speakers in compounds with hasigo as thesecond element. Of 197 native Japanese speakers, 190 (96.45%) applied rendaku
in a compound of naga ‘long’ and hasigo ‘ladder,’ pronouncing it as nagabasigo.
However, since this word is rare, appearing only 43 times in 11 years in theMainichi Newspaper (the authors’ original calculation), compounds of the form
X+basigo will generally not be stored in the mental lexicons of L2 Japaneselearners. In other words, the participants in this study were expected not tochoose X+basigo (Prediction #2). As predicted, Experiment 2 showed that only
46.88% of Chinese learners and 59.38% of Korean learners chose the rendaku
form nawabasigo instead of nawahasigo. The behavior of the second element
hasigo in compounds must be learned as a particular fact, i.e., it islexical-specific rendaku. On the other hand, L2 learners of Japanese did exhibit
sensitivity to lexical strata (e.g., Irwin, 2005; Itô and Mester, 1986, 2003;
Kubozono, 1995) by distinguishing the first elements of wago from kango andgairaigo (Prediction #3 and see Figure 2). Contrary to Itô and Mester’s (2003)
suggestion that the lexical stratum of the first element has no effect on rendaku,
L2 learners of Japanese, like native Japanese speakers (Tamaoka et al., 2009),
exhibited sensitivity to the lexical stratum as the etymology-specific operation.
Compounds of X-zyootyuu are rather rare words for L1 Chinese and L1
Korean speakers learning L2 Japanese. In addition, the element syootyuu is akango word. This lexical category shows rendaku voicing less frequently thanwago (Irwin, 2005). Therefore, despite the high rate of rendaku in syootyuu fornative Japanese speakers (Tamaoka & Ikeda, 2010), these learners of JapaneseTriple operations of rendaku processing 51

were not expected to apply rendaku to the element syootyuu (Prediction #4).
Experiment 3 showed that the voiced (rendaku) rates for L1 Chinese and L1
Korean speakers were very low, ranging from 18.75% to 31.25% (see Table 3
and Figure 3). Thus, it appears that syootyuu compounds are lexical-specificitems which must be added to the L2 mental lexicon at a very late stage ofJapanese learning.
The only influence of L1 (Chinese vs. Korean) (Prediction #5) was adifference between kango and gairaigo in compounds ending in hasigo~basigo(see Figure 2). L1 Chinese speakers were better than L1 Korean speakers interms of not applying rendaku in compounds ending in hasami~basami when thefirst element is kango (see Figure 2). Native Chinese speakers are familiar withkanji and kango. Among the 2,060 basic two-kanji compound words in levels 4
to 2 of the Japanese proficiency test (Japan Foundation and Association ofInternational Education, Japan, 2004), 1,509 words (73.25%) areorthographically and conceptually similar across Chinese and Japanese (Park,
Xiong, & Tamaoka, 2014; Xiong & Tamaoka, 2014). This database is available
on the Web-site with a search engine (http://kanjigodb.herokuapp.com; for theusage of the search engine, see Yu & Tamaoka, 2015). Native Chinese speakers
learning Japanese may be able to detect kango more accurately than native
Korean speakers. If, as Nakagawa (1966) suggested, rendaku in kango is abarometer of ‘nativization,’ familiarity with kango may be the reason that L1
Chinese learners had a lower rendaku ratio than L1 Korean learners for X-basigo
compounds with the kango first element.
In summary, L1 Chinese and L1 Korean learners of Japanese displayed apattern of responses that support a clear contrast: consistent appearance ofrule-based (Lyman’s Law) and etymology-specific (lexical strata) rendaku
operations in the early stages of learning, followed by lexical-specific rendaku
operations (X-basigo and X-zyootyuu) at later stages, as a result of
memory-based lexical learning.
References
Asai, A. (2014). Rendaku seiki-no keikoo to teichaku-ka [The productivity of rendaku
sequential voicing and its fixity in frequent occurrences]. NINJAL Research Papers,
7, 27–44.
Chu, X., & Tamaoka, K. (2013). Chuugokujin nihongo gakushuusha-niyoru goi/bunpoo
chishiki kara jutsubu koozoo-no rikai-o chuukai-toshita dokkai-eno ingakankei
moderu-no kenshoo [An investigation of causal relation model fromlexical/grammatical knowledge via understanding of predicate structure to reading
comprehension by native Chinese speakers learning Japanese]. Kotoba-no Kagaku[Studia Linguistica], 26, 5–24.
Coltheart, M., Curtis, B., Atkins, P. & Haller, M. (1993). Models of reading aloud:Dual-route and parallel-distributed processing approaches. Psychological Review,100(4), 589–608.

52 Katsuo Tamaoka, Kyoko Hayakawa, & Timothy J. Vance

Coltheart, M., & Rastle, K. (1994). Serial processing in reading aloud: Evidence fordual-route models of reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 20(6), 1197–1211.
Coltheart, V., & Laxon, V. J. (1990). The development of phonological mediation inreading comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 5(2), 81–104.
Friederici, A. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends
in Cognitive Sciences, 6(2), 78–84.
Fukuda, S. E., & Fukuda, S. (1994). To voice or not to voice: The operation of rendaku in
the Japanese developmentally language-impaired. McGill Working Papers in
Linguistics, 10(1-2), 178–193.
Fukuda, S. E., & Fukuda, S. (1999). The operation of rendaku in the Japanese specificallylanguage-impaired: A preliminary investigation. Folia phoniatrica et logopaedica,[International Journal of Phoniatrics, Speech Therapy and Communication
Pathology], 51(1-2), 36–54.
Goldsmith, J. A. (1976). Autosegmental phonology. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Hagoort, P. (2003). How the brain solves the binding problem for language: aneurocomputational model of syntactic processing. Neuroimage, 20, Supplement 1,
18–29.
Haraguchi, S. (2001). On rendaku. On’in Kenkyuu [Phonological Studies], 4, 9–32.
Ihara, M., & Murata, T. (2006). Nihongo-no rendaku ni kansuru ikutsuka-no jikken [Someexperiments on sequential voicing]. On’in Kenkyuu [Phonological Studies], 9, 17–24.
Irwin, M. (2005). Rendaku-based lexical hierarchies in Japanese: The behavior of
Sino-Japanese mononoms in hybrid non compounds. Journal of East Asian
Linguistics, 14(2), 121–153.
Irwin, M. (2009). Prosodic size and rendaku immunity. Journal of East Asian Linguistics,
18(3), 179–196.
Irwin, M. (2011). Loanwords in Japanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Irwin, M. (2012). Rendaku dampening and prefixes. NINJAL Research Papers, 4, 27–36.
Irwin, M., & Miyashita, M. (2016). The rendaku database v2.7. Downloadable from theWeb-site, http://www-h.yamagata-u.ac.jp/~irwin/site/Rendaku_Database.html
Itô, J., & Mester, A. (1986). The phonology of voicing in Japanese: Theoreticalconsequences for morphological accessibility. Linguistic Inquiry, 17(1), 49–73.
Itô, J., & Mester, A. (2003). Japanese morphophonemics: Markedness and word structure(Linguistics Inquiry Monograph Forty-one). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Japan Foundation and Association of International Education, Japan (2004). Nihongo
nooryoku shiken shutsudai kijun (kaitei-ban) [Japanese language proficiency test:
Test content specifications (revised edition)]. Tokyo: Bonjinsha.
Kawahara, S., & Sano, S. (2014). Testing Rosen’s Rule and strong Lyman’s Law.
NINJAL Research Papers, 7, 111–120.
Kindaichi, H. (1976). Rendaku-no kai [Solution of sequential voicing]. Sophia linguistics(published by Sophia University, Tokyo), 2, 1–22.
Kobayashi, Y., Sugioka, Y., & Ito, T. (2014). Rendaku (Japanese sequential voicing) as
rule application: An ERP study. NeuroReport, 25(16), 1296–1301.
Komori, K., Tamaoka, K., Saito, N., & Miyaoka, Y. (2014). Daini genngo-toshite
Nihongo-o manabu chuugokugo washa-no nihongo-no kanjigo no shuutoku-ni
kansuru koosatsu [The acquisition of Japanese kanji compound words by Chinese
native speakers learning Japanese as a second language]. Chuugokugo

Triple operations of rendaku processing 53

Washa-notameno Nihongo Kyooiku Kennkyuu [Research of Japanese Education for
Native Chinese Speakers Learning Japanese], 5, 1–16.
Kubozono, H. (1995). Gokeisei to on’inkoozoo [Lexical formation and phonologicalstructure]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Kubozono, H. (2005). Rendaku: Its domain and linguistic conditions. In J. van de Weijer,
K. Nanjo, & T. Nishihara (Eds.), Voicing in Japanese (pp. 5–24). Berlin, Germany:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Kubozono, H., & Ota, S. (1998). On’in koozoo-to akusento [Phonological structure andaccents]. Tokyo: Kenkyūsha.
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use
in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(12), 463–470.
Labrune, Laurence (2013). Rendaku in cross-linguistic perspective. Paper presented at the
3rd International Conference on Phonetics and Phonology. NINJAL, Tokyo, 22
December 2013.
Leben, W. R. (1973). Suprasegmental phonology. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
McCarthy, J. J. (1986). OCP effects: Gemination and antigemination. Linguistic Inquiry,
17(2), 207–263.
McCawley, J. D. (1968). The phonological component of a grammar of Japanese. The
Hague: Mouton.
Miyaoka, Y., Tamaoka, K., & Sakai, H. (2011). Nihongo goi tesuto-no kaihatsu-to
shinraisei: Chuugokugo-o bogo-tosuru nihongo gakushuusha-no deeta-niyoru tesuto
hyooka [Developing Japanese lexical knowledge test and its reliability: Testevaluation by data of native Chinese speakers learning Japanese]. Hiroshima Keizai
Daigaku Kenkyuu Ronbunshuu [Bulletin of Hiroshima University of Economics],
34(1), 1–18.
Miyaoka, Y., Tamaoka, K., & Sakai, H. (2014). Nihongo-no bunpoo nooryoku tesuto-no
kaihatsu-to shinraisei: Nihongo gakushuusha-no deeta-niyoru tesuto hyooka[Developing Japanese grammatical ability test and its reliability: Test evaluation bydata of Japanese learners]. Hiroshima Keizai Daigaku Kenkyuu Ronbunshuu [Bulletinof Hiroshima University of Economics], 36(4), 33–46.
Morris, J., & Holcomb, P. J. (2005). Event-related potentials to violations of inflectionalverb morphology in English. Cognitive Brain Research, 25(3), 963–981.
Murata, T. (1984). Nihongo-no rendaku-ni tsuite [On rendaku in the Japanese language].
A handout of the talk presented at the meeting of Fukuoka Linguistic Society.
Nakagawa, Y. (1966). Rendaku rensei (kashoo) -no keihu [A genealogy of sequential
voicing and sequential non-voicing (working label)]. Kokugo Kokubun [Japanese
Language and Literature], 35(6), 302–314.
Nakazawa, N., Vance, T. J., Irwin, M., & Lyddon, P. A. (2016). Rendaku awareness ofJapanese learners in Taiwan: Students at Ming Chuan University. In T. J. Vance &M. Irwin (Eds.), Sequential voicing in Japanese compounds: Papers from the
NINJAL rendaku project (pp. 43–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Okumura, M. (1955). Rendaku. In Kokugogakkai (Ed.) Kokugogaku jiten (pp. 961–962).
Tokyo: Tokyodo.
Otsu, Y. (1980). Some aspects of rendaku in Japanese and related problems. In Y. Otsu
and A. Farmer (Eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 2: Theoretical Issues inJapanese Linguistics, 207–227.

54 Katsuo Tamaoka, Kyoko Hayakawa, & Timothy J. Vance

Park, S., Xiong, K., & Tamaoka, K. (2014). Dookei niji kanjigo-no hinshisei-ni kansuru
nikkanchuu deeta beesu [A database of grammatical categories fororthographically-similar two-kanji compound words among the Japanese, Korean
and Chinese languages]. Kotoba-no Kagaku (Studia Linguistica), 27, 53–111.
Patterson, K. (1986). Lexical but nonsemantic spelling? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 3(3),341–367.
Penke, M., Weyerts, H., Gross, M., Zander, E., Münte, T. F., & Clahsen, H. (1997). How
the brain processes complex words: an event-related potential study of German verb
inflections. Cognitive Brain Research, 6(1), 37–52.
Pinker, S. (1991). Rules of language. Science, 253(5019), 530–535.
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: William Morrow.
Pinker, S. (1999). Words and rules: The ingredients of language. New York: Basic Books.
Rosen, E. R. (2001). Phonological processes interacting with lexicon: Variable andnon-regular effects in Japanese phonology. Doctoral dissertation, University of
British Columbia, Canada.
Takayama, T. (1999). Shakuyoogo-no rendaku/koo’onka-ni tsuite [Regarding rendaku onalphabetic loanwords]. Report of the special research project for the typologicalinvestigation of languages and cultures of the East and West, 1, 375–385.
Tamaoka, K., & Ikeda, F. (2010). Whiskey or Bhiskey?: Influence of first-element anddialect region on sequential voicing of shoochuu. Gengo Kenkyuu, 137, 65–79.
Tamaoka, K., Ihara, M., Murata, T., & Lim, H. (2009). Effects of first-element
phonological-length and etymological-type features on sequential voicing (rendaku)
of second elements. Journal of Japanese Linguistics, 25, 17–38.
Tamaoka, K., Miyaoka, Y., Kim, S., & Lim, H. (2011). Kankokugo-o bogo tosuru
Nihongo gakushuusha-no goi chishiki-ga onomatope-no shuutoku-ni ataeru eikyoo[Influences of lexical categories on acquisition of sound-symbolic words by native
learning Japanese]. Gengo Kyooiku Hyooka Kenkyuu [Assessment and Evaluation in
Language Education], 2, 36–41.
Vance, T. J. (1979). Nonsense-word experiments in phonology and their application to‘rendaku’ in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
Vance, T. J. (1987). An introduction to Japanese phonology. Albany: State University of
New York.
Vance, T. J. (1996). Sequential voicing in Sino-Japanese. Journal of the Association ofTeachers of Japanese, 30(1), 22–43.
Vance, T. J. (2005). Sequential voicing and Lyman’s Law in Old Japanese. Polymorphous
linguistics: Jim McCawley’s legacy (pp. 27–43). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vance, T. J. (2007). Have we learned anything about rendaku that Lyman didn’t alreadyknow? In B. Frellesvig, M. Shibatani, & J. C. Smith (Eds.), Current issues in thehistory and structure of Japanese (pp. 153–170). Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Vance, T. J. (2008). The sounds of Japanese. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Vance, T. J. (2014a). Rendaku to onomatope-no joogo [Rendaku and mimetic
reduplication]. NINJAL Project Review, 5(1), 32–38.
Vance, T. J. (2014b). If rendaku isn’t a rule, what in the world is it? In K. Kabata & T.
Ono (Eds.), Usage-based approaches to Japanese grammar (pp. 137–152),
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Triple operations of rendaku processing 55

Vance, T. J. (2016). Introduction. In T. J. Vance & M. Irwin (Eds.), Sequential voicing inJapanese compounds: Papers from the NINJAL rendaku project (pp. 1–9).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Weyerts, H., Penke, M., Dohrn, U., Clahsen, H., & Münte, T. F. (1997). Brain potentials
indicate differences between regular and irregular German plurals. Neuroreport, 8(4),957–962.
Xiong, K., & Tamaoka, K. (2014). Nittuu dookei niji kanjigo-no hinshisei-no taioo
kankei-ni kansuru koosatsu [A descriptive analysis of Japanese-and-Chinese
orthographically-similar two-kanji compound words according to the database ofgrammatical categories]. Kotoba-no Kagaku (Studia Linguistica), 27, 25–51.
Yamato, Y., Tamaoka, K., & Chu, X. (2013). Chuugokujin nihongo gakushuusha-no
tekisuto-no on-rain yomi niokeru goi-to bunpoo nooryoku-no eikyoo [Effects oflexical and grammatical ability for on-line text processing by native Chinese
speakers learning Japanese]. Nihon Kyooka Kyooiku Gakkai-shi [The Bulletin ofJapanese Curriculum Research and Development], 36(1), 33–43.
Yu, S., & Tamaoka, K. (2015). Nikkanchuu dookei niji kanjigo-no hinshisei webu kensaku
dezain [A Web-accessible search engine for grammatical category fororthographically-similar two-kanji compound words between Japanese, Korean andChinese]. Kotoba-no Kagaku (Studia Linguistica), 29, 43–61.

Katsuo Tamaoka
Graduate School of Languages and Cultures
Nagoya University
Japanktamaoka@lang.nagoya-u.ac.jp
Kyoko Hayakawa
Kwansei Gakuin University
Japan
hayakawa@kwansei.ac.jp
Timothy J. Vance
National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics
Japan
tjvance825@gmail.com