THE EMERGENCE OF SPEECH ACT PHRASE:EVIDENCE FROM A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF TWO JAPANESE-SPEAKINGINFANTS∗
Mayumi Dejima, Tomomi Nakatani and Keiko Murasugi
Nanzan University

1.
1.1.

Introduction
Pitch Contours before Two-Word StageIt has been reported that children at the very early stage of language acquisition
distinguish their pitch contours depending on their contexts (Dore 1974, Menn, 1975, Marcos
1987, among others). Menn (1975) reports that children make proper use of intonation
contours with babbling in specific communicative contexts. In her investigation, she foundthat children make requests and rejections with intonation contours carried by babblesequences.
Marcos (1987) also reports that there is a consistency of intonational form-meaning
association in the speech of single-word speakers. Based on her observational study with 12
infants’ Initial requests, Repeated requests, Giving, Showing and Labeling at the age of 1;5,
1;6.5, 1;8 and 1;9.5, she finds that pitch contours are distinguished in accordance with theintended meaning. In her investigation, the pitch contours for labeling and requests begin to
be differentiated at the age of 1;3-1;4. Rising tones are more frequent for requests and falling
tones for labeling.
Nakatani (2005) also observes the differentiation of the pitch contours of the babblingand one-word utterances based on her longitudinal observation of Niko, a Japanese-speaking
girl at the age of 1;2 to 2;1. She reports that the babbling and one-word utterances of Niko areassociated with the rising intonation contour for requests and interrogatives and the lowering
intonation contour is found with declaratives. For example, in (1a), Niko was reading a
picture book with her mother, and she asked a question using babbling with rising contour.
However, in (1b), Niko replied with the falling contour when she was satisfied with the* This paper was presented at TsingHua-CUHK-Nanzan Joint Workshop on Language Acquisition
held at Nanzan University on September, 18, 2008. This work is an extension of Murasugi and
Nakatani (2005), presented at GLOW in Asia (Delhi). We would like to thank Mamoru Saito, Thomas
Lee, Masatake Arimoto, Kensuke Takita, Koji Sugisaki, Chisato Fuji, and the audience in theworkshop for their questions, comments, and suggestions. The research presented here was supported
in part by the Nanzan University Pache Research Grant I-A and by the JSPS Grant-in Aid to Murasugi(#20520397) for the study of acquisition of functional categories.
Nanzan Linguistics 5, 17-39©2009 Mayumi Dejima, Tomomi Nakatani, and Keiko Murasugi

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009

answer that the mother gave. We consider that those utterances are declaratives.
(1)

Situation: Niko (1;7) is reading a picture book with her mother. She looks at a page
with a lot of washing hanged out on the line.
a.

Niko:

[a↑a↑] + (pointing to an apron)

Mother: Kore wa Aa-tyan no epuron.
this Top Aa-tyan’s apron‘This is Aa-tyan’s apron.’Niko:[a↑a↑] + (pointing to a pair of trousers)

Mother: Kore wa Aa-tyan no zubon.
this Top Aa-tyan’s trousers‘This is Aa-tyan’s trousers.’
b.

Niko:

[a:↓a:↓a:↓]Mother: Un, un, un.
yes yes yes‘Yes, yes.’
Niko:[a:↓a:↓a:↓]Figure 1 and 2 is the result of the PRAAT analysis. As shown in Figure 1, the pitch of thesecond utterance edge is associated with rising contour. On the other hand, as shown in
Figure 2, the pitch contour of the declaratives in babbling is falling, and the pitch is lower
than that of request.
Figure 1. F0 contour (pitch contour) of the utterance of babbling [a↑a↑] in request context
uttered by Niko at 1;7.
Niko_Request__a_a__mono
0.00120780142
600

0.550376552

500
Pitch (Hz)

400
300
200
100
a

a

0.0012080.5504
Time (s)-18-The Emergence of Speech Act Phrase (M. Dejima et al.)Figure 2. F0 contour (pitch contour) of the utterance of babbling [a:↓a:↓a:↓] in declarative
context uttered by Niko at 1;7.
Niko_Declarative__a-a-a-__mono
1.17813009
3.21215346

500
400
Pitch (Hz)

300
200
75
aaa

(M)

aaa

0

4.094
Time (s)The pattern of intonation in one-word utterances is almost parallel with that of babbling. (2a)is an example of interrogatives and (2b) is an example of declaratives.
(2)

Situation: Niko (1; 10) is reading a book.
a.

Niko:

[nena] (=sister’s name)[a: tan] (=mother)[nn:↑nn:↑] + (pointing to a pair of pants in a book)

Mother: Aa-tyan
Aa-tyantowithonazi.
same‘It is the same as Aa-tyan’s pants.’
b.

Niko:

[ne na↓][a: tan↓]In (2a), Niko wanted to ask whether those pants were Nena’s, her sister, and Aatan’s, hermother, properties or not with rising contour. In contrast, in (2b), after her mother replied toher question, she uttered [nena, a: tan] again with satisfaction with falling contour. Figure 3
and 4 are their PRAAT analysis. The pitch contour of each one-word for request is rising at
the end of the utterance as shown in Figure 3, while that is falling in the declaratives asshown in Figure 4.

-19-

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009

Figure 3. F0 contour (pitch contour) of the utterance of one-word utterance [nena a: tan] inrequest context uttered by Niko at 1;10.
Niko_Request__ne_na_a-tan__mono
1.79740154
2.0624835

Pitch (Hz)

600

75
nena

a:tan

1.524

2.456
Time (s)Figure 4. F0 contour (pitch contour) of the utterance of one-word utterance [nena a: tan] indeclarative context uttered by Niko at 1;10.

Pitch (Hz)600

Niko_Declarative__nena_a0.664171539
tan_ 0.815835845

75
nena

a:tan

0.001575

1.861Time (s)1.2.

Continuity Hypothesis

How does the infants’ knowledge of speech act differentiated by the intonation and pitch
succeed to their syntax? According to Snow (2006), the intonation of their target grammar
starts to appear after the two-word utterances. Snow (2006) argues that “the milestone eventin children’s acquisition of expressive syntax is the appearance of two-word combinations at
about 18 months, which coincides exactly with the dramatic growth in intonation that wasobserved in this and other studies. (p.294)” Contra Snow, Prieto and Varnell (2007) discusses
that children’s emerging intonation is largely independent of grammatical development on thebasis of the observation of four Catalan-speaking children from 12 to 26 months. Despite thefact that the start of the two-word period was so different across the two groups of children,
they did not find a substantial difference in the production of nuclear pitch accents andboundary tones. However, they conclude that the infants’ meaningful intonation patterns
depend on adult interpretation of infants’ vocalization, and the interpretation is influenced on
the intonation patterns of the target languages. We call this the Discontinuity Hypothesis.
On the other hand, some researchers claim that infants’ intonation patterns reflect thegrammatical knowledge that they obtain innately. On the line of their theory, controlledintonation is the indication of the finite grammar and it remains in their speech. That is, there-20-

The Emergence of Speech Act Phrase (M. Dejima et al.)is continuity between child languages and adult languages. We call this the Continuity
Hypothesis. For example, Murasugi and Nakatani (2005) argue that the representation of theintended meaning starts before the onset of the single-word utterances, even though the adultlexicon is invisible and the utterances are not verbally syntactically structured. The
combination of vocalization with intonation and gestures convey the propositions in babblingand single-word period by controlling intonation and gestures. They propose that theintonation and gestures carry the function that functional categories eventually take care of in
the adult grammar and then, the intended meaning is associated with sound. Murasugi and
Nakatani’s analysis can be schematized as in (3). Children realize their syntax and lexicon byusing intonation and gestures to connect intended meaning and sound, and link the discourse
and the utterance. Demuth and McCullough (2008) examine the emergence of articles in five
English-speaking one- to two-year-olds. They propose that the variability in children’s early
article use depends on phonological constraints rather than syntactic or semantic limitations.
This suggests that there is a stage where children cannot represent the syntactic morphemes
just like adults’, despite the fact that they have the knowledge of it. From this perspective, we
could predict that the meaningful intonations could be involved in the grammatical operations,even though they are invisible at the babbling and one-word stage, supporting the Continuity
Hypothesis.
(3)

a.

Child
Intended Meaning

b.

Sound

Syntax

Sound

Adult
Intended Meaning

1.3.

Intonation
Gestures

Adult Language

Then, what makes the sentence decide on its sentence type in adult language? Many
researchers have said that it gets involved in the CP layers. Rizzi (1997) proposes “CP layers
hypothesis” under which CP is a set of some independent projections such as Force, Topic,
Focus, and Finite projections, and these projections are in layers. Force works together with
Finiteness and specifies types of each sentence such as declarative, question, exclamative, forexample. According to Rizzi (1997), CP works as the interface both with discourse andproposition. CP connects the upper structure, discourse, with the lower structure, proposition.
Among those projections in the CP layers, the top-most layer projection, Force, is in chargeof the interface with discourse, and this is the part relevant in the analysis we follow.

-21-

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009

1.3.1.

Speech Act Phrase

Basically assuming Rizzi’s idea, Speas and Tenny (2003) discuss more closely theinteraction between syntax and discourse. They propose that there is a phrase on the top of thesyntactic structure called Speech Act Phrase. It corresponds to Force phrase in Rizzi’s sense,and has a function to fix the notion of the point of view of the sentence, anchoring the
proposition of the sentence in the interface with discourse.
Speech Act Phrase has three kinds of discourse-related roles: Speaker role, Addresseerole, and Utterance Content role. These roles are universally available in human grammars
like thematic roles, and responsible for the relation between syntax and discourse. Speech Act
Phrase has a structure which is similar to the vP-shell structure in the sense of Larson (1988),
and the three relevant roles are realized as described in (4) below. To be more precise,Utterance Content role is a role assigned to the phrase called Sentience Phrase which occurs
below Speech Act Phrase. Sentience Phrase is a projection which is associated both with theproposition of the sentence and Speech Act Phrase. And, the role which controls the
Utterance Content role will be responsible for the anchor of the point of view of the sentence.
(4)

Declaratives
Speech Act Phrase; SAPSASPEAKERSASA*UTTERANCE CONTENT(Sentience Phrase)
ADDRESSEESA*
SA*

Speas and Tenny claim that (4) indicates the structure of declaratives. In (4), the Speaker role
c-commands the Utterance Content role. In the Speech act phrase, the Speaker role controls
the Utterance Content role, and this indicates that the speaker is the anchor of the point ofview in this sentence.
1.3.2.

Interrogative Flip

Then, what happens when the speaker is not the anchor of the point of view, but theaddressee is the anchor instead? For example, questions (interrogatives) are different fromdeclaratives in that the anchor of their point of view is the addressee, not the speaker. Speas
and Tenny (2003) propose that the switching the anchor is induced by a syntactic operation.
In the recent work, Tenny (2006) named this operation “Interrogative Flip.” They proposethat “switching a declarative sentence to an interrogative sentence involves a simple flip of
the Utterance Content role with respect to the discourse participants (speaker and addressee).”According to them, Interrogative flip is a completely syntactic operation, parallel to the one-22-

The Emergence of Speech Act Phrase (M. Dejima et al.)given for dative shift by Larson (1988): The Addressee role moves up from the complement
position to the specifier position of the lower head, and the former specifier (the Utterance
Content role) is demoted to an adjoined position.
Now, how are interrogatives explained under this analysis? In the structure in (5), theAddressee role moves to the spec position above the Utterance Content role. The Addressee is
now the closest c-commander of the Utterance Content, and thus controls it. Therefore, theAddressee becomes the anchor of the point of view in interrogatives.
(5)Interrogatives
Speech Act Phrase; SAPSASPEAKERSASA*

ADDRESSEESA*UTTERANCE CONTENT(Sentience Phrase)tADDRESSEE

SA*
SA*

In request and imperative sentences, the anchor of the point of view is the addressee justlike the interrogatives. In this case too, the Addressee role undergoes the Interrogative Flip, as
indicated in (6). Interrogatives on one hand and requests and imperatives on the other differ inthat requests and imperatives are associated with nonfinite Sentience Phrase, indicated as [finite] in (6), while interrogatives are associated with a finite argument.
(6)

Imperatives
Speech Act Phrase; SAPSPEAKERSASA

ADDRESSEESA*SA*UTTERANCE CONTENT(Sentience Phrase [-finite])tADDRESSEE
1.3.3.

SA*SA*

Speech Act Phrase in Japanese

Tenny (2006) develops this framework and compares declaratives and interrogatives in-23-

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009

Japanese. Japanese declaratives have particles yo while interrogatives have ka, and they
appear sentence-finally at the right periphery. These particles indicate whether the sentence isdeclarative or interrogative. Given the fact, Tenny (2006) conjectures that these particles are
the overt realizations of Speech Act head.
According to Tenny (2006), a declarative sentence such as Watasi wa samui yo (I feelcold) has a structure as illustrated in (7).
(7)

Japanese declarative sentence: Watasi wa samui yo (I feel cold)
Speech Act Phrase; SAPSA

SPE[+d.p][+speaker]
SA

SA*

UTTERANCE CONTENTSA*(Sentience Phrase; SP)
ADD [+d.p][-speaker] SA* yo
KNOW[+sentient]Swatasi[+sentient][+d.p]
SS*
proposition(IP)context
t watasi[+sentient][+d.p]

S*S*

In a broad way, watasi (I) in the propositional phrase (IP), with [+sentient] and [+discourse
participant] features, moves to the specifier position of the Sentience Phrase and is associatedwith [+sentient] of Seat of Knowledge role, which occurs within Utterance Content role. At
the same time, [+discourse participant] feature of watasi is associated with that feature of the
Speaker role. Watasi finally is also associated with [+speaker] in the Speaker role. Then, thesentence is licensed as declarative.
Tenny (2006) also shows the structure of Japanese interrogative sentences like Anata wasamui ka (Do you feel cold?). In (8), anata (you) moves to the specifier position of theSentience Phrase, and is associated with the [+sentient] of Utterance content role there.
Notice that the Speech Act Phrase performs the Interrogative Flip in this case. Hence, theclosest c-commander of the Utterance content role is the Addressee role, not the Speaker role.
Thus, anata is associated with [+discourse participant] and [-speaker] of the Addressee role inthis case, and the sentence is licensed as interrogative.

-24-

The Emergence of Speech Act Phrase (M. Dejima et al.)(8)

Japanese interrogative sentence: Anata wa samui ka (Do you feel cold?)
Speech Act Phrase; SAP
SPE[+d.p][+speaker]
SA

SA
SA*

ADD [+d.p][-speaker]

SA*

UTTERANCE CONTENT(Sentience Phrase; SP)

SA*
tADD

KNOW[+sentient]
anata[+sentient][+d.p]
S

S
S*

proposition(IP)context
t anata[+sentient][+d.p]
1.4.

SA* kaS*
S*

Goal of the StudyIn this paper, we first examine how infants control pitch contours in babbling and oneword stage based on the longitudinal studies with two Japanese-speaking children from 0 to 2.
In section 3, we report the results of our observation. Infants can control the pitch contours
for requests, interrogatives, declaratives and exclamatives at the babbling and one-word stage,
replicating the results of the previous studies. Based on the results, in section 4, we firstsummarize our descriptive findings, then we argue that the infant’s differentiation of theirintonation contours is best analyzed as involving manipulation of Speech Act Phrase,
supporting the Continuity Hypothesis. We discuss how the child intonation system isinvolved in syntactic development using the framework of syntax-discourse interface
proposed by Speas and Tenny (2003). We propose that infants at the pre-verbal stage alreadyhave Speech Act Phrase and their intonation is part of the representation of it. Then, we argue
whether children share the same intonation system as adults’ or not, and suggest thecontinuity in intonation system from the beginning of the language acquisition. Section 5
concludes the study.
2.
2.1.

MethodSubjects

This study is based on the longitudinal observation of two Japanese-speaking boys. We
observed Keitaro, from 0;2 through 1;8 and Yuta from 0;1 through 1;5. Their parents use
Japanese exclusively in the daily life.

-25-

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009

2.2.

Procedures

We constantly videotaped Keitaro for 60 minutes a week, and Yuta for 30 minutes a
week. They were videotaped with digital video cameras (Victor GR-D250 for Keitaro andSharp VL-NZ10 for Yuta). Their data was basically recorded under natural contexts at homewith their mothers, or researchers, and/or other caretakers.
2.3.

Coding

The collected data was reviewed by the researchers, and divided into 4 groups, requests,
interrogatives, declaratives and exclamatives, on the basis of acoustic properties and contexts.
We excluded the utterances which are close to crying, and we also excluded repetitions of theadults’ utterances.
Phonetic properties of each utterance are analyzed by PRAAT, especially focusing on
the pitch contours. PRAAT is software with which we can analyze, synthesize, manipulate
speech, and create high-quality pictures for the articles and the thesis. We analyzed all thesound data we collected by this software in this study.
3.
3.1.

Results
Requests

Requests often appeared in our data. The examples (9) and (10) are some of them. In thecontext described in (9), Keitaro was playing with his mother. Keitaro was holding a puppet
in his hand. He wanted the observer to manipulate the puppet for him. In this study, we regard
this situation as a typical case of request. In this context, Keitaro produced babbling such like[e,e,e] as described in (9). When Keitaro asked his mother to operate the puppet, he repeatedshort and high pitched babbling like [e,e,e]. “↑” indicates that the pitch contour is rising.
(9)

Situation: Keitaro (1;5.20) is playing with his mother in the room.
Keitaro: (Giving a puppet to mother)[e↑, e↑, e↑, o↑, o↑, o↑, o↑][o↑, o↑, o↑, o↑, o↑, o↑, o↑]Intended meaning: ‘Manipulate the puppet for me.’

The pitch of each utterance-final-edge is consistently associated with rising contour. The
intended meaning of his babbling in (9) could be kind of “Manipulate the puppet for me,” orjust “Do it.” Figure 5 shows the results of the PRAAT analysis. It shows that each utterance
has almost the same shape, and Keitaro is producing almost the same kind of [e] or [o]repeatedly, raising pitch at the utterance-edge-position.

-26-

The Emergence of Speech Act Phrase (M. Dejima et al.)Figure 5. F0 contour (pitch contour) of the utterance of babbling [e↑, e↑, e↑, o↑, o↑, o↑, o↑][o↑, o↑, o↑, o↑, o↑, o↑, o↑] in request context uttered by Keitaro at 1;5.20.
K27-5_request_e_e_e_e__1_5_20_mono

Pitch (Hz)

0
6000

75
e

e

e

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

0
Time(s)o
7.338

The example (10) is another example of request produced by Yuta at the age of 1;4. Yuta
was playing with his grandmother in the bathroom and tried to insert and take off a stopper ofa sink. However, he could not reach the stopper, so, he made a request with babbles. The
intended meaning of the utterance is ‘I want to insert a stopper.’ He made the request withrepeated babbles with rising contour. Figure 6 is the PRAAT analysis of (10).
(10)

Situation: Yuta (1;4.23) is trying to insert a stopper.
Yuta:[a↑a↑a↑a↑ a↑a↑a↑a↑]+ (reaching out his hand for a stopper.)Intended meaning: ‘I want to insert a stopper by myself.’

Mother: Hame
insert

tai
want

no?
Q

‘Do you want to insert a stopper?’
Yuta:

[a↑]
Intended meaning: ‘Yes, I want!’-27-

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009

Figure 6. F0 contour (pitch contour) of the utterance of babbling [a↑a↑a↑a↑a↑a↑a↑a↑] inrequest context uttered by Yuta at 1;4.23.
Y_1_4_23_request_mono
0.253221059

600
500
400
300
200
120

a

a

0.01102a
0.5761Time (s)The percentage of two infants’ utterances with rising and non-rising pitch contours in therequest context observed in a 60-minute session, which is randomly picked up from whole
data, is presented in Table1.
Table 1.

Percentage (number) of rising / falling pitch contours in the request context
Subject
Rising
Not Rising (Falling)
Keitaro (Total utterances=8)100%(8)0%(0)Yuta (Total utterances= 57)
93%(53)
7%(4)

3.2.

Interrogatives

We collected the data of interrogative context from Keitaro and Yuta. One of theexamples is described in (11). In (11), Keitaro was playing with his mother. He was looking
at flowers in the vase. Then he began to play with them. His mother told him not to do so.
Then, apparently, he asked back what she said. We conjecture that this would be a typicalcase of interrogatives by the infants.
(11)

Situation: Keitaro (1;4.6) is on the table, touching flowers in the vase.
Mother: Ohana wa daizi
dayo.
flowers Top precious copula Part
‘You must cherish the flowers. They are precious.’
Keitaro: [e↑] [e↑] (Then, Keitaro looks at mother.)
Intended meaning: ‘What did you say?’
Mother: N?
huh

daizi
da
mon.
precious copula Part

‘Huh? I said they are precious.’-28-

The Emergence of Speech Act Phrase (M. Dejima et al.)Keitaro: (Looking at mother) [e↑]Intended meaning: ‘What did you say?’When Keitaro asked the question to his mother, he produced short and high pitched babbling,
and its end was rising. The intended meaning could be kind of “What did you say now?”
Whenever he babbled in this question context, he produced the same pattern of utterance
whose final-edge was raised. Figure 7 shows that the babbling utterance in the interrogative
context is short and has rising pitch contour at the end.
Figure 7. F0 contour (pitch contour) of the utterance of babbling [e↑] in interrogative
context uttered by Keitaro at 1;4.6. (Circled)

Pitch (Hz)600

K21-2_interrogative_e__1_4_6_mono

0

0
e

daizi
_ _ _ _damon(_ __ M )e0Time(s)e
4.412

The next example is also considered to be interrogative. In (12), Yuta was opening apresent with his grandmother, wondering what was in it. When he looked into the bag, heuttered [a:], whose intended meaning would be ‘What’s in it?’ Then, after he found the thingsin the bag, he uttered [atta ta], which probably meant he found something in it. [atta ta] or[atta] is one of the one-words which he produced frequently at that time. Figure 8 is the
PRAAT analysis of (12). It shows the rising pitch contour.
(12)

Situation: Yuta (1;5.19) opens a bag of present.
Yuta:[a:↑] + (looking into the bag)Intended meaning: ‘What’s in it?’
[atta ta]
Intended meaning: ‘I found something in it.’-29-

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009

Figure 8. F0 contour (pitch contour) of the utterance of babbling [a↑] in interrogative
context uttered by Yuta at 1;5.19.
Y_1_5_19_Interrogative_mono
0.37033028
600

1.01439969

75
a0.3703

1.014Time (s)The percentage of two infants’ utterances with rising and non-rising pitch contours in theinterrogative context observed in a 60-minute session, which is randomly picked up fromwhole data, is presented in Table 2.
Table 2.

Percentage (number) of rising/ falling pitch contours in the interrogative context
Subject
Rising
Not Rising (Falling)
Keitaro (Total utterances=28)
100%(28)
0%(0)Yuta (Total utterances= 2)
100%(2)
0%(0)

3.3.

Declaratives

We also collected the utterances which were considered to be declaratives. In (13)Keitaro was watching his favorite movie. Suddenly the video stopped (the observer stopped
the video on purpose), and the picture he saw disappeared. Keitaro described what has justhappened in front of him by babbling [a]. The intended meaning could be kind of ‘Something
unusual has happened.’ or ‘It stopped.’(13)

Situation: Keitaro (1;4.20) is watching movie. Suddenly the video stops and the picture
disappears.
Keitaro: (Pointing at a part of the picture) [e, o, o↓][o]Intended meaning: ‘Something strange has happened.’

In this example, there is no rising pitch contour at the end of each utterance. This is the majordifference from the utterances in the request and interrogative context. Figure 9 is the
PRAAT result of Keitaro’s utterance in (13). There is no rising pitch contour at the end ofutterances.

-30-

The Emergence of Speech Act Phrase (M. Dejima et al.)Figure 9. F0 contour (pitch contour)of the utterance of babbling [e,o,o↓][o] in declarative
context uttered by Keitaro at 1;4.6. (Circled)
K22-6b_declarative_e__1_4_20__mono0

Pitch (Hz)

60

75
e

o

0

o

o
7.477

Time(s)

The example (14) is another example of declaratives produced by Yuta. In (14), Yuta
was reading a picture book by himself. Every time he turned a page, he made babbling. We
judge these utterances to be declaratives because that the book was one of his favorite and he
had read the book over and over. We consider that he was describing the content of the story
in the page such as “Here is a frog. ”Yuta pointed to a frog on the page, and produced [da:]with falling contour as Figure 10 illustrates.
(14)

Situation: Yuta (1;4.6) is reading a picture book by himself.
Yuta:[da↓] + (pointing to a frog on the page)
Intended meaning: ‘Here is a frog.’

Figure 10. F0 contour (pitch contour)of the utterance of babbling [da] in declarative context
uttered by Yuta at 1;4.6. (Circled)
Y_1_5_5_declarative_mono
0.0145836624
600

1.21606357

75
da0.01458

1.216
Time (s)The percentage of two infants’ utterances with rising and non-rising pitch contours in the
declarative context observed in a 60-minute session, which is randomly picked up from whole
data, is presented in Table 3.

-31-

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009

Table 3.

Percentage (number) of rising / falling pitch contours in the declarative context
Subject
Rising
Not Rising (Falling)
Keitaro (Total utterances=28)
0%(0)100%(28)
Yuta (Total utterances= 169)
3%(5)97%(164)

3.4.

Exclamatives

Lastly, we show the examples of exclamatives. When people describe something insurprise, they employ exclamatives. In (15), Keitaro was playing with his aunt. They wereplaying with an umbrella. First, Keitaro made a request to his aunt to open the umbrella byraising intonation, and then, his aunt opened the umbrella. What we focus here is the moment
when the umbrella was opened. She opened the umbrella and showed it to him, and he wasvery surprised at the sudden motion of the umbrella. At the moment when the umbrella wasopened, he said [oo] in admiration. We refer to the utterance made in this kind of situation as
exclamatives.
(15)

Situation: Keitaro (1;5.3) plays with his aunt with an umbrella. Keitaro’s aunt opens
the umbrella and shows it to him, and he is surprised at the motion of the umbrella.
Keitaro: (Looking at the umbrella) [oo↓]Intended meaning: ‘It’s open!’

As shown in Figure 11, there is no rising pitch contour at the end of Keitaro’s utterance in(15).
Figure 11. F0 contour (pitch contour) of the utterance of babbling [oo↓] in exclamative
context uttered by Keitaro at 1;5.3.
600

0K24-8_exclamative_ou__1_5_3__mono

75
oo
0

1.393

Time(s)Utterances in (16) are the other examples of exclamatives in babbling and declaratives in
one-word, respectively. In (16), Yuta was reading a picture book with his father. When helooked at a picture of a ladder truck, he produced [oa:] with falling contour with excitement.
Then he looked at the same truck on the page and produced [bapu], which meant ‘bus’ withfalling contour, although father told Yuta the name of the truck, a ladder truck. [bapu] is an-32-

The Emergence of Speech Act Phrase (M. Dejima et al.)overgenerated noun referring to the big square cars in general, and one of the earliest oneword utterance that Yuta acquired.
(16)

Situation: Yuta (1;5.15) is reading a picture book with his father.
Yuta:[ oa:↓] + (look at a picture of a ladder truck)
Intended meaning: ‘What a cool truck!’ [exclamative]

Father: Oo, hashigosha.
oh ladder truck‘Oh, it’s a ladder truck.’Yuta:[ bapu↓] + (look at a picture of a fire engine)
bus
Intended meaning: ‘It’s a bus.’ [declarative]

Figure 12 is the PRAAT analysis of (16). The pitch contours of both utterances, exclamativein babbling and declarative in one-word, are falling. Nakatani (2005) reports that babblingand one-word utterances shared the same intonation patterns. Our results are consistent withher report. In addition, the duration of the babble of exclamative is longer than that ofrequests and interrogatives.
Figure 12. F0 contour (pitch contour) of the utterance of babbling [oa↓] in exclamative
context uttered and the utterance of [bapu↓] by Yuta at 1;5.15.

600

Y_1_5_15_exclamatory_mono
1.04857444

0

75
oa

hashigosha (F)

bapu

0

3.087
Time (s)The percentage of two infants’ utterances with rising and non-rising pitch contours in theexclamative context observed in a 60-minute session, which is randomly picked up fromwhole data, is presented in Table 4.
Table 4.

Percentage (number) of rising / falling pitch contours in the exclamative context
Subject
Rising
Not Rising (Falling)
Keitaro (Total utterances=4)
25%(1)
75%(3)
Yuta (Total utterances= 10)0%(0)100%(10)-33-

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009

3.5.

Summary

In Table 5, we summarized the phonetic patterns of utterances produced by Keitaro andYuta depending on the context. Surprisingly, both infants shared exactly the same phonetic
properties in each context, and each sentence type is characterized by distinctive phonetic
patterns. In the context of request, the pitch contours are both rising at the end of utterances.
In addition, the utterances were made in repetition with intensity, and the duration isrelatively short. In interrogatives, the pitch contours are also rising, but the utterances are notrepeated. Then, in declaratives, the pitch contours are falling, and the duration is relatively
short. Finally, in exclamatives, the pitch contours are falling, but the duration of them isrelatively long. In addition, the utterances of exclamatives are rather intensified compared tothe declaratives.
Table 5. Summary of phonetic properties of each context
Type of
Subject
Pitch
Duration
sentence
contours
Requests
KeitaroRisingShort
Yuta
Rising
Short
Interrogatives Keitaro
RisingYuta
RisingDeclaratives Keitaro
Falling
Yuta
Falling
Exclamatives Keitaro
FallingLong
Yuta
Falling
Long
4.
4.1.

Intensity

Repetition

Intensified
Intensified
Intensified
Intensified

Repetition
Repetition
No repetition
No repetition(Repetition)(Repetition)
No repetition
No repetition

Discussion
Descriptive Findings in the Study

The present longitudinal study indicates that Keitaro and Yuta can skillfully control
the four distinctive patterns of babbling, depending on the contexts. The most crucial
phonetic property is the presence (and absence) of rising pitch contours. The subjects in thepresent study crucially control the pitch contour at very early stage of acquisition.
Our findings clearly support the claim by Nakatani (2005), Murasugi and Nakatani(2005), Murasugi and Nakatani-Murai (2007), and Nakatani-Murai (2008). Besides, we foundanother interesting fact. Keitaro and Yuta control the intonation patterns in the exclamative
context as well. Utterances produced by the subjects in the contexts of request andinterrogative are quite similar in that they both have the rising pitch contours at the end of theutterances. Unlike interrogatives and requests, declaratives and exclamatives do not involve
the rising pitch contours at the end of utterances. These phonetic findings are confirmed moreaccurately by the use of PRAAT analysis in the present study.
The results we obtained from the subjects are exactly the same despite the fact that they
were brought up in the different environment. The present results therefore reveal that there is-34-

The Emergence of Speech Act Phrase (M. Dejima et al.)uniformity in the properties of pitch contours produced by the Japanese-speaking infants
before two-word stage.
4.2.

Speech Act Phrase in Child Grammar

Now, we discuss why infants control pitch contours, and distinguish requests andinterrogatives from declaratives and exclamatives. The present data of pitch-controlled
babbling possibly indicate that some part of syntactic faculty. We suggest that children in fact
do make distinction even before two-word stage, and argue that Speas and Tenny’s (2003)
and Tenny’s (2006) theory of Speech Act Phrase would provide a natural explanation for the
infants’ distinctive use of pitch contours.
First of all, we clarify what infants know at the stage in question, as is summarized in(17). First, our descriptive findings show that infants seem to distinguish the presence orabsence of the addressee. This fact suggests that they seem to know that the notion ofaddresser and addressee is necessary to identify a sentence already.
(17)

What infants know at the stage in question:a.

Point of View:
Infants can distinguish the presence or absence of the addressee.

b.

Pitch Contour:
When the infants ask or request for something, or when they expects responses
from someone else, they produce babbling with the rising pitch contours.

c.

“Proposition”:
Ask something (Food, or their curious things) or Describe something(interesting)( but they do not talk about past or future, nor unrealistic events.)

d. “Syntax”:
No verbal “combination”
Under the theory of Speech Act Phrase, we analyze that when children produce
utterances without rising pitch contours, the Addressee role in the Speech Act Phrase does notundergo Interrogative Flip. The infants’ utterances therefore have a structure like (18). In (18),the Speaker role c-commands the Utterance Content role. The structure indicates that the
speaker is the anchor of the point of view, and the sentence is interpreted as declarative. In
other words, Speech Act head that does not perform Interrogative Flip does not trigger rising
pitch contours by hypothesis, so that the declarative utterances are produced without rising
pitch contours.

-35-Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009(18)

Child Declaratives: [a] (No Interrogative Flip →No rising intonation)
Speech Act Phrase; SAPSASPEAKERSASA*UTTERANCE CONTENT(Sentience Phrase)
ADDRESSEESA*SA*In child interrogatives, on the other hand, we analyze that Speech Act head that performs
Interrogative Flip does trigger rising pitch contours by hypothesis, so that the declarativeutterances are produced without rising pitch contours in this case. The structure ofinterrogatives that children have would be, just like adult grammar, something like (19)according to Speas and Tenny’s framework. In (19), the Addressee role moves to the specifier
position above the Utterance Content (proposition) role. The Addressee is now the closest ccommander of the Utterance Content (proposition) role. Then, the Addressee controls the
Utterance Content, and become the anchor of the point of view.
(19)Child interrogatives: [e↑] (Interrogative Flip →Rising intonation)
Speech Act Phrase; SAPSASPEAKERSASA*

ADDRESSEESA*UTTERANCE CONTENT(Sentience Phrase)tADDRESSEESA*SA*[↑]

Crucially, recall here that Speas and Tenny analyze both interrogatives and requests inthe same way with respect to the Interrogative Flip. Under their analysis, children’s pitch
contours can be interpreted as those directly reflecting the natural class of interrogatives andrequests. Children raise the pitch contour at the utterance edge for both types of utterances.
Hence, in the case of child’s requests, just like the interrogatives, the Addressee role moves tothe spec position above the Utterance Content role by Interrogative Flip. The Addressee is
now the closest c-commander of the Utterance Content argument as shown in (20). In
requests, like interrogatives, the Addressee controls the Utterance Content role, and become
the anchor of the point of view.

-36-

The Emergence of Speech Act Phrase (M. Dejima et al.)(20)Child Imperatives: [e↑, e↑, e↑, e↑] (Interrogative Flip →Rising intonation)
Speech Act Phrase; SAPSASPEAKERSASA*

ADDRESSEESA*UTTERANCE CONTENT(Sentience Phrase)SA*
tADDRESSEESA*[↑]

To summarize, the distinctive pitch contours found between requests/interrogatives anddeclaratives reflect the very early stage of child syntactic structure. At this stage, the topmost
edge of CP layers, namely Speech Act Phrase, is at least realized as we can see fromphonological properties such as pitch contours (and possibly gesture or eye gazing) employed
by infants.
4.3.

Pitch Contours in Infants’ Babbling under Continuity Hypothesis

In this section, we consider the adult pitch contours for each context. In the interrogative
sentence, the adults raise pitch contours at the sentence edge position, while they do orsometimes do not raise pitch contours at the end of the request sentences. Infants, on the other
hand, raise pitch contours at the end of both request and interrogative utterances. We
therefore also need to explain why infants, before “sentences” show up in their production,
exclusively raise the pitch contour for requests, unlike adult.
It is generally considered that the feature in the head of CP layers is responsible for the
adult pitch contour for interrogatives, request and declaratives. Several projections in thederivation are involved in the system, and the syntactic operation, such as Subject-Aux
Inversion or Fronted versus in situ wh-questions, are also associated with the pitch contour.
The pitch contours at the end of sentences are determined as a result of those proper licensing
processes of “whole syntax” including Speech Act Phrase.
Though one might say that this fact indicates that infants have different licensing systemfrom adults at the beginning of acquisition, we do not consider this is the case. We make adetailed PRAAT analysis of adults’ requests, and show that the request in full sentences
equips the falling pitch contour, while the casual request, which is not syntacticallycompleted, is actually associated with the rising pitch contour as in (21) and Figure 13.

-37-

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009(21)

Situation: Yuta’s grandmother asks Yuta to lay blocks.
Grandmother: Yuutyan, tukuttemite.
Yuutyan lay-them-up‘Yuutyan, lay them up.’

Figure 13. F0 contour (pitch contour) of the utterance ‘yuutyan, tukuttemite’ in request
context uttered by Yuta’s grandmother. (Circled)
A_Request_4__1_5_28_mono
600
500
400
300
200
Yutyan tsukutte
0.002585

0.5727
Time (s)We consider that this result indicates that what apparently looks like the child-specificintonation pattern is not in fact deviant from adults’, but is, in fact, in accordance with theintonation pattern associated with the truncated phrases in the adult grammar. We therefore
suggest that once the whole phrases of the sentence are “verbalized,” then, the children will
begin to employ the “adult-like” lowering pitch contours in request sentences. Our findings
indicate that the infants share the same intonation patterns with adults from the very
beginning of acquisition, thereby supporting the Continuity Hypothesis.
5.

Conclusion

In this paper, we examined how infants at the babbling and one-word stage controlled
their pitch contours in accordance with the context based on the longitudinal observation with
two Japanese speaking infants. We reported that the pitch contours in requests andinterrogatives rises, but in declaratives and exclamatives falls. On the basis of thesedescriptive findings, we analyzed that the infants, whose utterances are not verbally
syntactically realized, already have Speech Act Phrase and they can discriminate the sentence
type. We proposed that children do have at least the CP layers (more specifically, Speech Act
Phrase), the edge of the syntactic structure, from the beginning of acquisition, and they
verbalize it by employing phonological properties such as pitch contours, (and possibly
gestures or eye gazing) in the very early stage of acquisition. In addition, based on a detailed
PRAAT analysis, we also reported that children and adults share the same intonation patterns
from the very early stage of language acquisition. Taken together, the findings suggest that
there is continuity between pre-verbal and verbal stage.

-38-

The Emergence of Speech Act Phrase (M. Dejima et al.)References
Demuth, K. and E. McCullough (2009) “The Prosodic (Re)organization of Children’s Early English
Articles,” Journal of Child Language 36-1, 173-200.
Dore, J. (1974) “A Pragmatic Description of Early Language Development,” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 4, 343-50.
Larson, R. (1988) “On the Double Object Construction,” Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335-391.
Marcos, H. (1987) “Communicative Functions of Pitch Range and Pitch Direction in Infants,” Journalof Child Language 14, 255-268.
Menn, L. (1975) Pattern, Control, and Contrast in Beginning Speech: A Case Study in theDevelopment of Word Form and Word Function, Ph. D. dissertation, Boston University.
Murasugi, K. and T. Nakatani (2005) “The Ontology of Functional Categories,” paper presented at
Glow in Asia V, New Delhi, India, October 7.
Murasugi, K. and T. Nakatani-Murai (2007) “Very Early Language Acquisition: A View fromJapanese,” paper presented at the workshop on Early Child Phonology, Chinese Universityof Hong Kong, August 17.
Nakatani, T. (2005) The Onset of Child Language, M.A., Nanzan University.
Nakatani-Murai, T. (2008) “On the Properties of Infant Vocalization in the Japanese Pre-Verbal
Stage,” in Fujii, T., and T. Kawamura eds., Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3.2, Nanzan
University, 123-137.
Oller, D. K. (1980) “The Emergence of the Sound of Speech in Infancy,” in G. Yeni-Komshian, J.
Kavanagh, and C. Ferguson eds., Child Phonology: Vol. 1. Production, Academic Press,
New York.
Oller, D. K. (2000) The Emergence of the Speech Capacity, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah,
New Jersey.
Prieto, P. and M. M. Vanrell (2007) “Early Intonational Development in Catalan,” proceedings of
ICPhS XVI, Saarbrücken, 309-314.
Rizzi, L. (1997) “The Finest Structure of the Left Periphery,” in Haegeman, ed., Elements ofGrammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 281337.
Snow, D. (1994) “Phrase-Final Syllable Lengthening and Intonation in Early Child Speech,” Journalof Speech and Hearing Research 37, 831-840.
Snow, D. (2006) “Regression and Reorganization of Intonation Between 6 and 23 Months,” Child
Development 77, 281-296.
Speas, P. and C. Tenny (2003) “Configurational Properties of Point of View Roles,” in DiSciullo, A.
M. ed., Asymmetry in Grammar, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 315-344.
Tenny, C. (2006) “Evidentality, Experiencers, and the Syntax of Sentience in Japanese,” Journal of
East Asian Languages 15, 245-288.
Venditti, J. (2005) “The J_ToBI Model of Japanese Intonation,” in Jun, S.-A. ed., Prosodic Typology:
The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing, Oxford University Press, 172-200.

-39-