１■８８１ｆｆ■ⅡＵｆＯ■■■﹄８０︐■■■■Ｆ０ＬＤ０■ｐ７ｆＦＩｌ９

34.VariabilityOfphraSaltoneinFukuokaJapanese

IchiroOta',HitoshiNikaido2&ShOjiTakano3
IKtagosji"α【加加e庵収.此叩α";2FMIJoka.ﾉb‑mkzd"(""Ve応似､ α"；
3"b伽segak唾"〔"､昭晒j似､ α〃1.Introduction

Theaimofthispaperistoinvestigatethevariabilityofphrasaltoneobservedin
deletesalllexicalaccents(i.e.pitch‑falls)and,asaresult,combinesthemintoa
newtonalunit.Thistonalfeaturehasohenbeenatopicofargumentsonthe

１１１

FukuokaJapanese (FJ) fromavariationistperspective.Thetopicofour
discussionisanatplateauoftonewhichextendsoversome(prosodic)words,

ﾘﾉﾛ"a""〃〃ﾝﾙr"q/ro"ej"F""oAq.ﾉα""erecomposessometonal units intoalargerone(cflgarashi2007),andwesupposethat thispmcess isconditionedbysome linguisticand/orextra‑
linguisticfactors.
lnthispaper,wewillshowfiPomtheresultsofourpreliminaryquantitative
analysishowvariablethetoneofFJisandwhatfactorscanbeinvolvedinthis
tonalvariation･Tonalphenomenashouldbeahighlyphoneticissueinthatthey
willbecloselyconnectedwiththemovementofpitch, fbrexample, theup
and/ordownofpitchoccurringatthephraseboundaly.However,wehavenot
yetdoneanyelaboratedphoneticanalysiS・WhatwecanpresenthereiSthe
resultsofcategoricalanalysesbasedonauditolypel℃eptionsinwhichwhether
thepitchofprosodicphrasefallsorstaysnatwasjudged.Therefbre,wewillnot
refer tophoneticfactors, butconfineourdiscussiononlytogrammatical,
discourse,andsocialfactors.Then,wewillconcludethispaperbysuggesting
thepossibiliWoflanguagechangeintennsofaninteractivereason.
2.SociolinguisticsituationofFJ

prosodyofFJ,suchasinHayata(1985),Kubo(2001),etc.,tellingthatthistoneisfieqdentlyobsewedinutteranceswithw"words!orwiththefbnnalnoun.jo'

attheendofthetonalphrase.However, thesestudiesareratherdescription‑

ThecityofFukuokaisametmpolitanareainJapanandthepolitical,economic,
andculturalcentI℃ofKyushuarea,especiallysincethel970s・Thepresent

populationismorethanl,400,000,andstillinclpasing・Theinnuxofpopulation
fromsurroundingareasandotherregionsofJapanmayhavecausedahuge

orientedanddonotmentionitsvariability.

amountofdialectcontact・However, itisofiensaidthatsomedialectalfeatures

Q＝I…Ip…⑧
い軍陣…唾画a1℃stillwellpreservedunderthestmnginnuenceofstandardorTokyoJapanese(TJ).Evenyoungerspeakelsseemtousedistinctivedialectal fbrmsastheiridentitymarker.Thiscouldbesupportedbythefhctthattheyhaveapositive
attitudetowardtheirowndialect(cfJin‑nouchil996).Manylinguisticworks
havebeendoneonword‑levelphonology, lexical items,andgrammar,butnot｜

叫soko･wal⑩Iyuukyuu‑o】
NPNP⑳ltonekuretieyuul

VP

COMP

onthetonalprosody.
3.AnalySeSOfTonalVariation

then･TOPdayOifwiihpay‑OBjaSk(lE)tOlake，…that(they)ask(us)toiakeadayoffwithpaythen'
3.ﾉ.7Weqj"
fmmow

f隊』8

Figurel･Flattonewithoutwh‑wordsorthebnnalnoun‑"

Ontheotherhand,otherauthorssuchasKibe(2007)orOkano(1983)point

outthatthistonaiplateaucanoccurinotherconstructions・Figurelshowsan

exampleofthenattone,despitethefactthatneitherawﾙ‑wordnorthebnnal
noun @‑Io' is intheconstruction・Whathappenshereisatonespanning,aphenomenoninwhichasingletonalpattemspansmorethantwoprosodicwords.
Thisisduetodephrasing,aprosodicprocesswhichdeletestonalboundariesand

ThetonaivariationofFJisanissueofdephraSing.Whatweshoulddoistlyto
speci"linguisticand/orextra‑linguisticconstrainingconditionsfbrdephrasing.
Forthisaim,weanalysedtwocasesoftonespanning・Onewasthecasewith
dephrasingoccurringinthetonephrasewithw"‑words・Theotherdealtwithallothertokensofthetonephraseexceptfbrwh‑wordtonephrases. Inaddition,wetriedtoseewhethertheinfbnnantsusednat lexicalaccentibrpmsodicwords.
Thereasonwillbegivenin3.4.3.
3.2.Possib"co"s"vz伽応允P･I""vα"α"o〃Theconstraintsconsideredinthisstudyarethefbllowingthreefactorgroups:
◆

362

363

１１

Ota,Nikaido&Takano

しb"a6j"〃q/phmsq"o"e伽FF"AzJoAn.〃ﾌα"g(1)Linguisticfactors(grammaticalfhctors):
Lexicalandsyntacticcategoriesoftonalphrase:NP,VP,AP,w"‑words,etc.
Grammaticalfbnns:aspectualfbnns,casemarkers,complementizers
Sentencetypes:declarativeorinteITogative
Restrictivemodification(includinggenitive)(2)Socialfactors:
Generationofspeakers(3)Discoursefactors:

afatalresultfbrGoldvarbanalysis,whichpreventedusfiomsteppingintothe

Whotheutteranceisorie釦tedto？Theaddresseeornot？

3.3."ma"zﾉj"ﾌ'"'α"応Ourcorpusconsistsoftwoone‑hour‑longspontaneousconversationsbetween

RecoTdedinAu唾ust2003

SpcakerA

BomanduaisedinFukuokaci

Gender: female,Age:21
RaisedinFukuokacityfmm6tol6,
movedtoaneighbouringtown

Gender:female,Age:51
BomandIaisedinFukuokacity

Input:0.904(1)phrasefinalfbnns
complementaizer(‑Aab‑Aa"mb‑mo,‑"Ao"")quotative@‑m'(notthefbnnalnoun)
copula(tentativefbnn):R)w℃｡(2)casemarkers.‑9a', ‑"',.‑o',etc.
Ex.Dひ加廠j耐or"碑｡Whereshallwegoback?'(3)I℃strictivemodification

Ex."q""o"qwas"sz"w(genitve)
GWhatstolyalewegoingtotalkabout?'(4)uttelanceorientation

Table1.InbnnationabouttheI℃cordingsandtheinibnnantsy"':utteranceisorientedtoaddIessee
0"o':utteranceiSClearlynotorientedtoaddressec(5)genelation(young,middleage)

3.級A"ｨ"jv"･ja舵』"α es

SincethisvariabiliWoftonefitswell inthevariationistframework, threemultivariatestatisticalanalysesweredonebyGoldvarbX(Bailey&Preston
1996,Paolillo2002,Tagliamonte2006,Matsuda2006).Theresultsareshowninthetablesbelow.

TotalChi‑square=12,0956Chi‑square/Cell=0.6366

weight

[､57］
[､47］

%

N

89.3

50

80‑7

46

0.10

pI℃sencc
absenCe

0.15

62.5

10

0.57

88.7

86

range

0.42

presence
ahsen"

0.16

60

0.57

87．4

range

0.41

◎

９

SpcakerB

Gender:female,Age:21

Tbkens:114

６０

Betweenmiddleagespeakeis
RecordedinFebmary2004
Gender: fbmale,Age:49
BomandIaisedinFukuokacity

Theconceivableconstrainingfactorsandtheresultofthestatisticalanalysis
areshowninTable2・WhenthefactorweightishigherthanO.50,thefactoris
likelytopromotetheoccurrenceofthetargetvariant,inourcase,anattone. IflowerthanO､50,thefactorislikelytodisfavourit.
認ｅ２︶

Conversation2

Betweenyoungspeakem

Thosetokenswereexcludedfomtheda唾二醒配COnversationl

analysiswasdonewithPraatS.0．HoweveI;theaudioqualityofsometokens
wasnotappropriatefbrdigitaiprocessing(e.g.duetothepoorvolumeofvoice).

︑ｎｅrecomedinoneoftheauthor3oHices.

Thedivisionofphrasesfbrtheanalyseswasmadebasicallybyauditory

judgement.Whenthejudgementwasnotconfidentenough, thedigitalpitch醒錘函

peersoftwoagegroups.Oneisbetweentwocollegestudentsandtheotherbetweentwomiddleagedspeakers,workingascollegeofficers.Allarefemales.
OtherpersonaldetailsareshowninTablel.Theconversationsweredigitally
recoldedwithtwoMDrecorders,onefbreachspeaker.Bothconversationswere

multivariateanalysis.Thus,wecaITiedoutaseparateexaminationhrw"
phrases.

yes

0.64

85.7

60

no

0.28

83.7

36

rangc

0.36

young

0.63

90.4

75

middleage

0.19

70

21

rangC

0.44

Loglikelihood=‑37.384

Significance=0.049

Table2.TheI℃sultofthemultivariateanalysisoftonespanninginwh‑phascs

3.4.ﾉ.』"α伽応ﾉ:乃"eやα""i"g加Io"ep"沈むes "α腕j輻w"‑woノホ
Thenumberoftokensisll4.Theyareallthetokenswithw"‑wordsinour
wholedata.Thedomaininwhichthenattoneoccursisusuallyatonephrase
withwh‑words,andinsomecasesawholeutterance.Theboundaryoftone

usuallyhasquiteaclearpitchmovement,suchasasharpfall,ariseandfall,etc.
Thisanalysiscouldnotbedonetogetherwithothertwoanalyses,becausewithaw"‑wordintonephrase,a@knock‑out'happenedinsomefactors. @Knock‑out' is364

Theresultofthestatisticalanalysistellsusthatthepresenceofcasemarkers(0.15),restrictivemodification(0.16),speakersgeneration(middleage)(0.19)
tendtoblocktonespanning.Andtheutteranceorientationin(4)seemsa
relevantfactor; iftheutteranceisclearlyorientedtotheaddressee(0.64),tone
spanningislikelytooccur,whileifnot(0.28)itmaybeblocked・ lnaddition,phrasefinai fbnnsarenotrelevanttothisvariation・Notethatthebnnalnoun
365Ｉｑ１︲ｒＦｑＪ４６０ｐ１１１ｆ４Ｉ１４ＩＢ︑ｄｑｆ

Ota,Nikaido&Takano

I/twq6j""(yphmsq"o"ej" Awo"火叩α"e０１3.42.A"α加応2:7b"e叩α"""噌加o城"α〃Io"ep"nses
Aboutthefirst6minutesけomthebeginningofthetranscripts廿ombothconversationswereanalysed、Thenumberoftokens is407,excludingtonephraseswithw"‑words・Theresult inTable3showsthatthepresenceofthefbrmalnoun.‑Io'whoseweightscoreisO.94worksasthestrongestfactorfbr
tonespanning.Theutteranceorientationandthespeaker'sgenerationarealso
eHectivefactorsagain・Otherfactors(aspecmalfbnns,sentencetype,syntactic
categories)arenotstatisticallysignificant.
17．4

range

0．ll

(3)sentencetype(declarative,intermgative)

presen"absencc

0.94

13.2

0.46

75

50
18

range

0.48
25

14

15.6

54

declarative

16．8

0.16

yes

0.57

20
6．5

３１

others

16.9

６２７

21.8

range

contributetotheword‑leveltonefbnnation.
1nput:0.596(1)similaritytothetoneofTI(accented,unaccented)
Accented=withapitch値Ⅱ
unaCcented=nat(3)syntacticcategories(NP,VP,AP,others)

13

６

２６

(5)utteranceorientation
0JEs':utteranceisorien!edtoaddressee."o':uttemnceisclearlynotorientedtoaddr巳ssee

nO

0.28

mngC

0.29

(6)generation(young,middleage)

young

0.41

15．8

32

middleage

0.59
0.18

18

36

、n璽e

invoIvedinproducingthenattoneatthelexicalaccentlevel・Thetonalplateau
consistsofsuccessiveflattonesofprosodicwords・ Ithasbeensaidbysome
linguiststhatFJdoesnothavenatlexicalaccent.However,Kibe(2007)andJin‑nouchi(1996)suggesttheinvolvementofVPinpmducingtonalplateau,andwecanspeculatethatcertainlinguisticelementsattheprosodicwordlevelmaybe
relatedtobuildupanattonephrase.Thus, itisworthconsideringwhatfactors(2)aSpectualfbnnS(pl℃sence,absence)

[､58］
[､54］
[､42］

VP
AP

fall (i.e.accentedorunaccented=nat).Weused396tokens,3.5minutes

extractedn℃mthebeginningoftheconversations・Thedomainofvariationin
thiscaseisthelexicaltoneofaprosodicword.
Thisanalysiswasdoneinordertoseewhatkindofelementstendtobe

TbkenS:396

mnge(4)syntacticcategories(NP,VP,AP,otheIs)

Thetwoanalysesareconcemedwiththeoccun℃nceoftonespanning. In
Analysis3,wesawwhetherthelexicaltoneisrealisedwithorwithoutapitch

TotalChi‑square=35.1284Chi‑squa祀允ell=0.7318Loglikelihood=‑153.820Significance=0.048

Table3．･I1nerEsultofthemultivariateanalysiSoftonespanninginoIdinalytonephrases(4)utteranceorientation｡Jes':uttemnceisorienledtoaddrEss""｡':utteranceisclearlynotorientedtoaddressee(5)genemtion(young,middleage)･IblaIChi‑square=33.5783Chi‑squard"Cell=0．9594

weight%Na"cnted

0.71

74．7

121

unac"nted

0.35

､9

105

range

0.36

plesenceabsence

0.78

86.5

32

0.47

54

149

mnge

0.31

VP

0.67

74.5

others

0.51

54.8

AP

0.44

51.2

NP

0.37

44.7

Iange

0．3

８１
７２
１８
０
０
１

inten℃gativeN

3.43A"α伽"3:7Weoc""γで"ceqf""o"e伽proso"cwo此お６(2)fbImalnoun.‑Io'(prescnce,absen")

ワトゥＬＯ

%

[､40］
[､51］

１１１
⑲ ０

weight
pI℃senceabsence1nput:0.139(1)asPectualibrms(pI℃sence,absen")

８０

Tokens:407

４１■Ｂ４４ｉｊ■９９４畠ｑ０ｄ■４甲０Ｊｆ■ＤｑｌＵ４Ｊ１ｑＰ４６９４ＩＯｑ６ｒ１ｈ４■ｉ５９ｆ１早凸Ｆ■■■屯■■■■■凸〃■■■■４９日■６刑４ＢＰｄｏも；１Ⅱｊ４１１．１日︑ｂ０ゆ.‑ro' isnot includedasamctorofthisanalysis,becauseitseemedtointeract
withotherfactorsandtheoutcomeofthepreliminalyanalysisdidnotshowa
statisticalSignificancefbr6‑Io'.

yes

0.54

58.8

200

no

0.28

46.4

26

Iange

O.26

young

[､44］
[､561

55.9

109

middleage

58.2

117

mnEe

0.12

Loglikelihood=‑228.387

Significance=0.007

Table4．．memsultofthemultivarialcanalysisoftheoccunEnceofanattoneinwords

FromtheresultoftheGoldvarbanalysisinTable4,thI℃elinguisticfactors,
tonal similarityton(orthestandardvariety), aspecmal fbnns, syntactic
categoriesarestatisticallysignificant.Thismeansthattheirpresencecould
366

367

ﾉﾉﾋ""6i"りノヅphmsa"o"ej"鋤k"o"｡h叩ﾌα"eOta,Nikaido&Takano｜

ｒ０ｌｌもⅡ■■■１Ｊ■１４１︾４ｑｂｑｑｌｉＦ■ｄｂ０ＩｊＩ

3.5.馳加"α'y"Ihe"""s
Theseresultsconfinntheclaimsinpreviousstudiesthatthevariabilityoftone
inFJisaffctedbycertainlinguisticfactorssuchaswh‑words,thefbnnalnoun
LIo:aspecmal fbnns,andsomesyntacticcategorieslikeVP,andsuggestthatsocial anddiscoursefactorsmayalsoberelevant・With these linguistic
conditions,tonespanningislikelytooccurmore廿equentlythanwithothers.
Furthennore,speculationcanbemadefomtheoutcomeofthisresearch・The
difrencesbetweengenerationswereobservedinAnalysisland2・Thisseems
toindicatethatlanguagechangeisinprogressatthetonalprosodylevelofFJ.

｜
I

ｌ０ＩＩＩ０ＩＩ・

contributetomakingthetoneofaprosodicwordnat(orunaccented),andmightwelloHeraphoneticconditionfbrtonespanning・ Inaddition, theutterance
orientation(4),whichisalsostatisticallysign而cant, tendstobeablocking
factorfbrtheproductionofflattone・Thegenerationmaynotbeanefrective
factorfbrthetoneofpmsodicwords.

Middleage％

spontaneousspeechoftheoldergeneration,whileitcanbeaninteractivedevice

amongyoungspeakerstosignaltheaddresser'sattentiontowardtheaddressee,

4，716

df=1

accentFI劃

fiequency％ind角↑翻p.<.030Sum

fiequency％

fiEquency
％

Sum
26

84

69.0％

31.0％

100％

63

54

117

53.8％

46.2％

100％

121

80

201

60.2％

39.8％

I

accentF1at

fiequenCy
％

indmn
Sum

fiequency％

8.684949

df=1

p.<.003

71

15

86

82.6％

17.4％

100％

42

67

109

38.5％

61.5％

100%

113

82

195

57.9％

42.1％

100％

Genemtion

MiddlefiequenCy％

６︐卜可１Ｊ０．５▼ｑＪＯｑ臼

df＝I

p.<.000

Realised

ChiSquam

Tone

Yes

spannlng

fiEquency%■Ｆｊ１

38.237youngerspeakersinw"‑phrases,thatis,at"orei"remc"venlo"e"応．

100％

１

Chisquare

Table6demonstmtesonepieceofevidencefbrthisargument.Thecorrelation
betweentonespanningandspeakerSgenerationisstatisticallyconfinnedbythechi‑squaretest(p､<0.05),exhibitingtheifequentuseoftonespanningbytheNC
９︐．町１．Ｊ・ｌＪ７ａ

Accemed

Young

F1at

58

andaccordinglytoinducehis/herinvolvementindiscourse.

１︐６．４寺・りｌ４ｊ４４・ｌ４００Ｉ４１４ｄ

Realised

Chisquarefiequency

WecouldsunnisethatthisindicatesthatthenattonalplateauisgIadually︲巾ＩＩｌｊｌｌ

Accented

AcCented

tonespanning・Whatdoesthisdiscrepancymean？

doesnothaveintelactivemeaningandappears inalessregularmanner in！

AccemlypesinTJ

Generation&chi-squaretest

Analysisifbrwh‑phrasesandthatofAnalysis2fbrnon‑wh‑phrases・ InthetheoreticalmodelofAnalysis l,thestatistical resulttellsusthatyouthisa
promotingfactor,butmiddleage isablockingfactor.Ontheotherhand,
Analysis2showstheoppositeresult;middleagepromotesandyouthblocks
acquiringaspecificinteractivefimction. Inotherwords, itseemsthatthistone

Ｉｊｌ１０ＩＤ１︲︑ｊ９Ｂｆｑ４

4.InteractiveuSeOftoneandlanguagechan"confinnedbytheoutcomeofthechi‑squaretests.Ontheotherhand,themiddle
ageinfbnnantstendtopmnounceunaccentedwordsofTJwiththeaccented
tone,andviceversa・Thus, itispossibletosaythatthesystematicuseoftheTJ
typelexicalaccentisnowspreadingamongyoungerspeakers.
Thesecondandmoreintriguingpointisthediscrepancybetweentheresultof

Sum、巴 quenCy
％

Sum

Young

10

8

18

55.6％

44.4％

100％

21

75

96

21.9％

78.1%

100％

31

83

114

27.2％

72.8％

100%

Table6.CoITelationbetwccnspeakeIggenerationandtoneSpannmginAnalysisl’

Table5.DistributionoflexicalaccenttypesinAnalysis3(N=396)

InlessinteractivesituationslikeAnalysis2,theresultofthechi-squaretestischange.ThefirstistheincreaseoftheTJWpelexicalaccent・Asismentioned
above, it issaidthattraditionalFJdidnothavefiat(i.e.unaccented) lexical
accent.However,Table5demonstratesthatthedistributionoflexicalaccentof■■・５９３４■ｊ■■１凸ｒＩＩＰ■■Ⅱｌｑｈ■Ｉｊ１ＩＩｑ１ＩＤ１

ThelearetwopointssuggestingthatthevariabilityofFJtonerenectslanguage

theyounginfbnnants israthersimilartothatofTJ,which isstatisticallynotsignificantinTable7・Fromthesetwofacts,wecouldclaimthat,evenwith
ongoingchangeiniexicaiaccent,peoplestillpreservethedialectalfeature,thetonalplateau,althoughitmaybechangingitsfimctionfiomaregionalmarkerto

aninteractivedevice.Asfarasweknow,therehasbeennostudydealingwith
languagechange intennsofthe interactivefUnctionofprosodictoneof

可１４Ｂ１ｌ︲１１１Ⅱ０６０４１日ｉ６

368

369

Ota,Nikaido&Takano

1"α6"i(y"phynsα"o"e加励k"om火叩α"e1Japanese・Thismaybeaworthwhiletopictobeexploredinoldertoknowhow
tonalvariationcontribmestoourlanguageactivity.
ChisquaIE

0．10

df=1

ns.

Yes

sPannmg

FIEquency％

Sum

In:K・ litoyoetal.(eds).KoozaルoWeJgpk脚9‑幼'" ""c"加o"oho"ご〃(Lectures onDialectology9: Dialects inKyushuRegion). Kokusho‑

FIequenCy
％

YOung

Sum

88

86

147

50.6％

49.4％

100％

119

114

233

51．1％

48.9％

100％

31

83

407

27.2％

728％

100％

Table7.Con℃lationbetweenspeakers'gcnerationandtonespanninginAnalysis2

Nmeg

IWcuSecwh‑words'heretOreferonlyloJapanescimcrrogativewords,suchas｡"ko', ｡fた"で,9"α"j',etC・Thesewodsareemployedininterrogativesentencesandneverusedasrelatives
inJapanese・Needlessmsay,all thewh‑wordtokensofourdatahavethemteITogative●

kankookai:TolWo,57‑86.
Ｊ■０２日ｑｒｉＶ０ｉｒｌｆ■ｐｌＤｌり！Ⅱ甲０日ｆｉ９■■ｒｌｒｌ１ｐ４９日０１■ｒ日ＩⅡ凸ｒ１︐．０１０■Ｉ■１１卜００５ＩｌｆＩ０ｌ０←１１日９１０ⅡＩｊ７ｌｊ１Ｉ９１ｌＬｒＢⅡｒＰｆ００町■Ｈ０６ＰｂＯ１ｊ■ｆ０

FrequenW％

TOne

Women'sUniversityandCollegeSocietyfbrAcademicResearch,31‑56.
Okano,Nobuko.1983.Fukuoka‑kennohoogen.(DialectofFukuokaPrefecture.

Genemtion
MiddleNC

Matsuda,Kenjiro.2006.VARBRULPrimer.Z4LKSNo.9.Kobe:KobeShoin

Ota, lchiro.fbrthcoming・Hoogennogenzai‑Kyuushuu(Thepresentsituationof
Japanesedialects:Kyushu), 1nS・Sanada(ed.).〃b"EPEak脚(Dialectolo").
Asakurashoten:Tokyo.

Paolillo,JohnC.2002.伽α肱囎伽g冴""CUw"""o":駒α伽"cαﾉ〃o"Aα"d碗aho血.Stanfbld,Ca:CSLIPublications.

Tagliamonte,Sali.2006.4"α仇j"gsocio"凪gWs"cuurin"o".Cambridge:Cam‑bridgeUniversityPress.

meamng.

Bailey,R.&D.R.Preston. 1996.鉈 "αわ"9脚αgeac9"jS"jo〃α"。〃"g"耐"cyα'･』α"o".JohnBeniamins:Amsterdam.

Press.

Kibe,Nobuko.2007.Fukuoka‑shiakusentonoheibanka(OnFlatteningthe

PitchAccent inFukuokaJapanese)．Kok"gOgn": kaishakutokanshoo.
Shibundo,Tokyo.

Kubo,Tomoyuki.2001.FukuokahoogenniokerutoogOrontoon‑inronno
Wookairyooiki(Syntax‑PhonologInterfaceintheFukuokaDialect).､ﾉb脚、αノヅ"eP"o"ej花Sbcたり"ﾉ叩α"5,27‑32.
370

ＯＩｊｌＩｊＢｉＩｊＩ４Ｐ６１１Ｊ■９■且︐トーＯいり０︐■上■０Ｊ凸■７１Ａ９６凸■■０上り０６ＪⅡ■■■■■ＩＩｌｆ■■■Ⅱ６■Ｆ１■■０６１９匹■ｌ■Ｔ１９凸甲１４６１６１トトーｌ４４ＩｌＡ９■Ｉ︲卜６０１匹ＰⅡ■凸６０日ＩＩｌ

Hayata,Teruhiro.1985.〃"kam"oWe〃〃oa"se"/oke"α"o"(Accentand
MorphologyofHaktaDialect).KyushuUniversityPress.
Igarashi,Yosuke.2007.TypologyofprosodicphrasinginJapanesedialects.
Workshoponintonationalphonolog:Understudiedorfieidworklanguages.
ノCPm2007釦IF""eMee"昭.SaarbrUcken:SaarlandUniversity(Germany).
Jin‑nouchi,Mastaka. 1996.〃0k"加紗z"4s"""iokemho"e"s"嘔oﾙg"〃'ｲ〃(AStudyofNewWords inNorthemKyushuDialect).KyushuUniversiWＦ■１ｒ００もｐｆ０ｌｌｌ１４００Ｉｌ９Ｉｌｌｌ４︲６１１６１Ⅱ７１１０Ⅱ４１０←ｌＩｌ６９Ｉ０１４１ＩＩｌＩ９ｌｌｑ４ｌＩ６ＩＩ１１Ｉ

Rehrences-371