132""zsα""αR理〕狂7ノ
7Wege"erq"ves/"妙Q/beco"dわ"g"qgeoc9"応"jo",Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErl‑

Chapter5

baumAssociates,303‑332.

Zelinsky,Wilbur.2001．耐ec"""m/geOgﾉてりﾌhyqﾊﾙe(ﾉ""edSm/es(reviseded.).
EnglewoodCliffS,NJ:PrenticeHall

TheSociophoneticsofProsodicContoursonﾉVEG

inThreeLanguageCommunities:TEasingapart
SociolinguisticandPhoneticInnuencesonSpeech
M"/Caル胸eger‑Dro"UMve師〃q/"jzo"α;7ZJ"jaGm"α伽"0，U"ive岬〃呼肌s/er･"O〃αがaS/iq//TMq"o,〃o肋sejGa伽e〃U肋ﾉe応峨Lα"γe"HtJ"‑LeW,O蕗かdU"ive岬〃！
1．

Introduction

Negativesprovidecognitivelycritical infbrmationandarealsointeractively
signi6cant・Thepresentstudycomparestheprosodicrealizationofnega‑tivesinthreelanguages,andintwosocialsettingsfbreachlanguage.The
studywillprovideevidencefbrthreelociofprosodicvariationinnegatives
astheyareusedinamicablesocialinteractionsandininfbrmativenewscasts
inAmericanEnglish,LatinAmericanSpanish,zandJapanese・Comparative
evidencefromadversarial interactionswillbecitedwhererelevant.

l.lLanguage

Eachofthesethreelanguagesshowsuniquepatternsfbrhowprominenceis
acousticallyaccomplished(PierrehumbertandBeckmanl988;HirstandDi
Cristol998;Grabeetal.2003;Jun2005).Eachhasitsowndefaultnegative
morphologywithagivendefaultsyntacticposition,andit isthatmostcom‑
monfbrmofnegationthatwillbestudiedhere・Ratherthanrefertoeachspe‑
cificlexicaliteminthisdiscussion,eachlanguage'scdefault' lexicalnegative
willbereferredtoasﾉVEG.

l.2

Socialsituation

Withinagivenlinguisticcommunity,prosodyvariesradicallywiththesocial
situation・Thischapterwilldiscussparallelresultsfbrthethreelanguagesin

134

7Wemci叩〃o"e""QJProsodicQ)"/o"応O"NEC

Mqﾉ℃αル)ty"eJ･‑Dﾉひﾉ;乃"/αGﾉ河"α ﾉo,Sbq/j乃kq"O,α"dZ,α"ﾉ．e〃〃と7//‑Lew

onlytwosituations: fi･iendlyphonecaliswillbecomparedwithrecordings
ofnewscasts・Analysesofothersituationscanbefbundelsewheret.g.,Yae‑
geFDror2002a,b;YaegeFDror,Hall‑Lew,andDeckert2002,2003;･Inkano

I35

NiMD80,LIgI1I 11

V､､髄ⅡRWI．
、1 土

2002,2008;Kato2004).
24助

l.3

CulturePilchlmck
lヌタ

｡
●
●

●

●

●●

●

ー串

〜ぜ●

一

U楓､

Indifferentsocieties,prosodicprominenceismanipulatedinvariousways,

eveninapparentlysimilarsocial situations.Someofthesedissimilarieties
arepurelylinguistic(e.9.,Grabeeta1.2003;Mennen2006;Laddeta1.2009),
whileothersappeartobeculturallyvariableandmaybedependentonsoci‑etalnormsofpowerandsolidarity(BrownandGilman l960;McLemore
1991;Watts2003;Locher2004).Thepresentstudyarguesthatneithersource
ofvariationshouldbeignored.

Thisstudywillpermitcross‑culturalandcross‑linguisticcomparisons,showingthat therearenontrivial language‑specificandculture‑specificcomponents.Cognitive, linguistic, situational,andcultural factorsmust
allbeincorporatedasvariablesfbranyanalysisoftheprosodyofnegation
strategies.

2．

Reviewoftherelevantliterature

2.1

Parametersofprosodicvariation

Therearethreeprimaryphoneticparametersofprosodicvariationwhichcan
beminedfbrsociophoneticdetail: loudness,measuredacousticallyasampli‑
tude(indecibals:dB),pitchvariation,measuredacousticallyfromaspeaker's
fimdamentalfi･equency,orFO(inHZ),andduration(wherethedurationofthe
wordoritslinguisticsubcomponentscanbecomparedwiththedurationof
nearbyequivalenttokensandismeasurableinmilliseconds‑ormsec).Figure
5.l showsthatall threearemeasurableusingcommonlyavailablesofiware:3
FOisfbundonthelowestverticalaxirPitchtrack''andC4Amplitude''hasits

ownverticalaxisimmediatelyaboveit; ..Duration'' ismeasuredalongthe
horizontalaxis.Eachoftheseparametersismanipulatedtovaryingdegrees
indifferentlanguages.Fortunately,inallthreelanguagesinvestigatedhere,
theprimaryperceptualandproductiveparameterfbrprominenceisfilnda‑
mentalfrequency(FO)andismeasurablefi･omthepitchtrackitself(Yaegel､DrorandFagyal,fbrthcoming).

一一‑1

−

＄

●

･

‑‑

△

I

Ⅱ〃

F道z"．e .ノ

ExamplesofPitch(FO),amplitude,anddurationmeasures.

ExperimentalstudieshaveshownthatfbrspeakersofStandardAmerican
English,amplitudegenerallyappearstoco‑varywithfimdamentalfifequency;
durationappearstobecorrelatedwithbothsententialpositionandfbcalprom‑
inence・Whileamplitudeincrementscanbe.perceived'as.accenting'aword
evenintheabsenceofafilndamentalfiequencychange,thisisnotcommon

eveninacarefilllyreadcorpus(Cutler,Dahan,vanDonselaarl997).
InJapanese(asinEnglish),experimcntalstudiesdemonstratethatfim‑
damental fiequencyplaystheprimaryroleinbothproductionandpercep‑
tionoffbcalprominence(PierrehumbertandBeckmanl988;Venditti2005),
whereasamplitudeanddurationalsoparticipateassubsidiaryparameters(Sugitoul982;Koori l989a,b;Azumal992).
InSpanish(NavarroJIbmas l944;Sosa l999;Face2001,2002;Este‑
bas‑Vilaplana2007)andotherRomancelanguagesaswell(DiCristol998;
DahanandBernardl997),fbcalprominenceisproducedprimarilybyvary‑
ingfUndamentalfiFequency,whileamplitudeanddurationalprominenceare
usedprimarilyfbrotherpurposes.
Inshort,eachofthethreelanguagesinvestigatedherepermitsustomea‑
sureandcodethisprimaryparameterfbrprominence(FO)directlyfromthe
pitchtrack,asshownontheexampleinFigure5.l,takenfi｡omthe6rstKen‑
nedy/Nixondebate.

2.2

Cognitionandprosodicsalience

Bolinger (1978)proposed thatprosodicallyemphasizingcritical seman‑ticinfbrmationisacross‑linguisticuniversal・ Prosodicfbcalprominence

136

maximizestheabilityofconversationaipartnerstofbcusattentiononinfbF
mationwhichiscritical tomutualunderstanding(Cutleretal. 1997).The
assumedmotivationfbrsuchprosodicsaliencewillbereferredtohereasthe
cbg""ﾊﾉePm〃j"e"ceP""叩化．
Inaddition,evenwithinasinglelanguagedialectsdifferintheiruseof
prosodicprominence(e.9.,Beckmaneta1.2002;Grabeetal2002;Fagyal
2004;O'Rourke2005;ThomasandCarter2006;Mennen2007;Estebas Vila‑plana2007;Laddetal2009).

2.3"eWCiqp"O'7e"CSq/PrOSOCWCCO"/O"応o〃NEG

AMqﾉbαル】t7egeJ･‑DJ℃";7b"jqGF河"α鉤"ひ,Shq/j乃kα"O,α"dLα"'｡e〃〃""‑Lew

Sententialpositionandprosody

137

oftheirsyntacticposition.Thatis,wordsthatcarrycritical infbrmationwill
beprosodicallyprominenteveniftheirsyntacticpositionwouldminimize
prominence.Cutleretal.'sconclusionwillbereferredtoasC"IﾉerbCoro/‑
ノロノツ.NotethatstudieswhichsupportthecorollaryclaimhavebeencarriedoutonbothEnglishtf,opcit.andreferencestherein)andFrenchcorpora(Benguerel l970;DahanandBernardl997).
Alargesegmentofthischapterisdevotedtotheanalysisofwaysin
whichnegativesareeitherprosodicallyprominent(supportingthatclaim)or
not(possiblyrefiltingtheclaim).Consequently, therelativeimportanceof
theqg"""ePromi"e"ceP""叩ﾉeandC"/ノセバCoro"α〃withregardto
actualﾉvEGpositionsandprosodyineachoftheselanguageswillbediscussed
filrtherinSection3.4.

SyntacticpositionwithinasentenceinHuencesprosodicoptions(Ladd2008),
andit ispossibletomanipulatefbcusbyalteringsuchpositions(e､9.,Ochs,
Schegloff;Thompsonl996;Danielietal.2004;Cousseetal.2004;Swerts
andWIk2005,interalia).Theunmarkedsentencecontourinmostlanguages
permitsanearlyprosodicpeakwithdownstep.narrowingthepermissiblcFO
rangelaterinthesentence.ManystudieshavedocumentedthatcriticalinfbF
mationismorelikelytobeplacedearlyinthesentence,andthatmaterialpresentedearlyinthesentenceismost likelytobeprosodicallyprominent(e.g.,Cutleretal.1997;Horne2000;Jun2005;Ladd2008).
Intheory, theclosertheﾉvECistothebeginningofthesentence, thegreatertherangeandmanipulabilityofprosodicprominence,soaspeaker's
optiontoexploitthepositionofﾉvEGtoemphasizeorneutralizeitscognitive
salienceisrelevanttothediscussion.Discussionofvariationofplacementto

manipulateprosodicprominencecanbefbundinHorne(2000),Jun(2005)
andTakano(2008).

Indeclarativesentences, theunmarkedplaCementfbrnegativesanalyzed
here‑ⅣEG‑includescverbal‑"o' fbrSpanish,"offbrEnglish,〃αjfbrJapa‑

nese:Spanishverbal‑"ooccursbefbretheverb,nearthebeginningofthesen‑tence;English"o/immediatelyfbllowstheEnglish.AUX'verb,andprecedes
themainverb,while"αjgenerallyoccursneartheendofthesentence(Takano
2008;Jun2005).

Evengiventhatthereisastrongpreferencefbrtheunmarkedposition, it
isreasonabletoassumethatthelikelihoodofprominenceinanygivencaseis
mediatedbythe/vEG'Sunmarkedpositioninthesentence.

Consideringbothproductionandperceptionstudies,Cutleretal. (1997)
concludethat @@speakersseldomde‑accent(critical)infbrmation,andifthey
do,thishinderslisteners.''Theyshowthatwhileaprominentsyntacticposi‑tioncanbeneutralizedbytheoverridingsigni6canceofotherwordsinthe
environment, fbcallyinfbrmativewordsareunlikelytobereducedbecause

2.4/vEGandprosody

Thepointofdeparturefbrstudiesofnegationandprosodywasdevelopedin
theworkofBolinger(l978),whoclaimedthatcross‑linguistically/vEGwill
receiveG6negativeprominence.''Wehavetakenthattomeanprominencethat
wouldberepresentedinTbBI4transcriptionwithL*,andwhichwouldhave
FOnohigherthannearbyprosodicallyneutralwords;analysestodatedonot
supportthisclaim.
O'ShaughnessyandAllen(1983)lookedspecificallyatnegativesascamers
ofcriticalinfbnnation.Theyelicitedisolatedsentenceswithnegativesthatcala
riedinfbnnationwhich.fbcalprominence' isintendedtohighlight: theyfbund
that/vEGwerealmostcategoricallyprominentwhichtheyattributedtotheircon‑

veyingcognitivelycritical infbnnation.WhileO'ShaughneSsydidnotcharac‑terizethisGGprominence,''thepitchtracksoftheelicitedsentencesrevealedthat
overwhelminglytheﾉvEGwereeitherrising,rise‑fallorhighlevel‑allvariations
ontheTbBIthemeofH*,mtherthantheL*proposedbyBolinger(1978).

SubsequentlyDHirschberg(1990,1993)analyzednewsreportsreadby
WBURradioannouncers(http:"www.ldc.upenn.edu/Catalog/CatalogEntry.
jsp?catalogld=LDC96S3;hencefbrth"BUR"); thenewscasterswerere‑read‑
ingNationalPublicRadiostylizednewscasts.LikeO'Shaughnessylshefbund
thatthevastmajorityofprominenceson/vEGwereH*.Morerecentstudies(Syrdaletal.2001;Hirschberg2000)presentsimilarresults;infact,bothEnglish"ortokens(Hirschbergl990,1993)andFrenchpqstokens(Morel
1995;Jun2005)arereportedasconsistentlypitch‑raisedinreadspeech,aswouldbeprqectedfiFomtheCOg""ivePro"j"e"ceP""叩だ,although(con‑trarytoC"咋施Coro//tMFrenchnegativesinsiderelativeclausesarenot
necessarilypmminentinisolatedreadsentences(Jun2005).

138"oたαル施"eﾉ･‑Droﾉ;乃"/αGﾉ河"α伽ﾉわ,Sﾙq/j乃ハロ"O,α"dL""で〃〃t7"‑Lew

2.5

Socialsituationandprosodicsalience

乃e"c"bo"e"csqJP'℃so"cCo"/ol"To"NEG

139

Sociolinguistshaveshownthatvowelpositions,consonantrealizations,and

descriptivepassagesbutissignificantlylesslikelytobeprominentindialogue(YaegerDror,Hall‑LewandDeckert2002,2003;YaegeleDrorl996,2002a).
ノvEGaremorelikelytobeprominentinadversarialsituations,whetheror

evenintonationalcontoursvarywithsocial situation(Labovl972;Yaeger

nottheinfbrmationconveyedbythe/vEGiscriticaltothehearer'sunderstand‑

1974;YaegeFDror2001;EckertandRickfbrd2001;Tilcker2007).Socialsitu‑
ationhadinitiallybeenshowntoiniluenceintonationcontourSfbrquitestyl‑
izedgenresofEnglishsuchasstory‑telling,sportsreporting,andpoliticalor
religiousspeeches,ordirection‑givinginanarrowlyde6ned.Ggame''setting.
(See,fbrexample,Levin,SchaeffeI;andSnowl982;GroszandSidnerl986;
Libermanl992;Nevalainenl992;Blaauwl995;HirschbergandNakatani
1996;Hirschberg2000.)Morerecentstudieshavebeguntolookatlessstyl‑
izedinteractivesituations(e.g､,Bunnelandldsardi l996;IEEE1997fESagi‑
sakaetal.1997;Chu‑CarrollandGreenl998;COLING‑ACL1998ff),butthevastmajorityofprosodicstudiesarestillcarriedoutonde‑contextualized,
readsentences,or,atbest,onnewscasts,suchasthoseintheccBUR''corpus
discussedearlier.Thisstudywillcontrast theresultsofanalysisofnews‑
broadcastdatawithresultsofastudyusingconversationaispeech.

2.6

Socialsituation,prosodyandNEG
7ｿ7eSひciq/"gree"7e"/P""cゎﾉセ

BoththeCbg""vePﾉ℃"""e"cePJ"加叩ノセandC""erlr@ro"αぴclaimthat
prominenceisdirectlycorrelatedwiththeimportanceoftheinfbrmation
beingconveyed;allthereadnegativeswhichhavebeenanalyzedacousticallysupportthatclaim.HoweverinegativesmustalsobeconsideredfiPomanotherpointofview.Onesituationalvariablequiteimportanttotheiranalysisisthe
distinctionbetweeninfbrmativeandsociallyinteractivesituations(YaegeF
Drorl985,1996,2002a;YaegeFDroretal.2002).Thatdistinctionwillbe
implicatedinthestudyreportedhere.
Wehavealreadyseenthatbothinisolatedreadsentences(O'Shaughnessy
andAllenl983)andininfbrmativereadings(Hirschbergl990)ﾉvEGcarryimpoF
tant infbrmation,and(therefbrdarepitchprominent;however,conversation
analystshaveshownthatG&preferencefbragreement''characterizestheconveI=
sationstheyhaveanalyzed(Schegloff;JefYerson,andSacksl977;Sacksl992).
WewillrefertothatclaimhereastheSocia/J4gree"Te"rP""叩ﾉe;ﾉvEGshould

beprosodicallyreducedordeletediftheycarrynewinfbrmationwhichmight
beinferredasdisagreeingwith‑ornonsupportiveof‑anearlierspeakerb
G@Preferencefbragreement''isobviouslyirrelevantfbrnewscasts,orevenfbrreadmaterialsingeneral,butitisinstructivetoconsiderreaddialogue:
whenonereadsfi･ombooks, theFOon/vEGtokensisgenerallyprominentin

ingofwhat issaid: JvEG‑prominenceisalsopreferredintalkshowswithan
adversarialstance(Hutchbyl996;Scott2002;KieslingandPaulston2005;

Englebretson2007;HedbergandYaegeFDror2008),certaintypesofpoliti‑
cal interviews(Heritage2002a,U,UScourtroominteraction(butseeKurzon

2001),ortelevisedpoliticaldebates(YaegerDror2002a;YaegeleDroretal.
2002,2003;Takano2008).sThe"ciq/,4greeme"IP""cわ/emayalsobeabro‑gated(insomeculturesatleast)inhighlyinfbrmativesituationslikeclassroom
interactionst.g.,Kakavd2002)orinchildren'sgameplaying(e.g.,Goodwin,
Goodwin,andYaegeFDror2002;Goodwin2006a,b,andcitationstherein).
Ontheotherhand,percentagesarelowinactualconversationsbetween
fiPiends,withthelowestprominencepercentagesinface‑to‑facefriendlycon‑
versations(YaegeFDrorl985;YaegeFDror,Hall‑Lew>andDeckert2002).
SimilarresultswerefbundfbrFrench丘iendlyconversations(YaegeFDror

2002a). Infact,whilereadnewsordescriptivepassageshaveahighpef
centageofprominentnegatives,onlyaverylowpercentageof6@remedial''6
negativeswereprominentineitherFrenchorEnglishfacetofacefifiendly
conversationsstudied(YaegeFDrorl985,2002a).Thus,thereappearstobea

directcorrelationbetweenH*prominenceandaninfbrmativesocialsituation
andaninversecorrelationbetweenprominenceandsociallysupportivesitua‑
tions,orevenreaddialoguethatisintendedtosoundfiFiendly.
Sincenegativesnotonlyprovidecrucialcognitiveinfbrmationbutalso

providethekeytotheexpressionofsocialagreement(i.e.,supportiveturns)
anddisagreement(i.e､,remedialturn9,analysisoftheprosodicrealizationof
negativesprovidesinterestingdatafbrthecomparisonoftherelativeimpoF
tanceoftheCog""〃ePro"fi"e"ceandSociq/'4gree"fe"fP""叩ﾉes.

2.7

Negativesandculturesofpowerandsolidarity

JustastheCOg""んePromj"e"ceP""c"/eisassumedtobeacognitiveuni‑versal,conversationtheoristsinitiallyassumedthatrulessuchasthe6.prefel=
encefbragreement"(Sacks l992;Schegloff.eta1. 1977),referredtohereas
themciaﾉJ4gﾉ" 〃e〃P""叩ﾉe,areculturalquasi‑universals.However,all
culturesdon'thavethesameexpectations.

BrownandGilman(1960)showedthatevenn"しb"s(TYV)choicevaries
withbothrelativesolidarityandtherelativepowerofspeakersandrecipi‑
ents,thatthedominanceofpowerorsolidarityvectorissocietalratherthan

140

7WeWci叩〃o"e"cscyProsoC"cCb"『o"庵o"NEc"qﾉCaル)tyege"‑Dﾉ℃脇乃"iqGﾉ．α"αd"ﾉo,Sﾉiq/j乃kq"Opα"dLq" 〃〃Z7"‑Lewl41linguistic,andthatthevectorpreferredinagivenculturemaychangeover
time・Justastheyfbundthat･WVusagecanbecorrelatedprimarilywitheither
asolidarityvectororapowervector,dependingonwhetherchoiceofTorV
isreciprocalornot, itisreasonabletohypothesizethatprominentface‑threat‑eningnegativescouldpossiblybeusedreciprocallyinasolidarity‑oriented
societyandnonreciprocallyinapoweForientedsociety(Watts2003;Mills
2003,2004;Locher2004).Whilethismaybeacritical factorinprosodic

anaspirantfbrsuchapoliticalposition(YaegeFDror2002a,b).Ontheother
hand,situationswhichwereinitiallylimitedtoasinglesocietyappeartohave
becomecross‑culturalgenres:e,g,theuniversalityoftelevisionc･culture''haS
ledtothecreationofacross‑culturalhypelzadversarialpolitical 66discussion''
televisiongenre(YaegelaDror2002a,b).

variationon/vEG,theconversationsinthepresentcorpuswerechosentopeF

2.8

mittheanalysisofsolidaryintimate/vEGusageandtominimizetheimpoIB
tanceofpossiblepowerdifferencesbetweenthespeakers・ Infact,thephone
calischosenfbranalysisexcludeprobablesourcesofasymmetrybetweenthe
coparticipants. (That is,primarilyconversationsinwhichinterlocutorswere

Tannen(1981,2005),Schiffi･in(1984),Maynard(1989),GoodwinandGood‑win(1995),Goodwinetal. (2002),andJefferson(2002)haveallshownthe

Subculturesofpowerandsolidarity

poweFbased・LikeBrownandGiliman,theyalsopresentedstrongevidence

degreetowhichsubcultureisalsoarelevantvariablefbrremedialdisagree‑mentstrategiesoruseofnegativesevenwithintheEnglish‑speakingworld,
asGumperz(1982),LicariandStame(1990),CoupelaKuhlen(1992),Oka‑moto(1994),Song(1994),TingJIbomeyetal.(1991),Ambady,Koo,Lee,and
Rosenthal(1996),PikeandMcKinney(1996),Holtgraves(1997),andYaegelB

ihatthereisawidevariationinfaceconcernsindifferentcultures.Notonly

Dror(2002qalldemonstratethatvariationindisagreementstrategiesisevendoestheimportanceofpowerandsolidarityvary,butthesituationsconsid‑
eredface‑threateningvaryradicallyaswell,asfbundinthestudiesofBlum‑
Kulka,House,andKasper(1989).Evidencehasshownthatinterlocutorsけom

greaterincross‑language,orcross‑culturalcomparisons.
Forexample,Thnnen(1981,1984/2005)andSchifYi･in(1984)proposed
thatNewYOrkersandAshkenaziPhiladelphians(respectively)arerelatively

thesameage,andsexwereincluded.）
BrownandLevinson(1978)chosetoemphasizetheimportanceofface

concerns,whethertheculturalmotivationfbrvariationwassolidarityor

differentculturesdon'trequestorapologizeinthesameway(Orfbrthesame

GGinfringement''ofacoparticipant's"face''),andwehopetoshowthatthey
definitelydon'tdisagreeinthesameway.

WierZbicka(1994)describesJapanesecultureasfarmoresensitiveto
theSりciqﾉ'4gJeee"7e"/PJ"加叩ノセandPolishcultureasfarlesssensitivetoit.
Ontheotherhand,evenwithinJapaneseculture,well‑knownfbritsnorms

ofinterpersonalharmonyandcollectiveunity,managementofinterperSonal

conHictismoreHexiblethantheculturalstereotypewouldsuggestandthere‑

fbreisalsosituation‑dependent(Befil l980;Ishidal984;Krauss,Rohlen,and
SteinhofY､ 1984;Yamadal992).Moreover,sincepowerassymmetriesaremore

importantinJapaneseculturethaninWesternCultures(Wierzbickal994;
Yamada2002),the$Gpowerfill"memberofadyadappearstohavetherighttoexpressdisagreementmoredirectlythanspeakersfiommoresymmetriCal
cultuTes,whileinrelativelysymmetrical interactionsneitherspeakerhasthe

lesssensitivetothemcjq/ﾉ4gP"ee"Te"IP""cやたthanotherAmericans.Kakava(2002)suggestedthatGreekAmericansarealsolesssensitivetothe"cjqノ'4gree"Te"/P""cわﾉe.Similarly,Applefield(1997),Carroll (1988)andPlatt(1998)claimthatFrancophonesfiPomtheOldWorldarelesssensitivetothe
SociQ/4gree"7e"/P""cわたthanAmericans(includingNewYorker9.
However,whilethesestudiespresentevidencefbraslidingscaleofface
concerns,theyallassumeacross‑culturalconsensusonacontinuumfiom
supportivetoremedialturnstance.
OnequestionwhicharisesistowhatextentcanSpanish,Japaneseand
Englishnegativeprosodyberegardedasacultural,ratherthanpurelylinguis‑
tic,variable?Tbwhatextentcanvariationwithinagivenlanguage,butindif
ferentlocales,betracedtosubculturalvariationwhichcorrespondswiththe

purportedfaceconcernswhichcanbeindependentlyveri6ed,suchasthosewhichcorrespondwithTｿVusagepattems？

samelatitudefbrexpressingdisagreementdirectly(Yamadal992,2002).
Evenwithinmoresimilarcultures,differentexpectationsfbrappropriate‑nesscanobtain.Whilethebroadcastdebaterequiresanadversarialstance

2.9

inEnglish,FrenchpoliticaladversariesfbrthePrimeMinisterialpOsition(a!
leastInthel990S)weremorelikelytouseasuperficiallylessadversarial
stance,whichnativespeakersconsideredcriticaltoademeanorappropriatetoLabovandFanshel(1977),Goffman(1981),Jacobs(2002)andClayman(2002)
haveshownthatwithinagivensocialsettingturnstancemayvary‑withone

NegativesandStancewithinasituation

142

Mqﾉcαルルege"‑Dﾉひ晩乃"jqGrq"αcW"b,S"qjj乃kα"O,α"dL""e〃〃上7//‑Lew

participantrequiredtobeguardedlyneutral(theinterviewer,thetherapist,the肋emcj叩〃o"e"csq'P'℃so"C""ﾉ04ｲ庵O"NEG

I43

appropriateturnstancemayvaryoveranumberofyearsevenwithinasingle
society.Theyfbundthatinthel950sreportorialstancewasdeferentialandsupportiveofUSpresidentsduringanewsconference,butregisterexpecta‑

GiventhatthereisabroadrangeofprosodicdialectalvariationinEnglish(e.g.,ThomasandCarter2006;Arvaniti2007;ArvanitiandGarding2007;
Laddetal.2009),Japanese(e.g.,Sugitouetal. l997),andSpanish(e､g.,Sosa
1999;Estebas‑Vilaplana2007)butnostudiestodatewhichalludetodialect‑
specificpatternsfbrchoosing.&fbcal''prominence,wewillassumethatwhilethespecificcontourused‑orthelackofone‑mayvaryindifferentdialectgroups,anydifferencesinoccurrenceoffbcalaccentcanbeascribedtosocio‑
culturalratherthandialectfactors.Wewill trytoanswerthesequestions:'IbwhatdegreedoeslanguageitselfandthedefaultﾉvEGpositioninfiuence
prominenceoptions?Tbwhatdegreedo(sub)culturalvariationsin"prefeF
encefbragreement，， inHuenceoptions？Thesequestionswillbeaddressedin
thefbllowingsection.

tionsalteredsoradicallyduringtheNixonyearsthattheappropriateturn
stancefbraUSreporterisnowadversarial.Theyfbundthatthischangehas
notoccurredinEngland,oratleastnottothesamedegree.

3．

mediatol;orthemoderatoI),whileotherparticipantsarelessconstrained(theinterviewee,thepatient,thepanelparticipant).Tbtakeadramaticexample,
adebateparticipantmayuseadversarialstance(asdebateI),aneutraltosup‑

portivestance(asmoderator),orevenapseudo‑infbrmativeposition(ther61eaffected,fbrexample,byPerotinthel992debates).Otherinteractionalfhc‑
torsthatinHuenceturnstancehavealsobeenisolated(GofVinanl981;Schil‑ling‑Estesl998;Suleiman,O℃onnellandKowal2002.)
ClaymanandHeritage(2002)ascertainedthatwhat isconsideredan

Speakerstanceshouldalwaysbeconsideredasapossiblefactorinany
studyofanyintelpersonalpragmaticandprosodicvariation;howevensincethe
phonecallschosenweresuppoltivestance,whilethenewsbroadcastsanalyzed
werelimitedtopurelyinfbnnativemonologues,stancewasconHatedwithcors
pus,andneednotbecodedseparately,sointhepresentsmdythereareonlytwo
stances:supportive(sinceallconversationswerefriendly)andinfbnnative(inthenewscasts).Howevel;speakerstanceshouldalwaysbeconsideredasapos‑
siblefactorinanystudyofanyinterpersonalpragmaticandprosodicvariation.
2.lO

Interactionamongthesefactorgroups

Thischapterwillconsidertherelativeimportanceoflinguistic,culmralandinteractivedifferences.Whilethecognitivefactor(andtheCbg""jvePﾉ℃版ノー"e"ceP""叩陀)andtheinteractivefactor(andtheSりcio/'4g7℃e〃e"rPri"cゎ/e)havebothbeensmdied, ithasnotbeenpossibletoconsiderthedegreetowhich
languagechoice(andwordposition)canbeisolatedasaseparateiniluence.The
presentsmdy,withitsfbcusonparalleirecordingsofvariationinSpanish,Eng‑lish,andJapanesewillhopefilllypennitsuchacomparativeanalysis.Forexam‑
ple,oneinitialhypothesiswillbethatwiththeﾉvEGinanearlysentenceposition
SpanishwillpennithigherprominencepercentagesthanEnglishorJapanese.
Asecondhypothesisisthatwiththegreateremphasisonagreementin
Japaneseculture(Ambadyetal. 1996;Yamadal992;2002)theprominence
percentageswillbeconsistentlylowestinJapanese,bothbecauseofthe
defaultsentencepositionfbr‑"αi,andbecauseofthisculturalpreference.

Researchmethodology

Section2・ldiscussedtheacousticsofiwareusedtopermitaccuratesocio‑phoneticanalysisofprosodicprominence; suchsoftwareisusedbyTbBI
codersaswellassociophoneticians(Syrdaletal.2001;ShattuckPHufhagel,
VeilleuxandBrugos2005).Section2.2'sreviewoftheliteratureshowed
thatnegativesGGshould''beprosodicallyprominent,butsubsequentsections
reviewedevidencethat social situationcancounterbalancetheqg""ive
Pro"M"e"ceP""叩ﾉe. ltseemsclearthat,atleastinEnglish,thesocialsitu‑
ationstronglyinnuenceswhethernegativeswillbeprominent,andwewill
addressthehypothesesthatspeakersfiPomcertainsocialgroupsemphasize
negativesmorethanthosefromothergroups,andthatdifferentsituations
maybetreateddifferentlyindifferentcultures・Asalreadydiscussed, inorder
toaddressthesequestions,wewillanalyzedatafiom｡･parallelcorpora.''That
is,exceptfbrthevariablestobeconsideredintheanalysis‑inthiscase, lan‑
guage,cultureandregion‑demographics,stanceandfbotingofthespeakers
areheldasconstantaspossible.Whiletheintentionistopresentinfbrmation
onfi･iendlyconversations, ineachlanguage/vEGfi･omnewscastshavebeen
measuredaswell,topermitabaselinecomparisonof.Ginfbrmative''stancewiththeevidencefromsocial interactions.

3.l

Corpuschoice

Itisalwaysdifficulttodeterminehowmuchdataisneededfbranadequate
samplefbranysociophoneticstudy.Oneruleofthumbisthat themore

144

7WeSocjOp""e""q/Pノ"osocWcCo"/oJｲ応O〃NEG

Mqんαル】tyegeﾉ･‑Dﾉ．oﾉ;乃"jaGJ･a"α的"o,Shq/i乃〃α"Opα"dZ,q"re〃〃t7"‑Lewvariablestobecompared, thegreaterthenumberoftokensneededto611
thecells.Anotherruleofthumbisthatthemorecommonthevariable,thesmallerthecorpusneededtoaccesssufficienttokens:e.9.,analysisofacom‑monconsonantrequiresamuchsmallercorpusfbrtheinvestigationofsufL
6cienttokensthananalysisofsay,ararelyusedlexical item・ Inthepresent
case,weareexaminingadiscourselevelphenomenon‑.6disagreementr
whichvariesradicallywithsocialsituationandwouldrarelyoccurinclassic
c@InterviewStyle'',wheretheintervieweristrainedtoappearsupportive,and
nottovoiceopinionswhichmightbedisagreedwith.Wealsohavehypoth‑esizedthatsituationalstance, turnfboting,anddemographicvariableswill
inHuencetheresultssignificantly,so(atleastfbrconversationalcorpora)weneedaverylargesampletoprovidesufficientinfbrmationfbrinspectionof
thesevariables,whileholdingotherfactorssteady.WehavebeenquitefbF
tunatetohaveaccesstocross‑linguisticequivalent/Parallelcorporaofboth
newscastsandfi･iendlyconversationswhichprovidesufYicientdatafbrcom‑
parativeanalysisofthisdiscoursefeature.
Thischapterwillanalyzethephoneticrealizationofprominenceinthesetwoparallelcorporafbrthethreelanguagecommunities.ForeverysocialgroupstudiedtodatewecannowshowthattheCOg""ivePmm加e"ceP""ci‑p/eislimitedbytheSbciaﾉ44gree"7e"rP""叩陀andthat,atafineranalytical

TheAmericanEnglishcorpuswasfilrtherdividedintospeakersfromthe
rfill‑South(a),7thosefiomfbrmerlyrlessSouthernregions(s),theNorthEastt),8theWest(w),thelnlandNorth(nc),and‑fbllowingtheclaimsof'Ian‑nen(1981,1984)andSchiffi･in(1984)‑speakersfromastronglyAshkenazy‑
Jewishbackgroundfi･omEasternSeaboardcities(y).
3.ﾉ.ノ

力加r"α"veco"zｲs

TheLinguisticsDataConsortium(hencefbrthLDC:www・ldc.upenn.edu)
hascollectedlargesamplesofnewscasts(N)inseveral languages.WhilethematerialswereinitiallycollectedfbrtheNational lnstituteofStandardsand
T℃chnology's(hencefbrthNIST,fbrmerlyknownastheBureauofStandards)
benchmarkstudiesfbrspeechrecognition,obviouslytheinfbrmativenatureofthegenreprovidesaperfbctCcfbil,''orcomparison,fbrconversationalmate‑rial.AnalysisoftheuseofIvEGinnewscastswillpermitustoseeif.6infblz
mative'' tokenswithnopossibledisagreementareprimarilyprominentas
prqjected,andwillallowustocomparetherelativeimportanceoftheCOg‑""んePro"1i"e"ceandSOciq/j49"eeme"/P""叩ﾉes・NewscastsinSpanish(""64)andEnglish(E"gﾉjS方β、α此as/"ews)availablefiomtheLDC@nd

tapedinthel990s)willbecomparedwithnewscastsrecordeddirectlyfiFomlevel,subculturalsocialgroupsvarytheirprosodicbehaviorquiteextensivelyl
withsocialsituationandturn‑fbotingbothcritical totheprosodicchoices

TVprogramsbroadcastinJapanin2002.

madebythespeakers. ･IBble5・lpresentSthecorporatobeanalyzedfbrthis
study.Thedemographicgroupswhichcanbeisolatedaremenvs.women,
speakersfi･omdifferentdialectareasofthesamelanguage,anddemographi‑
callysimilarspeakerswholiveindifYerentcountriesandspeakdiffbrentlan‑
guages.Unfbrtunatelyjduetoidiosyncrasiesofthecorpus,ageisnotoneof

twoleft‑handcolumnsofThbleS.2.

thedemographicfactorswhichcanbeconsidered.
乃6/eゴ.ノCALLFRIEND

CF

MEN

WoMEN

MEN

WoMEN

TbTAL

6

3

8e9;4nc;4y;2w

6e;6nc;4y;2w

36

−

一

6a;4s

6;2s

18

−

−

5

4

9

Se"q"oSpanish

9

7

6

4

10

TbkyoJapanese

3

3

4

0

4

−

−

0

4

4

USEnglishN
USEnglishS
Cos/e"oSpanish

SapporoJapanese

ThedemographicsofthespeakersintheNewscorpusarelistedonthe
English:Thel996BroadcastNewsSpeechCorpus(LDC97S44/66/71)
containsatotaloflO4hoursofbroadcastsfromradionetworkswithcorre‑

spondingtimealignedtranscripts.Weanalyzedacross‑sectionofthoseread
newscastsandallthenewsreadersusetheneutralkoi"@ofienreferredtoas

4@NPR(i.e.,NationalPublicRadidEnglish,"althoughtheanalyzeddatawere
gatheredfi･omABCandNBC,notfiomNPR.Fornewsbroadcasts,withonly
infbrmativestance, 100NEGtokensweredeemedsufficient.

NumberofSpeakersinEachCorpus
NEws

145

Japanese:TheJapanesebroadcastnewscorpuscontainsatotalofeight
hoursofnationallytelevisedeveningnewscastsfiFomNHK(Tbkyo),TBS(Tbkyo),andTV‑Asahi('Ibkyo)in2002;allthenewscastersaretrainedspeak‑ersoftheJapanesebroadcastkoj"dreferredtoask)ﾉOO/S"脚‑go(.℃ommonlan‑
guage")orﾉり oq/脚"‑9o("standardlanguage").The6rst l61tokensfiomthese
newscastswerethentranscribedandanalyzedbythesecondauthor'steam.
Spanish:The〃"64corpus(LDC98S74)containsspeechandaligned
transcriptsof30hoursofbroadcastnewscastsfi･omT℃levisa(Miami),Uni‑
visi6n(Mexico)andVOiceofAmerica(VOA)broadcaststoLatinAmerica
readbyMexicanand@CMiami''speakersofSpanish;thepreferredinternational

146

MqlCaル)t7"eﾉ･‑Dﾉ℃':乃"jqGrq"α〃ﾉb.S"qjj乃kα"o,q"dLq"re〃〃｡"‑Lew

broadcaStstandardfbrLatinAmericanSpanishintheUnitedStatesisMexi‑

can(Ahrens2004).Hereagain,the6rstlOOtokenswerecoded.
3.ﾉ.2Co"ve応α"o"αﾉcoIporq

PreviousstudieS(Labovl972;Yaegerl974;YaegeFDror2001;DiPaoloand
Faberl990;EckertandRickfbrd2001; .nlcker2007)haveconsistentlydem‑
onstratedthatthemoreselfLconsciousspeakersare, thelessrule‑governed

theirsociophonologyis. lfthis istruefbrvowelorconsonantphonology,
whichfbrmostspeakersonlytangentiallyvarieswith$Gfboting''andothersituationalfactors, itislikelytobetruefbrprosody,whichismostsusceptible
tosituationalvariation.

Luckily,several largeparallelconversationalcorporaareavailablefi･om
LDC.Tbmaximizecomparability,wehavechosenfi･iendlyconversations
fiomseveralcultures,referredtoontheLDCwebsiteasthe:℃allFriend''(CF)corpus;conversations inUSEnglish,JapaneseandLatinAmerican
SpanishtranscribedattheUniversityofArizonaareavailableboththrough

LDCandontheTalkbankwebsite(www.talkbank.org/data/CA).Thesoundqualityofalltheconversationsisquitegood,andaimostallconversations
todateappeartobeprimarily@.unmonitored''; thatis,speakersappear
unselfLconsciousabout localvariationanddisplayminimalevidenceofthe

accommodationtothecoparticipantwhichisknowntooccurwhenthecon‑versationalistsarestrangerstoeachotherortheinterviewsituationrequires
anexternalmicrophone.WhentherewereobviousC･power''asymmetries,a61ewasdiscardedfi･omthepresentanalysis.Thesephonecallspermitthe

analysisofhowspecificvariablesareusedinthesamesocialsituation‑phoneconversationsbetweenclosefi･iends,initiatedbyoneoftheconversa‑
tionalparticipants.

SpeakersweresolicitedbytheLDCtoparticipate inthistelephone
speechcollectioneffbrtviatheinternetandpersonalcontacts,soallspCat‑
eTswerefromsimilarlyeducatedmiddle‑classsocialbackgrounds; thisis
confirmedbythelevelofeducationshownfbrspeakers・Thereisatotalof

乃eMcj叩力o"e""q/Pmsoc"cCb"/o"応O"NEG

I47

fifeelong‑distancetelephonecall).Documentationfbreachcallincludeshome
region,sex,age,education,calleeareacode,andthealignedtranscript.As
discussedearlier,tothebestofourabilityonlyphonecallsbetweenfi･iendsof
thesamesex,ageandregionalbackgroundweretranscribedfbranalysis,and
onlytranscribedcallswereanalyzed.
Allconversationstookplaceinthel990s(asdidallnewscastsbutthoseinJapanesd.Almostallphonecallswerebetweenintimatesandequals,but
sincetheculturalunderpinningsmayinHuencetherelativeimportanceoftheSociaﾉ,4gree"fe"rP"" た, inlightofthestudiesbyThnnen(1981, 1984)
andSchiffi･in(1984)discussedpreviously,thedialectandregionofallcallers
werecarefilllynoted.
English:Allcallsbetweenimmediatefamilymemberswerediscarded,
exceptinafew(2Northern,2Southern)cases.Forthemoment, thesefbur
cross‑generationalconversationshavenotbeenisolatedbutarestillincluded
inthecorpusunderanalysis.Eachdatasetwasrunbothwithoutthecross‑generationalcalls,andthenwiththem.Theonlychangeintheresultswasthat
withtheadditionofthefamilycalls,agebecameasignificantfactol;andthe
otherfactorgroupsbecamemoresigni6cantbutdidnotchange.
Japanese:Whilepowerisassumedtobemoresigni6cantasavariablein
JapaneseculturethanintheUSorLatinAmerica,theseconversationswere
chosentobeasfi･eeofhierarchyaspossible.WithintheJapaneselanguage
corpus, therewasaconfbundsinceall thementranscribedwerefiPomthe
Kantoregion(EasternJapan,e.g.,Tbkyo),andwereintheir20s,whileallofthewomenwerefiPomHokkaidoandwereintheir40s.Asaresult, it isunclearwhetherdifYerencesbetweenconversationswereduetospeakersex,
toagegrading,ortoregion.
Spanish:Conversationswhichmetthecriteriafbrthisstudyweretran‑
scribedintheirentiretyandcanbefbundonlinewiththeotherCallFriend
conversations(talkbank,org).Thissubcorpusrequiredgreaterdialect@Gtri‑
age''thantheothers.−LDCcodedspeakersasGGCaribbean''orGGNonCarib‑

bean''basedonarougheStimateofdialectregion.However,dialectregion
doesnotactuallyfbllowthethebordersofcountries,andwerecodedspeak戸

LDC96S57,CFLSp:LDC96S58;alsoHub5‑LDC98S70/T27andLDC98S70;

ersas.･@sfe"os'' ("Coastal'')or..鉈γ""os"("Mountain")basedontheirdialectcharacteristics(Canfieldl963, 1981).GiventhattheCbsre"ocultural
patternismoresociallysymmetricalthantheSb"q"o(BrownandGillman

Japanese‑LDC96S53);eachcallerplacedatelephonecallviaatoll‑freerobot
operatormaintainedbytheLDCtoacalleeofhisorherchoice・Recruitswere
givennoguidelinesconcerningwhattheyshouldtalkabout,butWeretolqt9

callscodedas""q"oweremadebetweenMexicans,orColombiansfrom

60callsfbreachcall set (English/Southem,EnglishNonSouthern‑CF
NENG:LDC96S46;CFLSENG:LDC96S47; SpanishCoastal/Noncoastal‑

6allclosefifiends.Allparticipantsknewthatthesecallswouldberecorded.

Uponsuccessfillcompletionofthecall,thecallerwaspaid$20(andgiventhel960),thisdistinctionisparticularlyimportantfbrdiscourseanalysis.Whileallspeakers inthesecallsreciprocallyaddressedeachotherwith/zi, thetheBogotaregion(Canfieldl963/1981);mostoftheVenezuelansarecoded
as"s/e肋sfbrthepurposesofthisanalysis.Onlyoneconversationwas

148

Mqﾉ ル】tyegeﾉ･‑Dﾉ･o"7b"iqGl･q"α "o,SWq/j乃kq"o｡q"dLq"re〃〃t7"らLew

analyzedfromspeakerswhowerenotbothfi･omthesameregionandonly
oneinwhichspeakeFsexdifYbred.
ThecolumnsontherightofTable5.Ishowthenumberofspeakersin
eachcell.

3.ﾉ.3

ノ"節vimiαﾉmeαﾙeγvα〃α6/"

FortheVarbrulAnalysis,eachspeaker'suniquecodecategorizedhim/herbysex(MFG),'age(bydecade)anddialect/region(asspeci6edbefbre).Except
fbrtwomenfi･omthedeepsouth,allspeakersweremiddleclass;asalreadynoted,thecanvassingstrategyelicitedcallsfi･ommostlycomputeraliterate

speakers,manywithgraduatedegrees,andmosttelephonedyadswerelim‑
itedtothosewithidenticaldemographics.

Exceptfbrthecross‑generationalcallsdiscussedearliel;alldyadswere
symmetrical.Tbtheanalysts,eventheexceptionsappearedtobequite.Csol‑
idary"and"reciprocal''(BrownandGillmanl960).
AsTables5.land5.2show,eachspeakerwasalsocodedfbrsituation,
withthenewscasters(N) isolatedfiomcasualconversationalists(CF).The
numberofNEGtokensanalyzedanddiscussedhereisfbundonTable5.2,

7WeSりciOpbo"e/にsq/Proso("cCo"/o"′窓o〃NEG

149

threelanguagessampled.Table5.3providesthecodingchoicesfbrthedepen‑dentvariable,andFigure5.lprovidesasamplesentence.lntheexample,
takenfi･omtheKennedy‑Nixondebates,weseethatthefirsttokenof"o/is,
indeed,prominent・ThesecondﾉvEG‑fbrwhichweseethecoding‑isnon‑
prominent(N)albeituncontracted(F[ulll),butthefbllowingword(pres""7e)isprominent(R).EachtokenofﾉvECwaSdiSplayedandtherelevantparam‑
eterswereanalyzedandcodedontheG.vARBRuIj'tier・Thefillltranscriptwas
alsomonitoredcarefillly,sincealargercontextisneededtopermitaccurate
analysisofwhatwillbereferredtointhischapterasthefbotingofeachturn,whichwillbediscussedinSection3.6.Thecodingtierallowedalltokensto
becodedastheywereanalyzedandpermittedquickaccesstoquestionabletokens,withthecoding,thesoundiile,andthepitchtrackallboundtogether
inonefjle.''Table5.3presentsthisdependentvariableanditscoding.'2
Ineachcaseat leasttwopeoplewereinvolvedinthecoding: thepri‑
marycoderandtheprimaryresearcherfbrthecorpus.Questionsthatarose
werediscussedamongthecoauthorstoinsurethatcodingwouldbeassimilar
aspossiblefbrthethreecorpora・Pitchworkspermitsthecodingtiertobe
exportedintoafiledirectlyanalyzablebyGoldvarb(Sankoff;Tagliamonte,
andSmith2005).

alongwiththenumberoftokensfiFomsituationswhicharealludedtoinpass‑ing.'0NotethattherearefewertokensfbrtheJapaneseCFcorpusthanfbrtheothers,notbecausethespeakersusefewerofﾉvEGtokens,butbecausefewer
phonecallshavebeenanalyzed;theaveragenumberoftokensperspeakeris

English:Thepitchaccentofthe/vEGwasdeterminedwithcodingchoices
roughlyparalleltotheTbBIsystem(cfSyrdaletal.2001;Shattuck‑Hufhageletal.2005)withmodi6cationsnecessitatedbyvariationfbundineachlan‑
guage・AsshownonThble5.3, tokenswerelaterrecodedintoabinarysys‑

notsurprisinglylow.

tem,withProminence(+)beingtheApplicationoftherule.Tbcomparethe
resultswithHirschberg's(1990,1993)andO'Shaughnessy's(O'Shaughnessy
andAllenl983),onlyvariationsonH*wereconsideredasapplicationsin
thefinalEnglishandSpanishstudies,withLandvrecodedwithNandAas

乃6ﾉe5．2

NumberofTbkensfbrEachSituation

SITuATIoN
News
DebateSWBSPANIsH

JAPANESEENGLIsH

100

161

100

−

−

287
−

530

505

CF

450

299

1626

MeanJvEGtokens/CFspeaker

22

37

34

3.2

Codingthedependentvariable

Acousticmeasurementsoffilndamental fi･equency,amplitude,andduration

wereusedtodeterminetheprosodicprominenceofﾉvEGtokensineachofthe

nonapplicationsト),asshownonTable5.3inthe@@recode''column.
Japanese:TheJapaneseresearchgroupfbundthatalmostalltheoccuF
rencesofprominent‑"αj‑"EC‑wererealizedasH*+L､L*anditspermuta‑
tionscannotoccurinJapanese,soevenifL*,orL*+Hhadbeenincludedas
anapplication, itwouldnothavechangedtheanalysis・ '3
Thble5．3presentsthedependentvariableascoded.
Spanish:NavarroJIbmas(1944),Sosa(1999),Face(2001,2002)allagree
thatthenarrowerthefbcus,thehighertheFOpeakonaSpanishword.Beck‑
manetal.(2005),Estebas Vilaplana(2006)andothershavepointedoutthat,at
leastfbrreadingintonationinisolatedsentences,thepreferrednoncontrastive
fbcusoflberianSpanishisL*+H;thatis,thereisalowFOprominenceonthe
accentedsyllable,withariselateinthatsyllableorinsubsequentsyllables.
ThisL*+HcontourismuchraI℃rinEnglishandiSnotdocumentedfbrother150

Mq化αル)t7"ef‑Dﾉ℃"乃"joGrq"α""ひ,Shq/ﾉ乃kα"O｡α"dL""で〃〃t7"‑Lew･IbBI
S1GNIFICANCE

CoMMENT■■■■■■■CORRELATE

N

■■

N

Neutral‐noamp.or FO prommence

A

ロ

A

Amplitude

1̲r

LoudeI;butnoFOprominence

■■

垂

，

Duration

1̲F

Durationincrease

H

十

一

High

H＊

mostcommonprommence

R

＋

一

Rising

H+H*;L+H*;
H*;%H

variationsonH*

八

＋

P

Rise+fal1

H*+L;H*‑1̲Moccursfi･equently

F

＋

＝

Falli ng

H*+L;H*‑1̲M

L

‐

−

Low

1̲"

Bolinger'3.pick'':rareV一■■■■■■■

Fall‑rise

LF+H

occursmorerarel y−

3.3

Codingfbrmorphologyofnegation

Asthepreviousdiscussionshows, it islikelythatprominenceismorphosyn‑
tacticallyconstrainedineachofthelanguagesunderanalysis.
English:Table5.4edemonstratesthattherearevariouswaystoexpress
negationinEnglish,andthemostcommonisreferredtoby.Ibttie(1991)as○

SAMPLESENTENCES

1s、

Itiangtreallypossible.

iSn't｡fSnot

lt堕辿reallypossible.

Nb‑negation

ngwhere,旦旦型旦r,旦旦thing,

Ineverdidthat!

Affixalnegation

皿perfect,lLrespective,

lam皿capable...

−旦旦旦StOp−

Only{NALv}areconsiderednonapplicationsinEnglishandSpanish,butonly
NwasconsideredanonapplicationfbrJapanese.Non‑occurringoptionsare
designatedQ@‑''intheappropriatecell.Alltokenswererecodedas+or‑.

ExAMPLEs'IbTTIE'sTERMINoLooY●●■＆ＣＱ■ａJAPAN 13

CoDE

ｎｎ
ｏＯ
ｔｔ
ａ
ａ
２︶Ｅ︶
ｅ
ｅ
ｎ
ｎ
口一
ｔ
Ｏｔ
０

ProsodicVariation:TheDependentVariable
RECODE乃6ﾉe5.ｲeMorphology

︑ｎ
＊＊

ENG/S

includedisthedistinctionbetweencontractedandfilll /vEG,whiletherarer

negationtypeswillnotbeanalyzed.

ＦＣ乃6た5.3151$Wりr‑negation."BecauSeit is(byfaI)themostcommonfbrm,onlyfilllor
contractedⅣb/‑negationinfillldeclarativesentencesareanalyzedhere.(Thereasonsfbrlimitingtheanalysisinthiswayarediscussedingreaterdetail in
YaegeFDroretal.2002.)Itisalsotruethatthefilll fbrmof"o/‑negationand
affixalnegativefbrmsaremorefrequentinwritingandininfbrmativeintelz
actions,sobyonlyconsideringthemostreduciblefbrmofnegation,weare
actuallyminimizingthedegreetowhichsituationinHuencesthelikelihoodofﾉvEGprominence.Inthepresentstudy,then,theonlymorphologicalcoding︒︒
肱伽languagesstudiedtodate,norintheAmericanSpanishdialectsdiscussed
byNavarroTbmdsorthoseinthepresentcorpus・However,eveninlberian
Spanish,bothnarrowfbcusandcaseswherethefbcalworddoesnothave
subsequentunstressedsyllables,H*,oratleastL+H*,ismuchmorelikely
tooccur. Inaddition, thereissomecontroversyoverwhetherthepitchpeak
isontheaccentedsyllableonlyorwhetherFOcontinuestorisetiltheendof
theword. CGThepeakisonthestressedsyllablewhenit islast,butafierthe
stressedsyllablewhenitisnot6nal.''(Face2002)
WhilenopreviousprosodicstudiesoftheuseofIvEGhavebeenattempted
fbranySpanish‑speakingcorpus,sinceCG"o''isonlyonesyllablelongthetype
ofriseonthetargetsyllableshouldnotvarywithfbcus.Thedefaultassump‑tionisthatH*willbemorelikelytooccuronaﾉvEGthanIJk(althougheither
prominenceoptionwouldstillberelevantfbrthisstudy).

7WeSbciOp/io"e"csqJProsocWcCo"/o"'窓O"NEG

CoIjunctivenegation

but.however. incontrast.

旦旦LItalkagoodgame.

Tbttie(1991)fbund"of‑negationtobethedominantfbrmofnegationinEng‑
lish.InthisstudybonlyFullandContracted"o/‑negativesindeclarativesen‑tencesarecodedfbrEnglish;theotherfbrmsofnegationarenot.
Japanese:ThemorpholOgyofJapanese/vEcismorecomplicatedthanthat
fbrEnglishorSpanish:Thepresentstudyfbcusesonlyonthemostcommon
type,"αinegation,withallthefbursubtypesofcomugations(fbllowingverbals,
nominals,a(Uectives,andadiectivalnouns)included,asfbundinThble5.4j.
NegationinvoIving〃αjisrealizedintwomorphologicalstructures:〃αjis
cliticizedtotheverbasanauxiliaryverb(e.g.,加"""6.speak''/〃α" α‑"αノ
6Gdonotspeak'';放"cGgo''/放α‑"α/"donotgo"),oritisrealizedasanindepen‑
denta(Jectiveprecededbynominals(e.g.,sz""ko/ogα"α/GG(I)donothave
anythingtodo."),adjectivest.g.,oな〃j肋wα〃αj"(lt)isnotdelicious.'')or
adjectivalnouns(e.g.,k"eiftwq""c@(It)isnotpretty.'')Itcanbeassumed
thatthemorphologicallyindependentuseof"αishouldbeperceptuallymore
salientthanwhenitiscliticized.AsinEnglish, theclitic‑IvEGismuchmore
common:74%ofthetokenSare@cauxiliary‑nai'' inconversation.Moreover,justasinEnglish,theotherfbrmsofnegationbecomemorecommoninpre‑
planned‑broadcaststatements, thepercentagerising廿om26%inconversa‑
tionto37%innewscasts.

152

7WeMci叩ﾙO"e"csq/P'℃so"ca"ﾉO"'否O"NEG

Mq化αル)t7"eﾉ･‑Dﾉ℃ﾉ;乃"jaGm"α""b,Sﾙq〃乃Aα"O,α"dZ,α"ﾉ｡e〃〃b"‑Lew

Analysisofreadingpassagesorisolatedsentenceshasdemonstratedthat"αj'spositionwithinthesentenceinfiuencestheprobabilitythatitwillreceive
fbcalprominence;prosodicprominenceon〃αjiscloselylinkedtosyntac‑
ticdislocation(themovementoflinguisticelementstothepost‑predicate
position).Thkano(2002,2008)fbundthatpostposedelementssupplantthe
unmarkedpositionfbr〃αj,shiftingitfbrwardandcreatingaprosodicenvi‑
ronmenttheoreticallymorefavorabletopitchprominenceon〃αj・However,asinEnglish,thelikelihoodofoccurrenceofthesemorecomplexstructuresis
low.Languagespeci6cconstraintsinteractwithcommunicativerequirements
ofspeci6csocialsituations.Atthemoment,althoughtheverbalafHxismost
commonandiSsimilartoﾉvEcinotherlanguages,thesmallnumberofphone
callsanalyzedtodateledustocodeall〃αjfbrtheanalysis.

7bble5.4sMorphology
CoDE
‐

CoDE
X

ＮＡ︐

Auxilia ry Verb

Verbs+〃

Egowaルα" q‑2zgi．

EnglishTOPspeak‑jvEGNominal-Nominals+""

S"ﾉ･"kofo即旦g』
dothingsSUBNEG

AdjeCtive-

AdjeCtiveS+"" Ojsﾙjk"(iwﾘ旦処
deliciousTOPNEG

Adjectival-noun- Adjectival
NounS+""

Affixalnegation

prelix"‑,〃"‑，

K"･ei"wα〃qj.

−(1)dgn1speak
English.
(1)donothave
anythingtodo.
(1t)isnot
delicious.

(1t)ig̲nQlpretty.

PrettyCOPTOPﾉvEG"‑koos〃ki;hg‑be",erc.

Unofncial甲︒〃■■■■■■■GLoss

SAMPLEsENTENcEs

FoRM

GRAMMATIcAL−〃1m−9 6"−

皿convenlence,

ExAMPLEs

TbTTIETERMINoLoGYSAMPLE

M，

Lespos必/e，"‑negatlon

n匹わ.〃""Ca．

jMｲ"gg"zoeso/

afiiXalnegation

迦ﾌe唯αo,"c〃αZ. ． ．

地y辺c叩αZ. . .

Conjunctivenegation

陸rひ̲""‑negation[ﾉvEc]−J"

ｨe， ． ．

"mleﾉo"e.

−ThemorphologyofSpanishissimplerthanthatfbrEnglish,sonocodingfbr
morphologyisrequired,sinceonlyGCno‑negation''isincludedintheanalysis.

3.4
乃6/e5."Morphology:Japanese

153

Codingfbrsentenceposition:Endvs.Other

AsalreadydiscussedinSection2.3,TbBIanalysisofreadingsinallthreelan‑
guageshasfbundthatpitchrangetendstobecomenarrowertowardtheend
oftheintonationphrase(Arvaniti2007;Jun2005;Ladd2008;Pierrehumbert
1980;Sosal999); thisisirrelevant ifC""erbCOro""'prevails,buttothe
degreethatprosodycanbeconstrainedbysentenceposition,itshouldallow
total廿eedomfbrprominenceonSpanishﾉvEc,asomewhatconstrainedfree‑domonEnglishﾉvEG,andshouldconstrainJapaneselvEGmosteffectivelyb
Previousquantitativecorpusstudiessupport thatclaim:YaegerDror(2002a),Banuazizi(2003)andHedbergandYaegeFDror(2008)allfbundthat
sententialpositioninfiuencesthelikelihoodthataﾉvEGtokenwillbepromi‑
nentinEnglish; thestudyofJapanesehasnowshownsententialpositiontobeasigni6cantfactoraswell. InSpanish,ofcourse,ﾉvEGcannotbesentence
6nalexceptwithonewordutterances,whicharenotunderdiscussionhere,sosentenceposition(Endvs.OtheI)isonlycodedfbrJapanese'4andEnglish.

etc．

−

Conjunct

PlacedbefOreneganon〃αI巳

Ze"ze"ok"ﾙ股〃〃αi.

−(1t'S)notfmny
atall.

TOP=topicmarker
SUB=suMectmarker
COP=copula

Spanish:Thble5.4sdemonstratesthattherearealsovariouswaystoexpress
negationinSpanish.ByfarthemostcommoniJWO‑Negation.''Againbecause
it isthemostcommonfbrm, thesimplest,andmostsimilartothe/vEGfbrm

analyzedfbrEnglish,wewillanalyzehereonlyハノo‑Negationinfillldeclarative
sentences,sonocodingfbrmorphologyisneededfbrtheSpanishcorpus.

3.5

Codingfbrenvironmentalajacentprominence

Oneofourinitialhypotheseswasthat ifawordadjacenttoaﾉvEGispromi‑
nent,prominenceontheﾉvEGitselfwillbelesslikely.
Unfbrtunately,whilethisistheoreticallyareasonablehypothesis,reality
isfarmorecomplicated(YaegelsDror2002a): theanalystmustconsidernot
onlythelikelihoodofprominence,butwhichsideofthenegativethepromi‑
nenceison,whetherbothprecedingandsucceedingwordSareprominent
andwhethertheprominentwordupgradesordowngradesthefbrceofthe
disagreement;thesefactorsmustthenbesupplementedbycodingfbrthesitu‑
ation,stanceandfbotingoftheturn.