’
284KuniyoshiKataoka

Schifrin,D. 1981."Tbnsevariationinnarrativef'L"gwqge57(1):45-62.
Shooho,I.1980."KQsqnnotaikeil'(nnesystemofkqsqα).M加"go"oShijishi,51‑122. 'Ib‑
kyo:KokuritsuKokugoKenky''Ujo.
Silverstein,M.1976."Shihers,linguisticcategories,andculmraldescriptionl'InMe"加g伽A〃
thmPol"4K.BassoandH・Selby(edS.),11‑55.Albuquerque,NM:UniversityofNew

I

Variationinprosodicfbcusof
theJapanesenegative""

MexicoPress.

Silverstein,M. 1995. "Indexicalorderandthedialecticsofsociolinguisticlifej'SALSAIII:
266‑295．

Issuesoflanguagespecificity5interactive
style,andsocialsituations"

Strauss,S.1993."Why@this'and4that'arenotcompletewithout｡it?'qlia哩oLinguisticsSocie"
029:403‑417.

Tannen,D.1989.乃IkingWices.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

ト

Tbkuchi,S.2001."ShakaitogengootsunaguiminitsmteI'TFIeﾉ"zz"eseﾉb脚ryIoIIq/Lα"gM"ei"Socie"4(1):68‑80.

ShOjiTakano

Wilson,1. 1990.助""cnlly""ki"London:BasilBlackwell.

HokuseiGakuenUniversity

WolfSon,N.1978..IAfbamreofperfbrmednarrative:nleconversationalhistoricalpresent!'L"‑
gzｲ ei"Sociel)'7:215‑237.

Ybshimoto,K. 1992."Nihongonoshiji‑shiko/so/anotaikeij' InS"‑S",S.KinsuiandYL
Takubo(eds.),105‑122.Tbkyo:HitujiSyobo.

1.
I

I

I

Introduction

Whnesocialsimationsandrelatednormsfbrlinguisticperfbrmanceinnuencewhich

styleorregistershouldbechosen(i.e､,theunmarkedchoice),itisawell‑knownlin‑
guisticfactthatspeakerS'stylistic(orregister)choicesvaryevenwithinidenticalcom‑
municativesimations.BeginningwithsuchseminalworkasFerguson(1964)andBlomandGumperz(1972),linguistshavebecomeincreasinglyinterestedininvesti‑
gatingthisdynamicaspectofcodeorstylealternationsinactuallinguisticpractice‑whatevermaybetheimplicitor"metaphorical"socialmeaningsspeakerstrytocon‑
veybeyondwhatissaidthroughtheirsituationallymarkedchoicesofthecodeorstyleintheimmedatecontextofuse(Gumperzl982).

Prosodyisoneofthemostefficientmeanstodeliverthese"paralinguistic''mes‑

sages,whichtypicallyconsistofsuchmteractivedimensionsassolidarityandsocial
distance,powerdistribution,deferenceandconfiPontation,andthespeakerbcurrent
emotionalstate(Laddl996:33).Sofarithegreatmajorityofstudiesofstylisticvaria‑
tioninJapanesehavebeenrestrictedtosuchovertmorpho‑syntacticcharacteristicsas

plainvs.pohte(‑deszJ/m'zs")alternationsofthepredicatestructureandtheircorrela‑tionwiththesimationalcontextofuse.ThepresentsmdyisanattempttoexploretheIlargelyneglectedareaofprosodybysheddinglightonsituationallymarkedbut
ThispaperisheavlymdebtedtomspirationfromMalcahYaeger‑DromHerinsightfillcom‑
mentsonanearlyversionofthepaperandherencouragementareparticularlyappreciated・I
汁

wouldnketoexpressmygratimdetothetwoeditors,KimberlyIonesand'IbuyoshiOno,fbrthis
oppormnitytocontributetothevolumeandtheirvaluablecommentsonpreviousversionsof
thepapertIamalsoverygratefUltoananonymousreviewerfbrprovidingmewithhelpfillcom‑
mentsandsuggestions,andtoRayHardestyfbrcarefilUyproofreadingthemanuscript.AUre‑
mainingerrorsaremyown.
I’
286ShOji akanO

systematicallyvariableusesoffbcalprominenceincloselinkagetointeractivedimensionsofstyleandsociolinguisticpropertiesofsocialsituations(i.e.,register)inJapanese languagepractice.Whileprosodicprominence involvesdiffbrentacoustic
parameterssuchaSamplitude,duration,andpitchvariation, thepresentanalysisis
mainlyconcernedwithpitchphenomenabecausefimdamentalfiPequency(FO)plays
theprimaryrolembothproductionandperceptionoffbcalprominenceinJapanese(Azumal992a,b;Kooril989a,b;Sugitoul982).
Surprisinglylittleattentionhasbeenpaidtotheanalysisoffbcalprominencem
intonatiOnalphonologyGItfbllowsthatinthecurrentstateofthedisciplineresearchers
havenotyetdrawnanysatisfactoryconclusionastowhyandhowaspeakerplaces
prosodicfbcusoncertainelementsoftheutterance(Laddl996).Amajoruniversalist
viewpoint,whichisconcernedwithinfbrmationstructureindiscourse,proposesthat

VariationinprosodicfbcusofFmi287

monyandcoUectiveunityarehighlyesteemedasrigidsocialnormsinlapanesesociety;11nrealityihowevel;thesocialnormsaremorene)dblethantheculturalstereotype,inthat
theyaredependentuponthedimensionsofinterpersonalrelationswithmthesociety(Befill980,Ishidal984,Kraussetal.1984).'Researchonnon‑harmonioustypesofin‑teractionsremainsrelativelyrareinJapaneselmguistics,perhapsduetothi3Gmythof

hannon)F(Jonesl990).Whnea企wpioneeringsmdieshavedealtwithasmglesocial
simation(eithercasualconveIsationorwormlacediscourse)(Jones1990, 1995;Ni‑yekawal984),thepresentsmdywillmcorporateacomparativeperspectiveacrossdiffbr‑
entcommunicativesettings,takingmtoaccountthedifYb唾ntialeRctsofsocialsima‑
tions(i.e.,register)asavariablemexpressionsofdisagreementmJapanesemteractions.
Inordertoreachabetterunderstandingofhowvariableusesoffbcalprominence

ineverydayinteractionsaregovernedbysociolinguisticgrammarb2weneedtoiden‑

newsignilicantinfbrmationinadiscoursetendstobegivenprosodicfbcus(Brown

tifythematrixofpotentialconstraintsonvariabnityandtheirco‑occurrencerestric‑

1983,GroszandSidnerl986,NooteboomandKruytl987,Princel981,andseeparticularlyCuderetal. 1997).Thisgeneralization,however;mayberefiltedonatleast

tions(TErkenl997),whicharelikelytobeuniquetoeachindividuallanguage(Ladd1996).Thepresentstudyadoptsthevariationistframeworkofanalysis(i.e.,thevaria‑
bleruleapproach)todetectpotentialconstramtsthatsimultaneouslyiniluenceob‑
servedvariabnityinfbcalprominenceandtoaccountfbrtherelativesignificanceof

threegrounds,whichthepresentstudyaimstoverifybasedontheanalysisofeveryday
naturalinteractionsfiPomthelapanesespeechcommunity;nleseare:l. Priorsmdiesneglectaconsiderableamountofcross-linguisticvariabilityinvolved
inibcalprominencephenomenaandsufferfiPombeingEnglish-centric(Ladd
1996;Yaeger-Dror2002a,b).
2. Priorstudiesaremainlybasedonthereadingofconstructedsentencestakenout

1
1

theconstraintsresponsiblebrthevariation(i.e.,thehierarchyofconstraints)(Preston

1991,SankoH1986).Thetypesofconstraintstobeinvestigatedincludethestructuralenvironment(i.e､,thestrucmralprinciplesofJapaneseprosody)inwhichthenegative"iziisembedded,thestatusofinfbrmationconveyedbythenegativemadiscourse,

particularinteractiveworkininterpersonalexchanges(SChegloffeta1. 1977), thespeakerbstanceorfbotingofnegation(Gofﾓmanl981),andtheinfbrmational‑inter‑

ofcontextoronmonologuereadingsinalaboratorysetting,wherethedynamic
interactiverolesprosodyplaysinface-to-faceexchangesarenottakenintoaccount(Couper-KuhlenandSeltingl996).
3. Anyconclusionsderivedpredominantlyfifomasingle,non-interactivekindofsocialsituationleadtoanimpoverishedpictureofwhatprosodycanreallydoin
everydayinteractionsthatareinherentlyrichinbothstyleandregister(Yaeger-

activepropertiesofdiffrentsocialsituations(Biberl988,1995).
TWodiametricallydistinctivetypesofinteractiveregistersandonenon‑interac‑tiveregisterserveasthedata.Oneoftheinteractiveregistersconsistsoffburtelevised
one‑on‑onetoo1℃〃@debates'onpoliticalissues,3inwhichthefbrmaldes"/i"""‑style

predicatewasthesoleoptionused,withoutanyapparentstyleshiftmginitsconven‑

Drorl996,1997,2001).

tionalsense.Theotherinteractiveregisterconsistsof6vecasualsame‑sexconversa‑
tionsbetweenclosefriends,inwhichtheplainstylepredicateorfragmentalutterances'Ibinvestigatehowdynamically(andsystematically)fbcalprominenceoperatesininteractivelanguageuse,thepresentstudyfbcusesonanaspectofface-to-faceexchangesthatrequireshighlyinteractivework:negation・Theparticularlocusofanalysisisthevariablemanifbstationofbcalprominenceplacedonthelapanesenegative"i. Ithas
beenobservedinthepresentdatathatthespeakerseemstoplacedifferentialdegrees

werepredominantlyused.nnenon‑interactiveregisteIiwhichactsasthecontrol,con‑1.

offbcalprominenceon""dependinguponthesocialmeaningsofnegationatevery
momentoftalk‑in‑interaction,whilemorpho‑syntacticstyleinitsconventionalsense
ishighlyconsistentwithinthesamesocialsituation.Inotherwords,thespeakerpro‑sodicanystyle‑shiftsbetweenthesituationanyunmarkedormarkeddegreesoffbcal
prominenceplacedonthepotentiallocusofnegationinordertoconveycertainpara‑
linguisticmessages.
TheJapanese‑specificmechanismofconflictmanagementisalsodirecdyrelevantto
issuesofregistervariation.Therehasbeenaculmralstereotypethatinterpersonalhar‑

Ishida(1984),fbrexample,arguesthatinterpersonalconnictsinlapanesesocietyareac‑

commodatedorresolvedeificientlybytheimeractionofthesefbursocio‑culturaldimensions:
IJcIti(｡in‑grouP),soto(but‑group'),omoie(GsurfhceorfbrmalarenaP),andMrzz (@backStageor
infbrmalarenaP).
・"SociolinguistiCgrammar"isequivalenttoaperfbrmancegrammarinvolvingstrucmred,rule‑govemedvariabilityinlanguageuse.Itiscovariatewithacompositeoflmguistic/discour‑salconstraintsandextra‑linguisticfactors(CederFenandSankoffl974).
3. 1apaneseiooro"isbroaderinitsconceptthan@aebates"inWesterncultures.Itincludes

2．

variousfbnnatsofconfrontationaltalksuchasone‑on‑onedebatesandgroupbpanel,androundtablediscussions.SeeSection4fbradetaileddescriptionofthedata.
I’
Variationinprosodicfbcusof"j289

z88 ShOjiThkanosistsofnewsreadbynewscastersontelevisednewsprograms.nlethreetypesofdata
weretranscribed,andalloftheutterancesinvolvingthenegative"qjweIEanalyzed
prosodicallyibasedroughlyonthelapaneseTbBIlabelingschemeofprosodictran‑
scriptions(Vendittil995,2005).

2．

1

beenfbundbetweenfbcusanditssyntacticposition.Pitchprominenceisplaced
typicallyonwhichevercontentwordsarelocatedintheutterance-/phrase-initid
position,regardlessofthemfbrmationstatustheyrepresentinadiscourse(Sugitou
1985,1986;seealsosimnardaimsinKooril989a,b).4

InconnectionwiththispositiondconstraintontherealizationoffbcalprominenceinJapanese,therearealsootherlanguage-specificcharacteristicsoflapanese
prosodythatmayberelevanttovariablephenomenaoffbcalprommence:downstep

Previousworkonvariablesinfbcalprominence(orcatathesis)(BeckmanandPierrehumbertl986,Kubozonol989,Pierrehumbert

andBeckmanl988)anddegenerationofpitchaccents(Kooril989b,Maekawal994).
Downstepisaphonologicalprocessmvolvinganiterativededineandnarrowingof

AccordmgtoLadd(1996),therehavebeentwomajortheoreticalstancesthatattemptto
accountbrphenomenaofibcalprominencemprosodMThefirststanceresoItsto"high‑lighting‑based"accounts(Laddl996:163),mwhichibcdprominenceplaysapragmaticrole,beingtypicallygiventowordsorphrasesofrelativelyheaviersemanticweightthan
theothersinanutterance.Anysaliententitythathasnewinfbrmationstatusmthenow
ofdiscouIsetendstobepronouncedwithfbcalprominence,wheleasentitiesthatpro‑
videold,previouslymentioned,orinsignificantinfbrmationarelikelytobede‑empha‑
sizedprosodiCallyもnoughthisgeneralizationismeanttoestabhshthe"universalist"
principlesthatcanapplytoanyhumanlanguage,itcanbecriticizedas"English‑centric"
inthatthereisabundantevidenceofcross‑hnguisticvariabnity(Laddl996: 168‑97).
nlisstancetakesintoseriousaccountsuchpragmaticnotionsasdiscoursesalienceandspeakerintentions,butitlacksattentiontopotentialstrucmralconstramts(i.e､,language‑
specificpatternsofaccentsandmtonation)ontherealizationoffbcalprominence.

pitchrangetypicallyfbundmTbkyoJapanese.5Withinanintonationphrase(IPhereinafter),thepitchrangeofthesucceedingaccentualphrase(s)(APhereinafter)becomesnarrowerwhenprecededbyanaccentedAR6Itisclaimedthatfbcusblocksthis
propagationofdownstepandfimctionstoresetthepitchrange,introducmganewlR

Degenerationoflexicalaccentsiscommonlyobservedtowardtheendofanutterance(ortheIP).TbwardtherightedgeofanlRlexicalaccentsarelikelytobeweakeneddue
tocreakyphonationoramplitudelowering.Consequentlyipitchmovementishighly
leveled,offenwithoutsalientpitchaccentrealizations,asanlPproceeds・ Infact,theIP‑finaldegenerationofpitchaccentsissoprevalentandcharacteristicofIapanesenneotherstancecentersonwhatLadd(1996:163)calls｡(strucmre‑based"ac‑counts,inwhichfbcalprominenceissubjecttotheprosodicstructureuniquetoeach
individuallanguage,andthusisa"non‑universal"phenomenon・ Itemphasizestherule‑governednatureorautonomyofpatternsoffbcalprominenceinnaturalspeech.
Oncetheibcusedelementoftheutteranceisspecified,theprosodicpatternoftherest
ispredictablebylanguage‑specincrulesorstructuralprinciples・HoweverDavarietyofcontextualincentivesthatmaycausethespeakertochoosecertainelementsoftheut‑
teranceonwhichtoplacefbcalprominenceare@htbestpoorlyunderstood;'andmore
researchfrominteractionalperspectivesisneeded(Laddl996:164,197‑99).
Inthelapaneselanguagecontext,researchonfbcalprominencehasalwaysbeen
heavnyconcernedwithitsrelationshipswiththephonologicalpropertiesoftheutter‑ance(especiallywithlexicalaccents)(e､g.,Hattoril933;Kawakamil957,1965;Kinda‑
ichil951;Oishil959;Wadal975).Recentsmdieshavebeenmostactiveinthe6eldof

laboratoryphonologyandhaveproposednon‑universalprinciplesspecifictoJapa‑
nese.Sugitou(1985, 1986),fbrexample,providesempiricalevidencethatdisproves

higmighting‑basedaccountslikeCutlerb(Cuderetal. 1997andpaperscitedthere)
andthestudiessummarizedinHirstandDiCristo(1998).Sugitoumundthatthe
wordprovidingnewinfbrmationinadiscourseisunlikelytobeproducedwithpitch(FOorfimdamentalfrequency)prominencebynativeJapanesespeakers,whereas

speakersofWesternlanguagesemphasizesuchwordswithmuchhigherpitchthanthe
wordsprovidingoldinfbrmation. Instead, inJapanese,asignificantcorrelationhasI

thatithasledJapaneseTbBIresearcherstoestablishanindependenttierfbr"finality
contours"(Vendiml995: 17).Itisthenquitelikelythatprevalentdownsteppingof
pitchanddegenerationofpitchaccentscreateanantagonisticphoneticenvironment
fbrtherealizationoffbcalprominenceinlapanesespeechproduction.
Examiningrealizationsoffbcalprominenceinconnectedspeech,otherresearch‑ershavedemonstratedthatfactorssuchascombinationsoftheaccentualpatternsof
thewordinfbcusaswenasofadjacentwords,andfbcusonpostpositionalparticles
andauxiliaryverbs,interactwithoneanotherandtogetheraffiecttheintonationalpat‑
4.

Itshouldbenotedthattheleisasmdyfbcusingoninibrmationstructureatthesentencelevel.Equatingibcalprommencewithsuchaparalinguisticdimensionasthespeakerb"fbcusof
appeals"(""tfzekMzke"oshoote""),Koori(1997b:140)arguesthatfbcalprominenceislikelyto
beplacedonthewordthatcarriessigni6cantinfbrmationrelativetotheothersmasentence.

5. Thephonologicalprocessof.aownste#isthekeyelementofageneraldowntrendmlapa‑
neseintonation.Thephoneticprocessofaeclination;'whichisagradualdecreasempitchto‑
wardtheendofanuttemnce,isalsoidentinedasanotherelementthatcontributestothisdown‑

trend.Thetwoprocessesdifrmostdistinctivelyintheprosodicdomainstowhichtheyapply(PierrehumbertandBeckmanl988:57‑91).

6． TheaCcenmalphraseinlapaneseisthesmalleStprosodicunit,basedonlexicalaCcentS・It
istonallydennedashavingparticularphrase‑mitialandterminaltonesandonephrasaltone
and/orpitchaccent(PierrehumbertandBeckmanl988).EveryaccenmalphraseiseitheraC‑
centedorunaccented.Themtonationphraseinlapaneseisthelargestprosodicunit,typicallyaccompaniedbypitchreset,pause,decreasedamphmde,pitchlowering,andsegmentlengthen‑ing(Vendittil995).

’

Variationmprosodicfbcusof"i 291

29oShOjiTakano

ternsoftheutteranceasawhole(FUjisakietal. 1984,Kawakamil965,Oishil959).
Focalprommencenotonlyisconstrainedbythelocalprosodicenvironmentmwhichfbcalentitiesareembeddedbutalsostronglyaifectstheaccentualpatternsofthewords
precedingandsucceedingthewordinfbcus(Kooril989b).nlerearealsorhythmic
issuestoconsiderinaccountingbrthesystematicityoffbcalprominence.Thema‑
nipulationofpausesisfbundtobedoselylinkedwithibcalprominenceinJapanese(andperhapsmotherlanguagesaswell)(Koori l989b,Sugitoul982).Thespeakertypicallyplacespauseseitherimmediatelybefbreoraftertheentityinfbcussothatthe

phasizesignsoftheiragreementwithco-participants.Acorrespondingdispreferencefbr
disagreementismanifestedbyminimizmgtheextentofdisagreementwhenitarises.
Yaeger-DrorbseriesofsmdiesdemonstratethatthevariabledegreesoffbcalprominenceonEnglishnegationarehighlyrule-governedintermsoftheextenttowhichspeakers
aresuMecttothoseprinciples,andthattheefftctsoftheprinciplesonthespeakerbperfbrmancevarysystematicallybasedonthefbUowingtwotypesoffactors:(1)theinfbrmational-interactivepropertiesofsocialsituations,and(2)theinteractivemeanmgsof

Inegationateverymomentoftalk-m-mteractionevenwithinasmglesocidsimation.
Asfbrthecommunicativepropertiesofsocialsituations,Biberbsmdies(1988,
1995)showthattheregistersonemanipulatesinon*everydaylifbinvolvedifferential
degreesoforientationtowardmfbrmativenessandinteractiveness,whichcomposeacontmuum.Forexample,casualconversationsareconsideIedtobeatypicalinterac-

fbcalwdrdcanattractthelistenerbattention.Thelocationoftheseemphaticpauses
doesnothavetocomcidewithsyntacticboundariessuchasthatbetweensubjectand
predicate.Theycanbeusedindependentlyfbrthesakeofprosodicemphasis.Inaddi‑tion,slowtempoalsotypicallyco‑occurswithprosodicfbcus(Kooril989b).
Whathasbeenreviewedsofarclearlysuggeststhatpatternsoffbcalprominence
inJapaneseareconstrainedbythelanguage‑specificstructuralenvironmentinwhichittakesplace.AsTbrken(1997)states,oneofthevitalquestionsthatneedstobead‑
dressedinstudiesoffbcalprominenceisunderstandingthiscomplexmatrixofstruc‑turalconstraintsonitssystematicityGThepresentstudyattemptstoaccomplishthis.

3．

tion-orientedregisteratthemostmteractiveendofthecontmuum. Inthistypeof
register;theSAPislikelytoprevanovertheCPRInterpersonalrapportandsolidarity
arehighlyesteemedovertheexchangeofinfbrmation.Inhighlyinfbrmation-oriented
registerssuchasdiscussionordebate,ontheotherhand,theCPPislikelytoprevail
overtheSAPinthatsuccessftlltransmissionofinfbrmationisgiventhefirstpriority
overafYbctivedimensionsofinteraction.Yaeger-Drorbtheorypredictsthatthevariableusesoffbcalprominencemexpressmgdisagreementshouldquantitativelyrenectthe
typesofsocialsimationsinwhichthespeakerisengaged,andthattheywmalsolikely
beaffiectedbythesocioculmralnormsthespeakerisexpectedtomeetasasuccessfill
mteractantmagivensocialsimationinagivenculture(Yaeger-Dror2002a,b).
Evenwithinasinglesocialsituation,boththeCPPandtheSAPhavetobedynamicmly"tunedinl'toeverymomentoftalk-in-interaction.Inexpressinghisorher
disagreementthroughnegation,thespeakerisobligedtodeterminetheinteractional
meaningsofthenegativesandtocontrolthestylisticparametersoftheirutterance
dependinguponthedegreeofsocialimpactontheco-participant(s)(andothersnot

Prosodicmcusonnegationandissuesofstyleandregister'Ihedataanalyzedinpaststudiesoffbcalprominencearederivedpredominantlyfrom
speechproducedmnon‑interactivecontexts(i.e.,thereadingofsentencesinisolation
ormonologues).Inawidevarietyofstudiesthatshowhowdynamictherolesofpros‑
odyareintalk‑in‑interaction(e.g.,Couper‑KumenandSeltingl996,Gumperzl982),
themainunsolvedproblemsinintonationalphonologyareconsistendyseenasarising
fromtheexaminationof@titationfbrms''(i.e.,sociallyde‑contextualizedsentences)totrytodeterminehowsentencesareaccented(Laddl996:198).
Theiirstrobustattempttoaccountbrthesemteractiveaspectsofprosodicfbcusm
namralspeechisaseriesofvariationistsmdiesconductedbyYaeger‑Dror(1985,1996,
1997,2002a,b).SmdyingthegreatvariabilitymfbcalprominenceoftheEnglishnegative"nof'meverydaylanguageuse,theauthordaimsthattwoparticularprmciplesprovide

auseftllyardstickfbrunderstandingtheobservedvariation.Yaeger‑Dror(1997)callsthe
6rstprmciplethe.GCognitiveProminencePrinciplg'(CPPhereinaner),whichhasbeen
putfbrthbyanumberofstudies(e.g.,Brownl983,Cuderetal. 1997,Hirschbergl990,
HirstandDiCristol998,NooteboomandKruytl987,O'ShaughnessyandAUenl983,
Princel981).Thisconceptioncapmresthevariationmibcalprommencebasedonthe
speakerbcognitivejudgmentoftheinfionnationstrucmre:newinbnnationmadis‑
courseisgvenmorefbcalprominencethanothermfbrmation・nleotherprinciple,
whichYaeger‑Dror(1997)canstheC･SocialAgr℃ementPrmciple'(SAPheremaher)and
whichwasoriginallyprOposedbyconversationalanalysts(e.g.,Schegloffetal.1977),
statesthatthereisa"universal"preferencefbrspeakersengagedinconversationtoem‑

present)inconversations.

Tbmustrate,somemajortypesofmteractionalmeanmgsofnegatives(thelapanese〃αi)havebeenextractedfiPommydataset,basedonYaeger‑Drorb(1997:6‑8)classification.InExcerpt(1)fiPomapoliticaldebate,oneoftheparticipants(Speaker

D3b),amalecongressman,usesthenegative"itwice(seethelinesindicatedbythearrow)mprovidingnewinfbrmationusefillfbrtheotherparticipantsinfUrtherpur‑suingtheirco‑aCtivity(politicaldebate).
1(1)Negativesa3{infbrmativeI'(neutral)interactivemeaning7
SpeakerD3b: SOrek"zzIzwe7･jk"demodbS""e,(i)"O::
7b BroadtranscriptionsarebasedontheSacksetal.(1974)systemwithsomeadditions.Major
symbolsmdude:II(speechoverlap);undedining(emphasis);undediningandCAPS(moreemphask);(.)(shortinterval);(2.0)(timedmterval);::(lengthening);？(fUllraise);period(falltolow);comma(fannottolow);//(slowtempo);@(laughter);<@@>(laughquality). !(ap‑peal);x(indecipherablesyUable).
I

I

Variationinprosodiclbcusof"iz93

292 ShOjiThkano

今今〃oos"dnkommit""α,城O"otoor"‑miyoo"(0.5)toy""to(ﾉokor""r"ke"domq肋m""ﾉi"kooIMI0"αchiiki"0des脚"e, toko"imo加靭ro α"o:：加地eidekitem"脚加．

･Besides,alsoinAmerica,um,somewherelikeinNorth

Dakota,wherenoonepassesthrough,thoughsomeone
maybeofIEndediflsaythis.Inregionsthathaveahnost
J

且Qpo ation,splendid,um,freewaysareconstructedj

causeoftherecenteconomicrecession.Here,heemploysahighlyprominentproI

sodicfbcusontheverylocusofthenegation(Ul)toexpresshisopposingstance.
NoticealsothatSpeakerD3bmakesaconcessionremark(""teidoge邦加αr脚
kedo@itisacausetosomeextent,but')befbreissuinghisveryovertdisagreement,withthenegativebeinghigmyprominent. 'Ihisseeminglycontradictorysequenceischar‑acteristicofIapaneseinteractionsinconnict(Honda2002,Jonesl995).Theprecedmg
concessioncanberegardedasanessentialconstimentoflapanesedisagreement,
whichismotivatedbytheinterpersonaldesiretosavethefaceoftheopponent,wheIe‑
asthesubsequentovertdisagreementisdrivenbythemstimtionalcontextofthistel‑

Thetheorypredictsthatmhigmyinfbrmation‑orientedsocialsimationssuchasthis
televisedpoliticaldebate,thenegativesthatprovidenewsignificantinfbrmationare
morenkelytoreceivefbcalprommencethanthoseinothersocialsituations(e.9.,cas‐eviseddebate,inwhichtheparticipantsareexpectedtomeetthecommunicativere‑ualconversation).Notice,howeverithatthefirsttokenofthenegatives(m0m‑"i)is

stanceinordertomeetthecommunicativerequirementofthisparticularsocialsima‑tionasacompetentmemberoftheculture.

notgivenProsodicemphasis.IassumethisProsodicchoicewouldbelinkedtothe
speakerthesitant,selfLacknowledgedtoneofapologywhenutteringtheremarkthat
hiswordsmightpossiblyoffbndtheinhabitantsofNorthDakota("oos""ko"""i"α〃to"otoom‑"!ziyoo"[0.51 to)'"to{.}okomだγ"keIEdOmo｡somewherelikein
NorthDakota,wherenoonepassesthrough,thoughsomeonemaybeofbndediflsay

this').nlespeakerthenrephrasedwhathehadjustsaidusingamoIegeneralized,
anonymousterm("IIoto"doj腕koo"JcII"ki@inregionsthathavealmostUQpopula‑tionP),butthistimewiththenegativehighlyprominent(m).Here,theCPPcame
backin,asisrequiredinthistypeofsociJsituation.
Excerpt(2)comesfromthesamedebatebetweenSpeakersD3aandD3b,whoare
therepresentativesofopposingpoliticalparties.

quirementofexpressingtheiropposingviewsclearlytotheaudence(Honda2002).
ObviouslyiSpeakerD3bchosetheCPPovertheSAPwhenissuingthenegativeashis

Excerpt(3)comesfifomasocialsimation,inwhichtheSAPishighlyesteemed‑acasualconversationbetweencollegeclassmates(SpeakerC2aandC2b).
(3) Negativesas"supportivg'interactivemeaning
SpeakerC2b: 〃α打i加加灯α〃ownkmnhnz"sα花r〃〃0？
<What?Areyougonnakickmeout?'

SpeakerC2a: @@@@@[@@@]

SpeakerC2b:伽ze"@@@I"α刀knwnrzJi<@kotoshim?@>ノ<Why?'@@@Haveldoneanythmg
wrong?'

SpeakerC2a:(2)Negativesas"face‑threatening''interactivemeaning{@@@@@@@@](0.5)soqy""wnkejα〃α::〃舵 ::．

(BrownandLevinsonl987)

SpeakerD3a:"""aso"o::e::jijkMs"""α"kα"ob"6脚〃de,k)'""cl'oO‑e"S"qge"./3O'egn/"e()y'W"ridmO::（ﾉkeikigww""k""""koFF00ki"ge"i"desho!{xxx]
4Various,um,socialwelfareandothersspent9trinion
yen.nlatis,um,stilltheveryreasonwhytheeconomy
wentdown,isnPtit?'●

SpeakerD3b:〃α 脚肱idoge邦加αr"keda(I)"osoFE
酔α"o::se"gcdes脚〃eDα"o〃α叩幽脚"e〃mitoy脚脚yoo〃α，SSO""αんkeikinogE"i"dewQNAItoomoim""<WｾⅡ,itisacausetosomeextent,but,um,I,um,IthinkthatisNOTthecauseofthiseconomicrecession,whichhasbeenthemostseriousinthedecadessmcetheWarf

SpeakerD3b,usingthenegative"(zi(seethelinewiththearrow),directlyexpresseshis
disagreementwithSpeakerD3a,negatingD3abprecedingdaimaboutapotential@@@@@@@@･ThatisUgithecase!(ofcourse,you'Vedonenothingwrong.)'

Discussingroomassignmentsfbrtheirclasstriptoahotspringtown,SpeakerC2b
jokinglyreactstoSpeakerC2abprecedingteasethatSpeakerC2bwiUhavetostayina
roomwithotherclassmateswithwhomsheisnotclose.WhenSpeakerC2bplaymlly

pursuestheissue,SpeakerC2afinaUyprovidesasupportivestatementwiththebcused
negativewithheavylengthening(狸型)tomaintainSpeakerC2bbpositiveface,imply‑
ingthatshehasnotbeencastoutoftheirsocialcirde・WhneSpeakerC2*prosodic
emphasisonthenegativestronglydeniesthepropositionalcontentofSpeakerC21*
precedmgutterance(""kzzw""kotosh"?),itreconfirmsinteractivemeanmgsof
in‑grouprapportandsolidaritybwiththeresultthattheprincipleofsocialagreement(qaisagreementspreferred")issatis6ed(Pomerantzl984).
Ithasbeendemonstratedthatthespeakersystematicallycontrolsthedegreeof
fbcalprommenceonnegation,dependinguponthetypeofsocialmeaningaparticu‑
lartokenofnegationcreatesataspecificmomentintalk‑m‑interaction(Takano2001,

Variationinprosodicfbcusof"i z95

z94ShOjiTakano

Thblel・NumberofthelapaneseNegative‑NAIAnalyzedandSpeakerbBackground
NO．OFTOKENS

20

C2a

51

C2b

35

CaSualC3a51

Conversations

C3b

39

C4a/C5a

190

C4b

66
53

C5b

46

D3a

25

D3b

22

D4a

45
59

D4b

●合■昼●●■凸■●■■ｅ■■凸■■■△■■■凸■●■△

32

D2b

印︒■ａ■︒■凸●●■▲◆凸■＆ｅ●■凸●︒■＆●︒■ａ58

Dla/D2aDlb

皿ｍｍｍｍｍｍＣｃｃｃｃｃｃ
ｔ
ｔ
ｔ
ｔ
ｔ
ｔ
ｔ
Ⅲ
ｈ
Ⅲ
Ⅲ
肚
朏
Ⅷ
０
Ｏ
○
０
０
Ｏ
Ｏ
Ｐ
Ｐ
ｐ
Ｐ
Ｐ
かＰ
ｐｐ
ＰＳ
りＳ
りＳ
ＰＳ
３
Ｓ
Ｓ
Ｓ
０
０
０
０
０
０
０
５
５
５
５
５
６
５
ｅ誠
ｅ誠
ｅ誠
ｅ誠
ｅ誠
ｅ誠
ｅ
誠
ｌ
ｌｌ
ｌｌ
ｌｌ
ａａａａａａａ乱訓釧釧型釧汕
ｍｍｍｍｍｍｍTbtal:577

Debates

ｔ
ｎｔ
ｎｔ
ｎｔ
ｎ

Clb

Ｄ

72

Cla

SPEAKERPSBACKGROUND

ｅｅ
ｅ
ｒｄｄ
ｄｅｄ

SPFAKFR︾稚酔麺麺御碓︾椛

REGISTER

睡心刺刺釧剣恥皿皿
Ｏｈ＆島島乱ｈ島ｈ
Ｓ０
乱２
０２
０２
０２
００
島７
００
＆
０
亜岬鋤鋤鋤鋤幟鋤函
ｐｅ
りｅ
りｅ
３ｅ
９ｅ
３ｅ
＄ｅ
︐ｅ
？
ｅ
訓
訓釧
乱釧
乱釧
釧Ｊ
ｍｍｍｍｍｍｍｍｍ
企企蛇企企企企企企Yaeger‑Drorl996,1997).Puttingasidethedifibrentialpropertiesofsocialsituations
mentionedabovebrthemoment,thetheorypredictsthatbcalprominenceonthe
face‑threatening"imExcerpt(2)islikelytobemmimizedandthatthesupportive""inExcerpt(3)islikelytobemaximizedmaccordancewiththeSARTheinfbrma‑tive(thus,neutraltotheinterlocutorbfacewants)""mExcerpt(1),ontheother
hand,islikelytobeprommentbecausetheeincientdeliveryofmfbrmationisamajor
concernfbrthespeaker;inaccordancewiththeCPRCloseexamination,howeveI;showsthatsocialsimationsoflanguageuseinterveneintheactivationoftheseprinci‑
ples.Asjlegitimatemembersofaculture,theparticipantsneedtoactivatethoseprin‑ciplesproperlybyevaluatingtheirinteractiveimpactontheotherparticipantsina
givensocialsituationandthecommunicativerequirementsofthesituation.
'Ihus,oncehighlyinteractivedataarecloselyexamined,thestatusofinfbrmation
conveyedbynegativesinadiscourseisnotthesoledeterminantoffbcalprominence(whichisindiscordwiththeuniversalistparadigm).RatheIbthenegativeswithor
withoutprosodicfbcuscaITysignificantparahnguisticmessagesthataredynamicallyadjustedftommomenttomomentevenwithinasinglemteraction.Itisalreadyevi‑
dentfromthesesampleexchangesthatthechoicemechanismofprosodicstylesisin‑deedmulti‑layered, inthatmoment‑to‑momentmappingsofinteractiveprinciples
suchastheCPPortheSAPinteractinsomeprincipledwayswithsocialsituationsof
languageuseastheoverallnormativefiPameworkThisiswhysystematicaccountsof
socialsituations(i.e､,styleandregister)shouldbeintegratedintotheprocessofbund‑ingtheoriesaboutlanguageuseasoneoftheessentialconsiderations.

Tbtal:287
News

161

6Newscasters

3male,late30s-late40s,3female,late20stolate30s

GrandTbtal:

4. Data

1025

Notes:,Ihespeakersymbol(C4a/C5almeansthatthisparticularspeakerparticipatesinCasual
ConversationsNo､4andNo.5．

Thespeakersymbol[DlaﾉD2almeansthatthespeakerparticipatesinDebatesNo.landNo.2.

Thedatafbrthepresentsmdycomefromthreesocialsimations‑twodiametricallycontrastivesituationsintermsoftheinbrmational‑interactivecontinuumandone

non‑interactivesimationasthecontrol.nlehrstsocialsituation,atthemostinterac‑

Itisunknown,howeveBwhichspeci6cdialecteachparticipantmthedebatesandthe

tiveendofthespectrum,consistsof6veinfbrmal,dyadic,same‑sexconversations
betweenclosefiriends,andthesecondsocialsituation,morehighlyinfbrmational,
consistsoffburtelevisedroom"(aebates')betweenmalepoliticians.'IWoofthetoom"
areone‑on‑onedebates,andtheremainingtwoaremorelikeone‑on‑onepanel
discussionswiththemoderatorsbeingpresent.Thecontroldatasetconsistsofbroad‑castnews readbyseveralnewscastersontelevisednewsprograms inJapan.
'Iableldescribesthenumberofthenegative""itokensanalyzedandeachspeak‑erbdemographicbackground.
Anoftheparticipantsinthehveinfbrmalconversations(ClathroughC5b)arespeakersoftheHokkaidodialect,whichisconsideredtoberelativelysimnartoTbkyo
Japanesemitsaccenmalsystem.Thefburteleviseddebatesmvolvedleadingfiguresof
majoroppositionparties(DlathroughD4b).

newsbroadcastsspeaksashisorhervernacularandhowvariabletheprosodicpat‑
ternsareamongthespeakersofdifferentdialects.Withregardtothecurrentdatabase,myimpressionisthatanoftheparticipantsspokeacommonornearlycommonvari‑etyofJapanese(kyoots""‑go),whichisappropriatefbrfbrmalcommunicativesettings
suchasthesenationaUytelevisedprograms.

AtotaloflO25occurrencesoftheJapanesenegative"iwereanalyzedintermsof
prosodicprominence､88. Themllowingspecinctypesofutteranceswereexcludedftomanalysis:frozenﾉidiomatic
expressions(e.g.,‑sezuzmoengj‑"keだ "αm""‑kamoshiFE型望,etc.),contractedibrms(e.g.,
弓ng"rEb"‑‑>"),arChaiChrms(e､g.,yomqmg,koZZ,etc.),mterrogativeutterances(e.g.,"0mα狸i"?)andimPeratives(e.g.,iwa型gide).
IVariationinprosodicfbcusof""297

296 ShOjiThkano

5.
5･1

Analyticalapproach

Kooril989a,b),Idirectedmyanalysesprimarilytowardpitchcontours(1.e.,tonal

events)giventothenegative"iandtheidentiiicationofanlPinwhichthenegative"iwasembedded,whilepayingattentiontoanymarkeduseofmtensityorduration
aswen.Ifanegative""wasrecognizedasbeingtonallyapartofanAPinwhichitwas
embeddedwithinasinglelRthatparticulartokenwascodedasreceiving"nofbcal
prominence?' Ifanegative〃αi tonallyinitiatedabrand‑newlRtypicallyalongwith

Thedomainandcriteriafbrprosodicprommence

Formyanalysisoffbcalprominenceon""tobeasconsistentandobjectiveaspossi

ble,Itonallytranscribedthepresentcorpus,roughlyadoptingtheIapaneseTbBIlabe‑lingschemeofprosodictranscriptions(Venditti 1995,2005)9. Inadditiontotonal

pitchrangereset,thatparticulartokenwascodedasreceiving"fbcalprommencej'I
conductedthesecodingprocessesusingthespeechanalysissoftwareprogramPitch‑Works,whichpermitsanalysisofpitchmovement(FO),intensity(loudness),anddu‑
rationamongothers.Tbmustratetheactualcodingproceduresmmoredetail,Idis‑

events,mytranscriptionwasalsofbcusedontheidentifIcationofdiSjuncturesbetween
adjacentwordsandtheassignmentofanappropriatevalueoftheBreakIndex(BIhereinafter)‑BI3fbrthelPandBI2fbrtheAR'0AnlPcanbeidentifiedbythemost
stronglyperceiveddiSjuncmre(BI3),andtheperceivedstrengthofthisdiSjunctureis
basedonanumberofprosodicfactorsandtheircombinations.IPfinaldiSjuncmres
typicallyconsistofFOlowering,decreasedamphtude, segmental lengtheningand
pause,andIPinitialjuncturesaretypicanymarkedbypitchrangereset.''cussFigureslthrough3below.

InFigurel,'2threelPscanbemarkedbyBI3(seethe4thBItierfifomthetop):
thelstlR舵"α寵(SpeakerC2aasksSpeakerC2b,Dolftyoutuckit[yourshirtl in{yourpants]?'),WhichisalsoasingleAP; the2ndlRRZｿα"1α〃o"ewniだ"αjkedo(SpeakerC2brespondstoC2abquestion,saying@Idonotmckmmy"amashirt,but;),consistingofthreeAPs(伽ﾂama/,/"ew"/,/i花"α'ikedo/)iandthemtialpor‑tionofthe3rdlP(Pαｿα加α"o〃α肋"iki7･"…)isalsoseen(SpeakerC2bcontmues,
C[what]Iwearinsidemy"amas….;).nloughthenegative"iisinvolved,thelstIP

AnlPinJapaneseconsistsofoneormoreAPs(BI2),whichisaprosodicunit

abovetheword.nleJapaneseAPisidentifiedbyamediumdegreeofdiSjuncture,
whichisgeneraUycharacterizedbyparticulartonalevents(H*+L,H‑,orboth)aswell
as魚uingtonalmovement(L%),butitlackssuchprosodiccuesasthelPmarkers(e.9.,
FOlowering,decreasedamplitude,etc.).EveryAPiseitheraccentedorunaccented,(iだれα'i?)hasbeenexcludedfifomanalysisbecauseitisaninterrogativeutterance.As

dependinguponthewordsinvolved,anditispercepmallyalargerunitthanaword(BI

睡︾

唖準：嘩

狂日畔Ｈ歴争︒剛

一一

一一

々幻金

︑

﹃

刷鍾旦些塗毘麺蓮鯉皇Figurel. SampleAnalysisl
12． Inthewordtierinthetranscriptions,/x'/mdicatesthelocationofpitchaccents

別

田

ｇ

睡醒一

冨

画

麺幅一

錘

率

一

一

麺一阜﹂

錘

︲ 蓉

釦

麺

一

︾

麹

函

一︾

︽唖嘩一
︾種廻一

●◆︒ＧＤＣ︸︒●●壷︑Ⅱ︒ｅ●■●ＣＤ

︑卜■

ｑ■●■◆

ず

﹀

一池

︸

宙 ︒ ︒ ︑︒︒︾ｏ麺／

︑●●●ｂ●Ｃｅの◆●●隼●●

■●●●

／

Ｐｂ●◆ｇｏノグヴ↓函︒．一︾

ｏ・・・響︒︒●︒︑・・︲訓訓列 乱風呼︲１１１１

０ゆ︒●．・・・︑

画櫻￨…"D" 恥唖竺f曾唖･側"･Le偽鋤､'･而輯，

×

ご

間侮1函

噸Ｉ

画．︐︒

副錘呼

い剛・皿Ｎ

り峠醗︲︽︐︽州﹃▲一叶

鈴棺州１１１州１１ 雨 竺

駒幅︽恥︽・吋

唾一吋︲隙ｌ山ｈ伽ｌ

恥・窄晦︾

句院ⅧＬ

坤画鵬

恥０仙郷函一一

毎

露盤叫鰯トト︾︾魂Ⅱ３︲

四Ｆ

↑

一
︑

Ｆ︒﹀一麺

■◆〃

〆

､へ ⁝

麺唖輌唖輌皿麺麺獅郵準麺麺麺型麺極極

X57).InthefbrmeriaunitisbasedonanidentiiicationofsuChmarkersaspause,anacrusis,6nal
syllablelengthenmg,andpitchlevelchange,whereasthelatterincludesawiderrepertoireof
devisessuchaspre‑andpost‑pauses,acceleration/decelerationinsynableduration,overallpitch″

OthercriteriafbrdetermininganintonationunitcomefifomCruttendenbnotionof"into‑

nationgroupboundaries"(1986:37)andChafbbdiscoursenotionof"intonationunit"(1994:？

JapaneseTbBIrangesfiPomOto3,butlomittedtheBreaklndicesOandlinmytranscriptions
becauseoftheanalyticalobjectives.

declination,andvoicequality(e.g.,creakyvoiceattheend).

﹄ー､'一︑､r〜〜畠r〜望

昔一

画
一
一
r
︑

ー
パ
︑

処
I
､
吐
日 一一

〜
ー
＝
︑
ジ
再
一
グ
諸
ゴ

lo. IntheIbBIlabelingscheme,!aiSjuncturg'meansthedegreeofprosodicassociationbe‑
tweentwosequentialwords,andthe"breakindex''representsthesUbjectivevaluesbasedonthe
measuresofperCeiveddiSjuncmrebetweenadjacentwords(Vendittil995)TheBreaklndexin

n.

鵬︑

−
−
−
㈱

9. TheJapaneseTbBIlabelingschemeisdesignedtotranscribe'IbkyoJapanese,elicitedmainlyfiFomreadspeech,althoughit ismeanttobecontinuouslyrevisedtoaccommodateotherstylesofspontaneousspeech･Therefbre,Imustsaythatduetoanumberoftechnicalproblems
suchasthedifficldtyinobtainingclearpitchtracks,etc., Ihave"roughly"takenadvantageof
onlycertainportionsoftheschemetotranscribenamrallyoccurringspontaneousspeechinthe
currentstud)zlnaddition,mostofthespeakerstranscribedarespeakersofeithertheHokkaido
dialectorsomeunknownregionalvarietyialthoughallofthemseemtocommandanearlycom‑
monvarietyof)apanese(kyoois""go).

舛率durationasplayingsecondaryrolesinphenomenaofJapanesefbcus(Azumal992a,b;

酔園

酌︑︾︾や固鐸癖華酔昏１２坐郡錘塞￨国脚助地埋･胴8聖'】

榊酌廻
︲︲血可昨
．炉．

1)butsmallerthan(orequalto)anlP(BI3).
WhetherthenegatiVe"Lziisprominentcanbejudgedfifomseveralspecificcriteria.
Basedonpaststudiesthatregardpitchasplayingtheprimaryroleandintensityand

Variationinprosodicfbcusof""299

298 ShOjiThkano

取

？

嘩

■函１叫４幽︑刺ｌ園ｌ掴り︑坤一祁酔軸・・江

ｉ

亟一
争

、え

︒

､

● 雪

ｅ少．●

︒︒︒︒︒︒︒︒﹂

ｂ●◆●●■○告Ｃｅ①●︒︒Ｇ●ｂ●﹄︒●Ｆ−ＰｏＧ・巳︒◆●ｐ●巳

砲

函

︾

︾

一︾一

郵

才

鈍

麺

﹃砥

麺

趣

︾︾

１

麺
１

麺

麺獅

｜岬︽一

中

一

トやｆ

一麺

一︾一

１１両Ｉ

一割

一

…訂

…4麺4知47匁'0､嵐小坦画錘翁目g固み、唆鮒逼壷熱圏塵遍も坐f"

accent‑bearmgorunaccented.'4Becauseoftheserestrictions,when〃αiisunaccented
basedontheprosodicenvironmentinwhichitisembedded(i.e.,""itselfcannotbear

戸itsaccentedpitch),thepresenceorabsenceoffbcalprominencewasjudgedonthe
basisofthetonalpatternsgiventothelexicalitemtowhich""issu価xed・Figure3
mustratesthispoint.InthisutterancebyD3b(KMo"tekilziie'6α"iho〃〃osIzooうmwa
NAORAjmitoo"1oim"s", <Basically[speaking],Ithinkthatlapanb[economic]ftlmre
willnotrecoverl),thenegative""isasuffixtotheaccentedverb,"o>･"(@recover'),the

︽鋤﹄峰

蒜

eP型蝉f5．口い"ロ

吋辱炉

︑

申︒

り

ノ・・・〆

丸■︒︒︒︒＄Ｌ
Ｑ︐︒︒︒●・ｃｏｏＵ︑

●吾

︒

哩誕

幸画

峨
曾

白

一い

一嘩

︾帽

②､駒旬･舎輝ﾌｰ池．

鐸晒Ｌ唖脚

参

︾
︾へ
へ

●夕︒〃

申訳■

■白

①

蛙

函叩

酔一噸

︲ ︒ ︒ ︒ ︒ 〃 一 鉤一︾

麺加却麺抑噸加画面叩詞沁︑蝿

〆

酢畠

ゆ■Ｇ

ＤＣＣ︒■●

０●●●●●一●
●
■

ミヘーノ

、〜

Figure3・SampleAnalysis3

己

〜〆苛

蝿

０
０

酎郭酎ｌ剖創︾

畠

﹄和

一●

凹皿△

、ﾉ咄" rｰへ〆/、‑−− ／1、ﾉ唱"

／

８

岬晶
時晶

吟

心 庸

r‐、

ザ

轡ハー陶憾■FM極．

埠里

０

呉Z

晩

か

吋

鞭鉦
瞬湧

↑︾

ゞ︽願

噸．︾

庁 ■齢

『了

篝 圭霊

ーeX

､読

蝋‑‑割分‑斗等+綱

一V一三一

一
一

へ
L

恥一坪︽

ｈ一

睡恥一吟

些酔目

ｋ０Ｍ
二ｔ

巳四□ 函侭唖ｅ函︾︾

"ー

画画閣｜

曲ﾂにO

艶1

11◆慨

《

』

iJ

回
い"七､鵬

華＊

environment that immediatelyfbllows, thenegative ‑""itselfshoIidbeeither

一

２肌

3

弾趣1
舜

thelexicalitemtowhich〃αiisattachedasthenegativesuifix,aswellastheprosodic

E望

３

型ざり醐h

s

itisthenegative(NAlI<none')thatinitiatesabrand‑newlRalongwithpitchrangereset
derivedfifomprosodicfbcus(BI3).13Thisparticulartokenwascodedasprominent.
Japaneseisalexicallyaccentedlanguage.Dependingupontheaccenmaltypeof

H*』

乱剰H◇･zやwasdividedintotwolPs,butacrucialdifferencefifomFigurelconcernsthefactthat

￨爾牙鈴ル

哩紅

0−

f…3

thefactthatthenegativecanberegardedastonallyapartofdleAPinwhichitisem‑
bedded(iだ"α'ikedo@[I]donottuck[itlin,but')withinthesingleIR
InFigure2,C3abutterance(I@ﾉo0s"ts""ootokαα"加aNAAIﾉα〃sIzoOgzz'kkoo"α"de, $'Iherearen'tmanyclassroomchanges,right,becauseitbanelementaryschool')

弘宙1

臓

t試走91

▲亀,戯印，品 幽 他 討叫剥
︾蹄ID塵R域巴i･3 ．

ｂｌｏ■壁些1塗且陶障雪噌，些画rby6翰憲幻日●"o"ew"i7EZZgikedo),andsothisparticulartokenwascodedasnon‑prominentdueto￨自制化hw･山一【剛f'jI 】
埋canbeseen,C21jSresponse(Pαｿα'"α"o"ew"iだ"αikedop"ﾂα加α"o"αjkα"ikil･"….)
isdividedintotwoseparatelPsinthatatthebeginningofthesecondclause(Pαｿα版α"0〃α牝a71ik""…)thepitchcontourisreset,whichsignalsthestartofanewlRnlus,
thedomainofanalysisof""prominenceinthisparticulariileisthe2ndlP(Rzﾂα碗αへ

lexicalaccentofwhichistransfbrmedtotheaccenmalpattern""0ItZ打αi(crecoVer=
へﾉ

固唾 典ユ､麓』墾曇型‑1

Figure2. SampleAnalysis2

NEG')‑i.e.,thenegative"αicannotbearitsownpitchaccent.Whileitisobviousthat
thepitchplacedonthisunaccented""iitselfshowsafallingcontouIithistokenwas
codedonthebasisofthepitchcontourdirectlyassignedtotheentirephrase""om"i.
AsisevidentmFigure3, theAP〃αor""initiatesabrand‑newlPwithpitchrange
resetduetofbcalprominence.Noticealsothatthe6nalAP(toomo"as", [Ithinktha)isgreadyreducedinpitchandintensitybecauseoftheloweredamplitudeand
14.nlegrammaticalstatusofthe)apanesenegative""istwofbld:(1)theauxniaryverbsuf
fixedtoverbsandotherauxiliaries,or(2)thenegativeadjectivethatpredicatesnouns,other

diSjuncturebetweenthefbrmerAP(α""")andthelatterAP("α加")isnotasstrongasanormal

adjectives,adjectivalnouns,andnominalizedphrases,oftenwithpostpoSitionalparticles(w",cie,dewcI)interVening(NihongoIqrouikuGakkail993).Unaccented"itokensaremostlikely

IPboundary(BI3),althoughthetonalpatternclearlyindicatesthebeginningofanewlR

tooccurwhen〃αiissufHxedtoaccentedverbs.

13. 'IhisparticularBIcouldbeidentiiiedas2m(2mismatch)ratherthan3,inthattheperceived

Variationinprosodicfbcusof""301

3ooShOjiTakano

creakyphonation.ThisprosodicweakeningtowardtheendofthelPischaracteristic
ofspontaneousJapanesespeech,asmentionedearliert、 畢駄…面舵酔里

Inadditiontotheseprimarycriteria,thefbnowingcaseswerealsocodedasreceiv-…n句ﾛ＝

mgfbcalprominence,evenifnopitchresetwasobserved:(1)"!ziitselforthelexical
itemtowhich""issu伍xedisgivenahighlymarkeddegreeofloudnessorduration(thoughthiswasrarelyobserved),and(2)aprecedinglexicalaccentismovedtoan
inherentlyunaccented""whichcontributestoitsperceptualsaliency(e.g.,mbe"
tat'Smbe"'iratherthanastandardpattern"l7eimiaonPteatP).Basedonthecriteria
discussedsofaI;everycodedtokenof""wasdouble‑checkedbyanothernative
speakerofJapanese.Ifthejudgmentsdidnotmatch,thetokenmqUestionwasdis‑
cusseduntilagreementwasreached.
J･rooImg：
FTA.'､血nnan鴫

5．2

Hypothesisofpotentialconstraintsandtheanalyticalprogram

SII Iti蝿認雁
肺…腺と､靭誼鴫巽f

Apredominantmajorityofpriorstudieshayeinvestigatedone‑on‑onecorrelations
betweenprosodicibcusandsomepotentialconstraint(e.g.,infbrmationstructure).Tb

mn宣血仏A伊函麓

七１ｎ

ｅ
Ｃ
ｎ
ｅ
ｎ

ｒ

Ｏ

・皿

Ｃ

ｐ
ｌａ

応

ｎ
Ｏ
Ｓ

口■■の

ｒ

ｌｅ
北

ｎ

ｔ

ｎ

ｅ

ｅ

Ｈｑ

ｐ
ｅ
ｄ

ｅ

・ｍ

雷

ｏＥ

幅

ｄ

雌α砥Ｃ

ｏｍ

睡軸血
皿句
岬銅㎡ 恥

︾︾Ｏ︾︾

唾山
墨画︾︾

Ｐ鰄錨ｍ
Ｓ

●■■■

Ｆ

erbdecisiontoplaceprosodicprominenceonthenegative""isaffiectedbyavariety
offactorssimultaneously(SankoffandLabovl979).BasedonpreviousstudiesofJap‑
anesefbcalprominenceandonpreliminaryinvestigationofmyown,Figure4de‑
scribesmyhypotheticalmodelthataccountsfbrsystematicvariabilityinJapanesefb‑
calprominence.Themodelconsistsofawidevarietyofconstraintsatdifrentlevels
oflmguisticpractice:theinternalstructureoftheIPinwhichthenegative"fziisem‑
bedded,thestatusofinfbrmationconveyedbythenegative, interactivedimensions,

一一一︾一岬investigatevariablegrammars,howevenitisprerequisitetopresupposethatthespeak‑…̲FrA噸hHI

andsocialsituations.

Tbexaminethemodel,Iadoptedthevariableruleapproach,whichisspecificallynecessityofidentifyingthecomplexintersectingrelationshipsamonganumberof

designedtohandletheinevitablyskewedsociolinguisticdataelicitedfiPomnaturalcommunicativesettings(Sankoffl985,1986, 1988).'5SpecificallyilusedGoldVarb(RandandSankoffl990),theMacintoshapphcationofthevariable‑rule‑basedstatisti‑
calmodeldevelopedbyCedergrenandSankoif(1974).Theprogramconductsamld‑

potentialfactors,probabilisticaccountsofoccurrencesornon-occurrencesofavariableinquestionhaveproventobesuperiortotheuseofbareper℃entages(Sankoff
1985,1986,1988).Theprogramalsoallowsustoconductastepwise唾浮essionanaly‑
sis,whichgoesthroughmultiplepermutationsoffactorgroupsandsortsoutthegroupsofvariableswithstatisticallysignificantdistributionsoffactorweightsasthe

tivariateanalysisofdatausingthemaximum‑likelihoodtechnique,whichanowsone
tomeasuretherelativeeffbctivenessamongtheintersectingfactorsaspotentialcon‑
straintsandyieldsaprobabilityestimateoftheeffbctofeachconstraintontheapplica‑
tionoftheruleinquestion(i.e.,fbcalprommenceon"i)inrelationtotheotherre‑mainingconstraints.Becauseoftheskewednessofsociolinguisticdataandthe
15. AsimilarstatisticalprogramisANOVA・AIgorithmsfbrcalculatingANOVA,howeveri
normallyrequirebalancednumbersoftokensineachcell,whichwouldbepossibleonlywith
datafromcontrolledexperimentation(YbungandBayleyl996). 'Iherefbre,VARBRUListhe
onlyaltemativefbrsuccess血uyhandlmgtheextremelyskewedsociolinguisticdataderived
fromnaturallyoccurringspeech(seeYbungandBayleyl996brfUrtherdiscussionofthevalid‑ityandimplementationofVARBRULfbrsociolinguisticresearch).

optimalsetofpredictorsofthedependentvariable.
Theresultsobtainedcanbeconsideredtodescribethesociolinguisticgrammarof

Japanesefbcalprominence,･mpredicting"theeifectofeachoftheconstraintsfbrtheuseornon‑useoffbcalprominenceon""basedonthepresentdatasetasarepresentative
sampleofthespeechcommunity(Prestonl989).
Hereisabriefdescriptionofeachpotentialconstraintthatishypothesizedtobe

responsiblefbrsystematicvariabilityinJapanesefbcalprominence.Priorresearchrel‑evanttotheconstraintsislistedinparentheses,Variationinprosodicfbcusof"i 303

302 ShOjiTakano

emalSructure1．

elntonat1onPhra

Morpho‑syntacticstatusofthenegative"":verbalsuffix,mdependentnegative

5． Rhythmicissues‑pauseandtempo(Kooril989b,Sugitoul982):pausepreceding〃αi,pauseimmediatelyfbUowing"",slowtempo(oftenalongwithsomehedges)

adjective.

(e.9.,""oo.wer),nopause.

TheJapanesenegationmarker""hastwodistinctmorpho‑syntacticstatuses,asfbllows:(1)‑"iasaverbalsuffix(e.g.,紬"αt"Gtalr今加" αL"αiao㎡ttallf;汰脚
Eぴうikiz‑"'iaon'tgo'),'6inwhich‑"αiisprosodicanypartoftheprecedingverb.
nnus,whether‑""jitselfcarriesitslexicalaccentdependsuponthelexicalaccent

Pausesmaybeusedatanyoneofthefbllowingplaces:befbrethelexicalitemne‑
gatedby"i,rightbefbre"iitself(veryrarely),orrightafterthe"4ziinthesame
IRSpeechproductioninvolvingthenegativetokenoccasionallybecomesslower;

typesofprecedingverbsaswellasonthesucceedingprosodicenvironmentm
natufalspeechproduction.(2)Theword"αi,asanegativeadjective,thatispre‑cededbynouns(e､g.,ka"egn/wα"α'i･(I)havenomoney),adjectives(e.g.,oisizik"

InmrmationStams

6. Hierarchyofinfbrmation(Azumal992b,Kooril997b):mainclause,subordinate
clause,embeddedclause.

Intermsofthehierarchyofinfbrmation,themainclausegenerallydenveIsthe
primaryinfbrmationoftheutteranceasawhole,whichwouldbemorelikelyto
receivefbcalprommenceaccordingtotheuniversalistclaim.Thesubordinate
clausegenerallydeliversthesecondaryinfbrmationthatwouldbelesslikelytobe
givenfbcalprominence.Foranalyticalpurposes,thecategoryofmainclausesin‑(ww"]〃α7.notdelicious'),oradjectivalnouns(e､g.,ki7Eide[wdz]〃α'i@notbeautifill')
withorwithoutpostpositionalparticles,carriesitsindependentlexicalaccent.'71t

2.

canbeassumedthatthemorpho‑syntacticallyindependentuseof"i(Type2)has
adiffbrentialstatusasaconstraintfromthemorphologicanymoredependentver‑
balsuffix‑'mi(Typel),inthatthefbrmer‑"ishouldbeperceptuallymoresdient
thanthelatterindeliveryofnewinfbrmationandparalinguisticmessages.
Proximityofthe〃αitokentotheendofthelP(BI3boundary)(Sugitoul985,

cludesutterancesthateithersharesomehierarchicalrelationswithotherclauses(shuSetsIJ.mainclauses' in伽"""tomplexsentences')orstandalonewithoutsuchrelations( "b"邦4simplesentences;mcludingfiPagmental/mconclusiveut‑
terancesaswellasjuxtaposedsentencesinj""bl"1℃ompoundsentences').The

1986;Kooril989a,b):long(6ormoremorae),short(5orfewermorae).

Imeasuredthedistanceof"dziftomtheendofthelRcountingthenumberof
morae.InFigure3(…NORAimitoomOi"'""),fbrexample,thedistanceiseightcategoryofsubordinateclausesishlrtherdividedmtotwogroups:subordinate
clauses(typicaUywithconjunctions),whicharesubordinatetoamamclauseina

moraeincludingthetwomoraeof"fziitselftotheendofthelR3.

al.1984,Kawakamil965,Kooril989b,Oishil959,PierrehumbertandBeckman1988):presence,absence.

Pastsmdiesofconnectedspeechdatafromreadmaterialsshowthatpreceding
lexicalaccentsdynamicallyafmecttheshapeofotherlexicalaccentsinthesucceed‑
ingprosodicenvironment.ThelPmFigurel,fbrexample,involvesanaccented

4.

complexsentence,andembeddedclauses,whicharetypicallyquotativeutteranc‑

OtheraccentedAP(s)precedingthe""tokenwithinthesamelP(FUjisakiet

APprecedingthenegative"αi:pαﾂαmα(@pajamaP).
Otherfbcusedelement(s)precedingthe"UzitokeninthesamelP(FUjisakiet
al. 1984,PierrehumbertandBeckmanl988):presence,absence.
Forexample,inthesinglelPZgWise"soo"iWn〃α 物aitoiiis"z"'kem"des"yo.

(<IkeptsayinglitlwiU…ｴnotresultinwarW),theadverbzettai(Cabsolutely')isgivenprosodicfbcusprecedingthenegative〃αrmmi(<become‑Neg').Previous

hteratureshowsthattheprosodyofthesegmentsfbnowingfbcalprominenceis
heavnyreducedwithinasinglelR

7.

es,clausalnominals,ormodifyingclauses.
Infbrmationstamsof"i indiscourse(Princel992):brand‑newinfbrmation,
contrastiveinfbrmation,infbrableinmnnation,oldinbrmation.

Asreviewedeadie喝anumberofstudies(mainlyofEnglishmtonation)ininterac‑

tivelyimpoverishedcommunicativesettmgsregardthemfbrmationalcontentof
thewordorphraseinrelationtothepriorcontextofdiscourseastheimpetusfbr
fbcalprominence‑i.e.,newsignificantinfbrmationintheflowofdiscoursetends
tobecomepromment.Thetheorypredictsthatnegation,whichinherentlyadds
neworcontrastivepropositionalcontenttoanongoingdiscourse,wmbeagood
candidatefbrfbcalprominence.Closeexaminationofinfbrmationstatusinthe
contextofdiscourseinthepresentdatashowsthatwhilemanyofthe""tokens

providenewmfbnnation,thereareanumberof"ioccurrencesmwhichinfbr‑
mationcanbeinferredbythelistenerfromtheprecedingcontextofdiscourseor

throughinteractantsPsharedknowledge.Repetitive"itokenscanalsobeconsid‑
eredtorepresentoldinfbrmation.

16.

｡Cx'X"indicatesthelocationofalexicalaccent.

17: ItisstiUdebatablewhetherthegrammaticalstatusof"!zico‑ocurringwithadjectives(e.g.,oisflikl4‑w@E‑"i),fbrexample,shouldbeconsideredasaverbalsuinxtype(ikMz‑"jzi)orasanm‑dependentnegativeadjective(kα"ewα"αi)(NihongoWooikuGakkail993:383).

１１１/4ShOjiTakano

Variationinprosodicfbcusof"i 305

InteractiveDimensions

motherisnotpermittedtoenterthecafeteriawithoutasmdentpass:Soれれaki‑

8.

Prefacetothe""negative(Jonesl990,Levinsonl983,Mori1999,Pomerantz

m"i""tte. .nlereisnosuchrule:).

1984,Schegloffl980,Yamadal992):'8discoursemarkerasanupgradingpreface,discoursemarkerasahintpreface,straightnegationwithoutanypreface.
nlreetypesofp唾魚cesareidentifiedinthepresentstudy:nlefirstconsistsoftheclause‑initialusesof(1)discoursemarkerswhich<$upgradeP'or@4assert''theup‑

Intheactofnegation,theSpeakernotonlynegatesthepropositionalcontentbut
alsocreatesaparticularfbotmg,considermgthenegationbsocialmeaningsand
impactonthelistenerateverymomentduringinteraction.Inthepresentdataset,thenegativeIMjisalsousedtom皿awidevarietyofinteractivemeanmgsaswell
astodiIectlyexpressthespeakerbdisagreementwiththelistener&

comingnegatives(e.9.,d"re.because;dzzknm/d2szJkuIm$so;[soleld@#then:s"如一

gntte$therefbre;orcombmationsofthese),(2)thosewhich"hint"thatanegative

SocialSituatiQnS

isoritheway(e､9.,demO(but;shikwshi{刀昭pr"1 :but/howeveridZzke[7Eldb[mo]9.

11・ SocialSituations:casualconversations,politicaldebates,newsbroadcast.

@though;kedo@though; tokomgn$but; [i]γα<nah/no;orcombinationsofthese),and(3)straightnegationwithoutanysuchdiscoursemarkers.Ithasbeenpointed
outinstudiesofdisagreeingturnsinbothJapaneseandEnglishthatcertainlin‑
guisticmaterialsareexploitedasmarkersofoppositiontopreface(orcontextual‑ize)upcomingdisagreements.Thepresentanalysisexploresthepossibnityofany
meaning皿interplaybetweenthosedevicesandprosodicparameters.
Concurrencewiththeshiftoflinguisticelementstothepost‑predicateposition

Itisassumedthatprosodicvariationismotivatedbythespeakerbsensitivitytotheinteractionalnormsfbrparticularcommunicativesettingsintermsofthedegree
ofinmrmativenessandinteractivenessandthecommunicativerequirements.

6. SociolmguisticgrammarofprosodicfbcuSonthenegative〃ai(i.e.,dislocation/postposition)(FUjiil995,Hindsl982,OnoandSuzukil992):
6.1

presence,absence.

nledislocationoflinguisticelementstothepost‑predicatepositioninJapanese,

Variabilitylinkedtosocialsituations

AmongtheoutputsofseveralGoldVarbrunsofstepwiseregressionan小is,19'Ihble2●

anSOVlanguage,hastodowiththespeakerbemphasisofinfbrmationinadis‑
course.Howprosodicemphasisinteractswiththissyntacticalternativewillbe
investigated.
10.Footmg(GofMmanl981;Yeager‑Drorl996,1997):inhrmative(orneutraltotheshowsthevariabilitylmkedtothethreesocialsituationsintermsofthefrequenciesof
prosodicfbcusonthenegative"iandtheircorrespondingprobabilityestimates(VRweights).

AsmentionedearlierwithregardtoFigure4,VRweightsmdicatethepredicted
relativeeffEctivenessamonganoftheintersectingfactorsthatarehypothesizedto

interlocutorbfacewants)(seeExcerpt[1]above),face‑threatening(e.9.,Excerpt{2]above),supportive(seeExcerpt[3}above),selfprotective(ormakingexcuses)(e､9.,SpeakerC3b,makinganexcusefbrherrecentpoorperfbrmanceanddisin‑

Table2.VariationSpecificto'IhreeSocialSituationsinProsodicProminenceon‑NAI

terestinaschoolsubject:A'"roo"o"k"Izbe"kyoo‑shiZZiS"sdz. @Becauselknow

viousstatementthatshehassucceededinlosingsomeweight:YuIseだ"αicIcanPt

loseweight？),selfcorrection(e､9.,SpeakerC3a,talkingaboutafbrmerteacherof
hersinjuniorhighschool:KibishiidesIIqMIgwwdes加,(.)M鞍"iw"s"""ik".
:HeWASstrict,andHIT[hisstudents].Hedid㎡thit,exactlyl),agreementseeker(e.9.,SpeakerClatoSpeakerClb:Iblliichihjy"kefiowze〃α"蛇〃 舵 だ""issjio.
<Ybucannotapplythelotiontopreventsunburneverytimelyougoout]J),face‑
threateningwithhumor(onlyincasualconversationdata)(e.9.,SpeakerC3a,re‑spondingtolntedocutorC31AprecedingjokethatC3Mmotheriwhoisgoingto

SOCIALSITUATIONSRATESOFPROMINENCE

C悉皿alConversatiOns

33％(190/577）

Debates48％(137/287）

NewsBmadに零t39％(62/161)

TOTAL:

38%(389/1025)

VRWEIGHTS

０
４
９
４０
６Ｑ
５
０

thatlpossess[thecopiesofpreviousexamstorefertol,IdonPtsmdyhard[fbrtheexam]?),selfdenigrating(e.9.,SpeakerC3a,respondingtoInterlocutorC3比pre‑p<･05

InputValue=0.366,Chi‑squareperceU=1.0250

visith mayfbllowheraroundoncampus,eventothestudent3ca企teria,butthe
19． nleseGoldVarbrunswereconductedwithallofthemdependentvariableslistedinSection
5.2involved・ Ineededtoperfbrmmultiplerunsoftheprogrambecauseofpossiblemteractions
18． Thescopeofanalysisofprefacesextendsbeyondtheintonationphrase,whichisthebasic

amongtheindependentvariables.Seethee"lanationinmoredetailmNote22inthenextsec‑

unitofanalysisasdiscussedinSection5．1．

tion(6.2).

I｜

VariationinprosodicfbcuSof""307

306ShOjiTakano

6.zsimultaneouslyafmectvariableusesoffbcalprominence.AweightofO.50indicatesthat
thefactorhasnoeHbctontheproductionofthedependentvariable(i.e.,prosodicfb‑
cuson"αi).TheclosertheweightistoO,themorestronglythefactorinhibitsthede‑
pendentvariable. 'Iheclosertheweightistol,themorestronglythefactorpromotes
it.Atthebottomrowofthetable,theaverage{thi‑squarePercell"indicatesthedegree
towhichtheindependentvariablesconsidered(i.e.,thehypothesesconstructed)ac‑
countfbrthedata.Thesmallerthisiigureis,thesurerwecanbethatitisnotnecessary
toconsideradditionalvariables.Valuesbelow1.5(conservatively51.0)indicatethatthe

lnternalstructuresoftheintonationphraseastheconstraint

Thble3showsalloftheremamingresultsofvariableruleanalysisobtainedfromthe
runsofGoldVarbwiththethreesocialsituationsconsideredseparately22
Theaverage.thi‑squareperceU''showsthatthehypothesizedmodelsaccountfbr
thedatawellineachofthesocialsituations,inthatallofthevalues(1.0373fbrCC,

0.9651fbrPD,0.8183fbrNB)arewithinthesecurerange(i.e､,belowl.5).23Stepwise

regressionanalyseshaveselectedsixoutoftenfactorgroupsasbeingresponsiblefbr
systematicvariabnityinprosodicfbcusontheJapanesenegative"iinCC,fburfactor

iltbetwe6nthehypothesizedmodelandthedataisgood(Prestonl989:15‑6),andthe
presentvalue(1.0250)iswithinthatsecurerange.nle"inputvalug'(0.366)indicates
thelikelihoodvaluefbrthedependentvariable(fbcalprominenceonthenegative""i)tobeusedregardlessoftheeifectsofindependentvariables.
nleindependentvariable<bocialsituationsP'wasidentifiedasbeingstatisticallysignificantbystepwiseregressionanalysis(p<.05). 'Iheresultsdemonstratethatpro‑
sodicfbcusonJapanesenegativesissensitivetosocialsimations. Inaccordwith
Yaeger‑Drorb(1997)predictionswithregardtoEnglishnegatives, Japanesefbcal
prominenceisalsogovernedbytheuniversalisticSAPandCPRandthedegreeto
whiChitisaifectedbytheprinciplesdependsuponthediffbrentialorientationsofso‑
cialsituationstothecontinuumofinteractiveness/inmrmativeness.Inahigmymter‑action‑orientedsituationsuchascasualconversations(CChereinaher),prosodicib‑
cusonthenegativeisgenerallymhibitedduetotheimportanceoftheSAPoverthegroupsinPD,andthreefactorgroupsinNB,anataP<.051evel.

CPP(0.40).2olncontrast,intwohighlyinfbrmation‑orientedsocialsituationssuchas

orutterance‑6nalconneCtivesaretypicallyaccommodatedwiththenegative"lliwith‑

politicaldebates(PDhereinafter)andnewsbroadcasting(NBhereinaher), fbcal
prominenceonthenegativeisgenerallypromotedduetotheCPPat0．64and0.59,
respectivelys 'IhehigherprobabilityweightfbrPDquitelikelycomesfromtheadver‑sarynamreofthesocialsituations,inwhichnegationasthekeyelementofdisagree‑

in5orfewermoraethatfbUowithecasesinwhich"iwas6ormoremoraeftomthe

Amongthefactorgroups(FGhereinafter)thatareconcernedwiththeinternal
structureofthelP(FG‑1,2,3,4,5),therobusteffectsofthepositionofthenegative"αiwithinanIP(FG‑2)arefbundinallofthesocialsituations.Whenthe"itokenis
locatedfUrtherthan6ormoremoraefromtheendofthelP(includingthe2moraeof"αiitself), itismorelikelytoreceivefbcalprominence(longdistance:0.56fbrCC,
O.58fbrPD,0.64fbrNB).Whenitislocatedcloserthan5orfewermorae(including

the2moraeof""itself)totheend,fbcalprominenceon"iislikelytobeinhibited(shortdistance:0.44fbrCC,0.42fbrPD,0.27fbrNB).Ibasedmydecisionofeither"short"or"long"distanceonanobservationofamajorbreakexistingbetween5and6moraefiPomtheendofthelPintermsofthefiPequencyof"iprominence(approxi‑

matelyal5%gap).Whilesuchlexicalitemsas6nalparticles,theextendedpredicate,endofthelPtendedtoinvolveanotherclauseorphrasefbllowing"".

mentismorelikelytobeemphasizedfbrtheachievementofthecommunicativegoals

requiredbytheseparticularsocialsimations.Thus,variabilityinJapaneseprosodyiat
leastinnegativestatements,issystematicallylinkedtosocialsituations,andweshould
becarefUlnottoovergeneralizetheoutcomeofpriorinvestigationsbasedonasmgle
register(i.e.,readspeech,conversations)asrepresentingthewholerangeofcommuni‑

whileinvolvingthehighestrateof"iprominenceonthesupportivefbotmg(75%).AIso,theratesoffbcalprominencewerelinkedtopowerrelationshipsamongthespeakers‑withspeak‑cativesettingsinthelapanesespeechcommunity(cfTakano2001).2'

ersofhigheroccupaUonalranksusing""prominencewithbothface‑threateningandsupport‑

zo. SomereaderSmightiindthiSparticularweight(0.40)higherthanexpected.Possiblerea‑
sonsfbrthiswillbepresentedmSection6.4.

22.AlgorithmsfbrVARBRULdonotallowfbranyinteractionamongthemdependentvaria‑

ivefbotingsmorefrequentlythanlower‑rankedspeakersacrossthesettings(cfPearsonl988,
1989;Takanol997,2005).

bles.Therefbre,IconductedseveralGoldvarbrunssoasnottoincludethefactorsthatappearto

zl.Mypriorwork(Takano2001)onthesamevariable(i.e.,prosodicprominenceon"i)re‑interactwithoneanotherinasinglerun. 'IhosefactorsgroupsareFG‑2andFG‑6,FG‑2andvealsthatthissituation‑dependentsystematicityalsoholdstrueinworkplaceinteractions・ ･Ihis
workplacecorpusdisplayedagradientshihinusesoffbcalprominence,withdiffrentfbotings
basedondifrentpropertiesofsettmgsacrossthemfbrmativeness/mteractivenesscontinuum.
Businessmeetings,whereinfbrmativenessishighlyrequired,involvedthehighestrateofoccur‑
rencesoffbcalprominenceonface‑threatening"i(52%),andbusiness‑linkedinteractionsout‑sideofmeetingsinvolvedfbcalprominenceonthesamefboting43%ofthetime.Casualchats
unrelatedtobusiness,whereinteractivenessishighlyesteemed,involveditonly29%ofthetime,

FG‑9,andFG‑7andFG‑8・SincelobtaineddiHErentversionsoftheresultsfromseveralGolvarb

runs,theVRweightfbreachindependentvariablereportedinTable3istheonederivedftoma
runyieldingthelowestaveragechi‑squareperceU,whichindicatesthegoodnessoffitbetween
thepresentmodelandthedata.

Z3． EachvaluerepresentStheworst(i.e.,highest)chi‑squarepercellvalueamongallofthe
GoldVarbrunshomeachsocialsimation.
IC垂ﾛ?a】CO､咋応ations

SOCIALSITUArIONS

Pol亜哩IDeb2I崖

New5(ContmlSample)
齢1)MorphosyntacticStatus

VeybaIS"Jix

31％（128ﾉ412）

0.51

N聴飾彫A傘c"38％（62ﾉ165）

0.48%‑""ProminenCe

VRWeight2)PrcximitytotheEnd

Lo噸伍｡rmo庭、od38％（107ﾉZ84）0.％ofthelP

MorriSoアル派rmo麺Ej

28％（83ﾉ2 ）

0.44

3)OlherA

entedAP

Preceding･Nai
4)OtherFo

A6se"

％

（91ﾉ2 ）

0.62

丹rFr"垂27％（ /368）

0.43

s

肥"

34％（126/370）

0.52

Preceding.Nai

PFE蛇"

31％

（64/207）

0.47

励肋w聴馳 E69％

（9ﾉ13）0.73

地肺g

32％（174/艶0）0.50

P曄型i咽馳 e

29％

0.45

5)RhythmにIssu

S脚助㎡i"
Bﾅ?比｡｡

7)【､ゐrmationStatus

e

e

亡必亜？

35％

（117ﾉ333）

0.52

30％

（34ﾉ113）

0.47

30％

（3列131）

0.47

jnfr'ed36％（93ﾉ193）

0.56

B""｡b"ew32％（61ﾉ193）0.50

a耐ms"ve

33％（16ﾉ48）

0.47

Om

25％

（20/81）

0.35

48％（23ﾉ48）0.

38％（18ﾉ48）0．59

31％（l4W481）0.47

Dj璽口u7yE伽Fker

8)PIで血唾Hi"ID虹｡､応g雌rkEr｡Pく･05

吟P＜･05

NotSignif

NotSignif

NONE6)HierachyofInbrmationMni"C腫幽e

NotSignif

NotSignif｡P＜･OS%‑肺aiProminen

VRWeightSignif(92ﾉ173）

0.56(45ﾉ114）0.41(78ﾉ145）

0．58(59ﾉ142）

0.42

吟p＜､05%‑wniPmminence48％（48ﾉ101）

23％〔14ﾉ ）

VRWeijnt

50帖（52ﾉl餌）｡P＜､0518％（10ﾉ57）56％（27ﾉ48）（53/ ）

0.57(84ﾉ197）0．47(85/165）

0.56(52ﾉ122）

0.42

35％

（17ﾉ48）〈24ﾉ34）0．76

25％（3ﾉ12）(97/229）0．44

40粥（59ﾉ149）（12/18）

0.65

（4ﾉ6）

0.73

(61ﾉ140）

0．48

33％

（24/58）0．43

26％（ﾌﾉ27）（52ﾉ89）0．58

43％（47ﾉ110）(56ﾉ104）

0．56

43％

（26ﾉ印）(50ﾉ112）

0．46

32鮎

（19ﾉ60）（18ﾉ37）

0．58

36％（10ﾉ28）（13ﾉ34〕

0．41

54％（7ﾉ13）（11ﾉ17）

0．79

50％

（3ﾉ6）

（12ﾉ27〉0．55

47％(114ﾉZ43）

0.47

NotSignif

31％（35ﾉ113）
40％（45ﾉ113〕｡P＜･05NONE
NONE｡P＜･OS

NotSignif

NotSignif

７８９３５１９３

sbw7b刀獅（7/24）

Signif

鉛●０
妬
副勿◆馴０
釦０
一一
５０
４０
５０
５０
５−
◆ ０００００■０
０
０５
０４
０４０

駒ctorS

郵郵認蛾甥錨識鋤沁殿殿殿蛾小郷識郷鐸鍛錨錨

FaCtorGrcups（8ﾉ24）

Signif︺︒ｍ堕彦且一目画汚鰯邑︒

Table3.VariableRuleAnalysisofPotentialConstraintsonFocalProminenceontheNegative-NAI:nlreeSocialSituations

動Pく・05.p＜･05

鯵P<､05

NotSignif

NoISignif

NotSignif

NotSignif

NONE【姥7画土r酌P『喝施.p<,05

NotSigEif

38％（59ﾉ155）

0.50

NotSi8nif−−−−

一一一一■ー−

８

０

恥

睡雌剛

蝉利

◆９︐

＄

噸

ｒ
加飲

0.65

(163ﾉ528）

0.49（23ﾉ39）0.79

Signif%‑""PmminenceVRWbightSignif
40％･P<･05

（2ﾉ5）

0.28

48％(135/282）

0.50%‑"iProminencc

NotSignif

NONE

NONE

（1ﾉ3）

O､40

〔1ﾌﾉ45）

0.57

63％（15ﾉ24）

0.69（18ﾉ45）

0.55（11ﾉ33）

0.52（74ﾉ317）

0，38

NONE

48％（63ﾉ130）

0,55

45％（58ﾉ130）

0.42

９

動P＜･0533％（190ﾉ577）

NotSignif

48％(137ﾉ287）

39％（62ﾉ161）

皿癖麹蝿

ｐ○ｎｅ二

唾出型０８

劃錘二０

唖．一触廻

如産叩曄
障錘Ｉ皿

ｙ

ｂ

･=Factorgmupsclectcd
bystepwiseregIでssionan釧挿is
InputValue=0.477
Chi.SqUareperCdl=0．％5，

4■■

圭一︾﹄

・画FactorgrouPselected
bystepwiseregressionanalysis
InPutValue=0.3"
Chi‑squarepercell=l．0373

６

33％

Signif

１
１

0.67

３

Ｇ−■︑

ｖ

0.79

推

α
加

ｆ

（7ﾉ10）（40ﾉ88）

VRWeight

一一一一一一一VRWeight（2ﾌﾉ49）

ＥＮ
ＥＮ
Ｅ ＥＮ
ＥＥＮ
ＥＥ唾
肌
Ｎ
０
０ ０Ｎ
ｏＯＮ
００Ｎ
０１
ＮＮＮＮＮＮＮＮ鮎

ｇ

ｍ

５

Ｓ
ｏ

０

叩

ｎ
Ｏ

ｐ︑

ｉ
ｔ

ｊ

︐鰹

１

１

…L

％％
％
粥
％
％
％
％
％
５
１５
９７
０４
５３
８４
０３
３２
３
５
３

％‑打afProminence

睡唾⑪rS

torGro叩3脆恥︾︾一︽︾醜緬

ａｔ
◇ｍ
︐
１
９１

F

NewS(ContrOlSample)

PoliticalDebat

E垂哩IConve露繩､ns

SOCIALSITUパrIONS●忘邑農︒冒旨宮︒ｇ含ｎさ２ｍｇ毬凰曽℃

一■ＵＩＯ１０■１８口■ⅡⅡＩＩＩＩｈｌｌｌｌｌｌｌｌｌｌｌｌｌＩｌ

31o ShOjiTakano

Variationmprosodichcusof"j 311｜

fbotmgsthenegativeconveystotheintedocutormtheimmediatecontextofuse.In

Asageneralphoneticfact,Iapanesetonaleventsarelikelytoinvolve!aeclination;'aslope‑likepitchdeclmetowardtheendofanutterance.Furthermore,aJapanese‑specificphonologicalprincipleof,aownsteP'predictsthatpitchrangetendstobecomenar‑
roweraiteranyprecedingaccentedAPstowardtheendofthelP(Azumal993,Beck‑

PD,50%(61/122)ofsuchbcuse3to‑occur"withaface‑threateningmotingrelevant

totheinteractionalgoalsofthatsocialsimation.Asamplediscoursesegmentisgiven
inExcerpt(4),ashortnarrativebySpeakerD2bwhoparticipatedinateleviseddebate
astherepresentativeofoneoftheoppositionpartieswhocriticizedamanifestoissued
bythegovernment(LiberalDemocraticPartyILDPI).

manandPierrehumbertl986,Kubozonol989,PierrehumbertandBeckmanl988).

'Ihus, intheseprosodicenvironmentstonaleventsarelikelytobelowerintheirmo‑
mentum,whichisalsosubstantiatedbyageneralphenomenonofaccentdegeneration(4) Concurrenceoffbcalprominenceonthenegativeandotherprosodicfbcus.

totheendofthelP(Kooril989b,Maekawal994,Venditti2005).Itwasassumedinthe

presentstildythatthesegeneralprinciplesarecounter‑productivetotherealizationof
fbcalprominenceonthenegative"",whichoccursmosdyatthepredicate‑finalposi‑
tionincanonicalJapaneseutterances.Thepresentresultsclearlydemonstratethatfb‑
calprominenceonthenegativeisalsoheavilysubjecttothesestructuralprmciplesin
JapaneseintonationalphonologybFurthermore,theeiftctsofthispositionalconstraint
areindeedgreatestinreadspeech(i.e.,mnewsbroadcasts, long:0.64,short:0.27),
whichisequivalenttothedataelicitationtaskgenerallyadoptedinpriorstudiesof
Iapaneseintonationalphonology(cfUmedal982).
Anotherconstraintthatisfbundtoexertratherrobusteffctsonfbcalprominence
onthenegative"fziisFG‑3(thepresenceorabsenceofotheraccentedAPsprecedingthenegative""),andthisconstraintisdirectlyrelevanttothephonologicalprincipleofIapanesedownstepmentionedabove.Inaccordwiththeprinciple,ourresultsalso
demonstratethattheabsenceofprecedingaccentedAPsislikelytopromoteprosodic
fbcus(0.62fbrCC,0.66fbrNB),whereastheirpresenceinhibitsprosodicfbcus(0.43
fbrCC,0.43fbrNB).WhnethisdirectionalityisalsomaintainedinPD,themagnitude
oftheeffctsissmaller(0.57,0.47)thantheothersocialsituationsandturnsoutnotto

bestatisticallysignificant.
Theseresultsdemonstratethatthevariablerealizationoffbcalprominenceis
basedonrathermechanicaloperationsrelativetotonaleventsintheprecedingpro‑

Keiki"okorom"如如加"te‑i""i.KDYOO"OkOromom"‑‑> SpeakerD2b:"k"Imitte‑i"i.Soregnji''z加如o"oseisnk""""d"zJ.
I

d(TheLDPbmanifbsto)doesnotincludepolicieson(therecessionin)the

economyatall.(1t)doesnotincludepolicieson(thedeclinem)EMPLOYE
MENTatall,nlatistheLDPmani企sto'

1

1

1

Noticethatthenegative""wasusedineachofthefirsttwoconsecutiveutterances,
butneithertokenwasjudgedasbemgprosodicaUyprominent.Instead,thespeakerplacedfbcalprominenceonanotherelement(KOYOOもmployment')atthebeginning
oftheutterance.

I

PlacmgmarkedemphasisrelativelyearlyinthelPisatypicalprosodicmovefbrre‑
inmr℃mgaconfiontationalfbotingmlapaneselanguageusa"mgenera1.Koori(1997a:197)characterizeskWOOsIMcIzoo‑cIzoo(tmotionallyappeahngton6)inJapaneseasthe
combmationofemphaticpitchmthemitialpartofanutteranceandweakenedpitchin
thepredicate(i.e､,thefinalpartoftheutterance).Furthermore,aspastsmdiespointout,
thepresenceofbcusgreatlyrestrainsorweakensthedynamicsoftonesinthesucceed‑
ingprosodicenvironment(PierrehumbertandBeckmanl988),whichwouldevenmore

stronglyhijllightsuchanappealingtone.Itisthenquiteplausibletoassumethatbe‑
causeofthenatureofthesocialsimation,theparticipantsinPDtakeadvantageofsuch
prosodicmovesasastrategytostrengthentheirconffontationalstances.

sodicenvironment.Theissuethatremainstobediscussed,howeverBconcernsthefact

Thus,giventhetwotypesofpotentialconstraints(FG‑3[proceedingaccented

thatthesemechanicalprinciplesdonotseemtoapplyfbrPDtoastatisticallysignifi‑
cantextent(presenceO､47,absenceO.57;p>.05).InPD,insteadofFG‑3,astatisticallysignificantdegreeofefibctsisfbundwithrespecttootherfbcusesintheprosodicen‑AP]andFG‑4[proceedmgextrafbcus])thatrestrainorpromotefbcdprominencein
thesucceedingprosodicenvironment,thepresentresultsshowmterestinglythatthe

vironmentprecedingthenegative""(FG‑4inTable3):24theabsenceofprecedingnencemCCandNBismorelikelytobesubjecttothe"unmarked''prmciplesofJapa‑
nesemtonationalphonologyGInPD,ontheotherhand,fbcalprominenceispragmati‑

fbcusespromotesfbcalprominence(0.56)andtheirpresenceinhibitsit(0.42).nlis
diffbrentiation,howeveIBisnotmeaning皿fbrCCandNB(CC:0.52,0.47;NB:0.51,
0.47,respectively).
Furtheranalysisrevealsthatwhiletheoverallratiosofprosodicfbcusesprecedingthenegative""donotinvolvesomuchdiiference,especiallybetweenPDandCC(42.5%{122usesofotherfbcuses/287totaltokensofthenegative"il inPD;35.9%{207/5771 inCC;cf,29.8%[48/1611inNB),thismarkeduseofextraibcusesinthe

precedingprosodicenvironmenthasaconsiderableamounttodowiththetypesof

effbctsarediffrentiatedbetweendiffbrentsocialsimations.Variabnitymfbcalpromi‑

caUyeitherfavoredordisfavoredbytheprecedingprosodicfbcusovertheStructuralprincipleofJapaneseprosodyGThisparalinguisticmanipulationseemstobetakenad‑vantageofasaprosodicstrategybythespeakeriwhoaimstoachievespecificcommu‑
nicativegoalsrequiredbythatparticularsocialsituation.
Theremainingtwofactorgroupsconcerningtheinternalstructuresoftheintona‑
tionphrase(FG‑5andFG‑1)aｴEalsodiffrentiatedamongthesocialsituations.The
resultsfbrFG‑5(rhythmicissues),whichisspecifictoPD,demonstratethatapause

immediatelyfbnowing""stronglypromotesfbcalprominence(0.76)andthatslow
24． Foranmustration,seethefburthitemmthelistofpotenUalconstraintsinSection5.2

’
Variationinprosodicfbcusof""313

312 ShOjiTakano

tempoalsopromotesittoanalmostequalextent(0.73).Thepauseoccurringeither
befbrethephraseinvolving"ior(veryrarely)rightbefbre"iitselfisalsofbundto

Thble4・ FrequenciesofFocalProminenceon‑NAIandMorphosyntacticStructures
WrbalSumx"・腕j

NegativeAdjectiveCGNqj"

with⑪唾Pa唾de隼

withParticles

eg,0ishiku(wα）"αf nOtdeⅡdousP

e､8,oiShikI4wiz"Wzotlieliciolls'︑畑NegativeAdiective"N"i"exertquiteastrongpositiveefct(0.65).nlisquantitativeevidenceshowsthatthe
usesofpausesandslowtempoaresimplynotpartofCCorNBregistersbutcanbethe
strategiccomponentsofhighlyinfbrmation‑oriented,interactiveregisterslikePD,in
thatapredominantmajorityofthetokensfiomthesesocialsimationsdonotco‑occur
withthoseparameters(atotalof2.8%use[16/577]inCC;l.9%use[3/161]inNB)as
comparedwiththeirdistributioninPD(atotalof13.9%use[40/287])(P<.001).Ma‑

nipulathlgrhythmicparametersofinteractionshasagreatdealtodowiththehearert
perceptionoftheelementinfbcus(Kooril989b,Sugitoul982).Forthesakeoftheircommunicativegoals,theparticipantsmPDseemtotakeadvanta"oftheseparam‑
etersasaprosodicstrategytodrawthehearerb(andthelargeraudienceb)attention
towardtheelementinfbcusandtodeveloppersuasivearguments.25

Furtherevidencethatsubstantiatestheseinterpretationscomesfromtheratiosoffb-

Thelaststrucmralconstraint(FG‑1)isconcernedwiththemorpho‑syntacticstatusofthenegative"i,whichisalsofbundtobedinbrentiatedamongsocialsimations(seeFG‑linSection5.2brmustrations).Ourresultsdemonstratethatthisfactorismean‑

ingftllonlyfbrhiJllymfbrmation‑orientedsocialsimationssuchasPDandNB(verbal
suinx:0.56,0.58;negativeadjective:0.41,0.36,respectively;P<､05),whereasitseffcts
areneutralizedinanmteraction‑orientedsocialsituationsuchasCC(0.51,0.48).

IinterplettheseresultsasstemmmgfiPomtheinterplaybetweenthedegreeofper‑
ceptualsaliencyconveyedbydiffrentmorpho‑syntacticstructuresanddiffrentorien‑
tationstowardmfbrmativeness/interactivenessrequiredfbrparticularsocialsimations.
'Ihenegative"isuffixxedtotheverb(e.9.,""α"<speakP‑>"" αL"αiaonotspeak;ik"
頭今獅‑"α'faonotgd)isperceptuallylesssalientthan"αjasthenegativeadiective(e､9.,kα"eM掴忠､"αji･(1)havenomoney;oishik"wα"αPi.{it]isnotdencious'),whichis
morpho‑syntacticallyindependent,withitsownlexicalaccentgenerallygiven.Inhighly
mbrmation‑oriemedsocialsituations(PDandNB),wheresuccessfilltransmissionof

infbrmationisgiventhefirstpriorityithepresentresultsseemtodemonstratethatthe
speakerscompensatefbrthescarcityofper℃eptualsaliencyoftheverbalsuffix‑""byexploitingprosodicfbcus(0.56,0.58,respectively),whereastheytendtomoderaatea
higherdegreeofsaliencyofthenegativeadjectivejilmibyresortmgtoprosodicfbcustoa
lesserextent(0.41,0.36,respectively).InahighlyinteractivesocialsituationsuchasCC,
ontheotherhand,theanalysisofrelativeeffbctivenessamonganumberofmtersecting
constraintsindicatesthatthisparticularstrucmralconstraintisnotassignificantasm‑
teraction‑relatedconstramts(FG‑7,FG‑8,FG‑9,FG‑10).

25． nlisclamthattheuseofpausesisspecinctocertainsocialsimationsfbrcommunicative
purposesisalsosubstantiatedbyotherstudies・Forexample,Silvermanetal.(1992),whocom‑
paredtheuseofpausesbetweenreadspeechandspontaneousspeech,ibundthattheuseof
pausesisbothquantitativelyandqualitativelydifftrent・ Inspontaneousspeechinparticul"
pausestendedtobelongerandoccurredmoreoften,andtheauthorsattributedthisregister‑
linkeddi碇唾ncetothespeakerblexicalaccessdelayasweUasthepragmaticmarkerfbrthe
hstenertowaitfbrunpredictableinfbrmationonitswayLe､g.ikn‑"｡'iaoIft"（12ﾉ28）38％（33ﾉ86）24％（13/55）53%(92/173)43％

48%(48/101)

20%

(1/5)

31%(128/412)

45％（24/53）34%(38/112)

calprommenceinrelationtotheshiftsinprosodicsaliencyderivedftomdiffbrentmorpho-syntacticstructuresofthenegative"i.Intheabove-mentionedexamples,kα"egn/wα〃α'i([I]havenomoney;)andoiS"kIJw""'i((itl isnotdelicious.), in
which"iisgenerallygranteditsownindependentlexicalaccent,thepostpositional
particlessuchasgnandwizareoftenomittedwiththepropositionalmeaningbeing
unchangedmspokenJapanese.Thisomissioncausessomechangemthedegreeof
perceptualsaliencybinthat""prosodicallybecomesmorelikeapartoftheimmedi‑
atelyprecedmgnouns(kα"e"α'i)andadiectives(oishik""i).
InThble4,thequantitativeevidenceshowsthatthereisacontinuumfbrmulated
inusesoffbcalprominencemaccordwiththedegreeofsaliencyofthenegative"ias

determinedbythosemorpho‑syntacticmakeupsasfarastheinfbrmation‑orientedsocialsimations(PDandNB)areconcerned.

Asthedegreeofmorpho‑syntacticindependenceofthenegativermiincreases(fromlefftoright),theratiosofprosodicfbcusdecrease,particularlymPD(PD:53%‑>43%‑>38%).26Whneparticleomissionisveryunlikelytooccurinfbrmalcommu‑
nicativesettmgsliketelevisednewsprograms(NB),whichyieldedaskewedresult(NB,20%[1/5]),thesamedirectionalityofchangeisobservedintheratiosoffbcal
prominence(NB:48％今20％今24%).Howeve喝suchagradientofsystematicityisnot
observedmthehighlymteraction‑orientedsocialsimationofconversation(CC:31%‑う45％今34%)．

NoticealsoinThble4thatmCCtheratiofbrfbcalprominenceonthenegative

adjective""withoutpostpositionalparticles(middlecolumn)isstrikinglyhigh(45%[24/531)ascomparedwiththoseintheothermorpho‑syntacticstructuIes(31%fbr
verbalsufEx;34%fbrnegativeadjectivewithparticles). Iarguethatthismtioislikely
thebyproductoftheseriesofeffbctsofvariousfbotingsfavoringfbcalprominenceto
astatisticallysignificantextent(seeFG‑lOinTable3).Amongthetotalof24occur‑
26． Thisthree‑waydistinctionofthemorpho‑syntacticstatusofthenegative""didnotpro‑
duceanystatisticallysigni6cantresultsbyGoldVarbanalysis.Consequendyithetwo‑waydis‑
tinction(i.e.,verbalsuinxandnegativeadiective)wasadoptedasthepotentialmorpho‑syntac‑
ticconstraintonfmiprommencebecauseofitsstatisticalsignificance(FG‑Im'Ihble3).

314

Variationinprosodicfbcusof""315

ShOjiTakano

rencesofprosodicallyprominenttokenswithpostpositionalparticlesomitted,17to‑kens(70.8%)carryspecincpragmaticmeanmgssuchasagreementseeking(6promi‑
nentoutof6tokens,100%),supportive(4prominentoutof4,100%),selfdenigating(1prommentoutof4,25%),selfLprotective(2prominentoutof4,50%),face‑threat‑
enmgwithhumor(teasing)(3prominentoutof3, 100%),andface‑threatening(Iprominentoutofl,100%).Furthermore,highftequenciesofconcurrenceofJapaneseparticleellipsisandtheuseofpragmaticfbrcehasbeendocumentedrepeatedlyinpast
variationiststudies(e.g.,Matsudal992,Thkanol998),whichdemonstratethattheel‑lipsisofJapanesepostpositionalparticlesispromotedbythepragmaticfbrceoftheutterance.Thesefindmgsseemtosuggestthat,asfarasCCisconcerned,theremark‑ablyhighratiooffbcalprominenceonthenegativeinthisparticularmorpho‑syntactic
strucmreislikelytobemotivatedbyinteractionalfactorsratherthanbythespeakerb
controlofperceptualsaliencyGHereagain,thenatureofthesocialsituationfiguressystematicallyinspeakerSdecision‑makingprocessesfbrthemappingsofpotential
mtersectingfactorsmtosociolinguisticgrammarb""prominence(0.35).Althoughlcannotoffbranyempiricalinterpretationregarding
thisparticularfindmgatthispoint,Isuspectthathighdegreesofcommonknowledge
sharedbetweentheparticipants(i.e.,closefriends)mightbeafactorinhibitmgtheuse
ofprosodicfbcusfbrold,already‑familiarmfbrmation.

IlNotealsothattheresultsindicateaweakpositiveeffbctof"inferredinfbrmationP'l(o.56)on"iprommence.Infact,thisiscloselylinkedtoconsistentpositiveeffbctsof"prefacd'on‑"iprominence(FG‑8). 'Iheresultsofthisinteractiveconstraint,whichlwillbediscussedmdetailinthenextsection,showthattheuseofdiscoursemarkers

las"prefacesP'toupcomingnegativesconsistenUyfavorstheuseoffbcalprominenceto
astatisticanysignificantextent・Theseinteractivedevicesclearlyhelpthenstenerto"infer"theinfbrmationconveyedbytheupcomingnegativemtheflowofdiscourse.
Thus,once"interactiveP'socialsimations(i.e.,casualconversations)areaccommodat‑

edinthescopeofresearch,thisnewdimensionofinfbrmationstatuscomesinasan‑
otherpossibleconstrainttobeconsidered.

l
1

6.4
6．3

1nfbrmationstrucmreandfbcalprominence

nleresultsinFG‑6and7(Thble3)demonstratethatvariabilityinJapanesefbcal
prominenceisnotheavilysuMecttoinfbrmationstructuresofdiscourse(e.9.,newness
orsignificanceofinfbrmationconveyedbythevariableinqUestion),whichisdiscord‑
antwiththeaforementioned"highlightmg‑based"universalistviewoffbcalpromi‑
nencebasedon"non‑interactive"readspeechinWesternlanguages.OurstatisticallyinsigniiicantresultsevenfiPomidentical <<non‑interactivg'socialsituationslikeNB(i.e.,readspeech)andhighlyinfbrmation‑orientedPDdemonstratethatneitherinfbr‑
mation‑linkedfactorgroup(FG‑6or7)exertscriticaleifbctsonvariabilityinJapanese
prosodichcus.
Infact,thisoutcomecoincideswithSugitoub(1985,1986)argumentfbrlanguage
specificityinfbcalprominencephenomenainJapanese.BoththefindingfbrFG‑2(i.e.,thearther""islocatedfromtheendofthelRthemorelikelyitistoobtainpromi‑
nence)andtheseresults(FG‑6and7)substantiateSugitouもfindmgthatlinguisticele‑mentsintheclause‑/phrase‑initialpositiontendtoreceiveprosodicprominence,re‑gardlessoftheinfbrmationstatustheymayrepresent intheflowofdiscourse. In
addition,thestatisticallysignificantresultsofFG‑3discussedabovefilrtherjustifythesuperiorityofthis"strucmre‑based"accountoverthe"infbrmation‑based"account,mthattheinternalprosodicstructuresofthelP(i.e､,thepresence/absenceofpreceding
lexicalaccents)playadehnitiveroleinvariableusesofJapanesefbcalprominence.
nlestatisticaUysignificantresults(FG‑7)fbrCCalsoshowthatthe@Ghighlighting‑based"accountsofprosodicbcuscannotbesubstantiatedbecauseofsuchprobabnity
weightsas0.50(i.e.,noeffbct)br"brand‑new''mfbrmationandaweaknegativeefibct(0.47)fbr.tontrastivg'inbrmation・nlestatisticalsigni6canceofthisparticularfactor
groupstemsprimarilyfiPomthestrongeifectof<bld"infbrmationstatusdisfavoring

1nteractiveparameters

Aspointedoutearlieripaststudiesonprosodicfbcus,whichhavebeendonepre‑
dominantlywithlaboratoryphonologyihavecriticallyneglectedtheimpactofinterac‑ノltivedimensionsonthephenomenabecauseoftheuseofnon‑interactiveregistersaslanalyticaldata.Amajorthrustofthepresentstudyistoshedlightonthedynamic
systemsofprosodythataregenerallyhighlysusceptibletotheinterpersonaldimen‑lsionsofeverydaylanguageusemvarioussocialsettings.
FG‑lOinThble3(seeSection5.2fbrdiscourseexamples)showsthatthetypesof

fbotingofthenegative〃αihavebeenfbundtoexertrobusteffectsonthephenomenalinCC,whereastheeffctsarefbundnottobestatisticallysignificantinPD.ThislatterI

outcomeisduetothemappingofindependentvariablessensitivetothecommunica‑

tivegoalsofthisparticularsocialsituation,inwhichtheparticipantschoosetoresort
tothisprosodicmeanstoconsistendymaintaintheirconfrontationalstanceasweUasIll

thecommunicativeefficiencyovermoment‑to‑momentchangesininteractivemean‑
ingsandtheirimpactonthelistenel:
Thetwosocialsituationsareverycontrastivewithrespecttotheoveralldistribu‑
tionofthe""tokens.Whneaboutthehalfofthenegativesareusedtocreateinfbrm‑

lative(neutral)typeoffbotingbothinCCandPD(54.9%[317/5771;45.3%[130/2871,
Iespectively),face‑threateningusesof""constituteahnosthalfofthetokensinPDlexpressdirectdisagreementwithco‑participantsmaccordancewiththeSAP‑i.e.,thesignsofdisagreementareminimizedfbrthesakeoftheuniversalpreftrencefbragree‑
mentinconversations.27TheremainingtokensofCCdisplayamuchwiderrangeofldistributionacrossvarioustypesoffbotings,ascomparedwiththoseofPDthatarel(45.3%[130/287]). Incontrast,only5.7%(33/577)ofthetokensinCCareusedtoIlz7b Thisdiffbrencebetweenthesocialsimationsisstatisticallyhighlysignificant(p<.001)ll

古■８１８０１・卜０１１

I
Variationinprosodicfbcusof""317

316 ShOjiTakano

mainlythetyperelevanttotheinteractionalpurposessuchasprotectingonebown
stance(selfLprotection:8.4%[24/2871).Thus,contrarytothe"mythP'ofinterpersonalharmonyinJapaneseculmre,Japanesepeopleopenlydisagreewithoneanotheras
longasthesocialsituations(suchasPD)andrelatedsocioculturalexpectationsfbr
communicativeappropriatenessallowthemtodoso(Honda2002,Ishidal984,Jones
1990). 'Iheresultsshowthatprosodycanbeoneoftheparametersusefillfbrsystem‑
aticallye"ressingorrembrcmgthespeakerbconfiPontationalstance.Futureworkon
howJapanesepeopledisagreewithoneanothershouldtakeintoseriousaccountthecommlinicativepropertiesofdiHbrentsocialsituationsandtheirsocioculturalfilnc‑
tionsineverydaylanguageuse.
ThestatisticanysignificantresultsofCC(FG‑10)revealthattangibleprinciples
underliethespeakersPapparendychaoticbehaviorsmexploitingfbcalprominence‑

SpeakerC3a: [@@@]jifts"""ijﾙ"""o<@kirlりﾉoo"k"ine.@>@@@<@.Justlikearegularsmdent,shealsowears(anattire),andlike,shesays"Heno,Masakol"(AfewmoreutterancesofasmilarkindbySpeakerC3aareomittedhere.

AftermteractingwithC3abseriesofjokeswithagreeablelaughterbSpeaker
C3bnnallyrespondswithhumoliclearlynegatmgthepossibUitiessuggested
byC3awiththeprominent"".）‑SpeakerC3b: "Sso::""gEzk"sei""鐇加hα"sok""shaiNoway;nlereisngsmdentlikethat. (Thatb)againstthe
ruleg

InExcerpt(6),SpeakersC4aandC4b,femalehiendsmtheirlate60stoearly70s,aretalkingaboutuncomfbrtablee"eriencestheyhavehadatthehospital.C4atensashortstoryaboutthedi価cultiessheexperiencedinreceivinganinjectioninabloodvessel.

i.e.,thespeakerbdecision‑makingprocessesaresubjecttotheinteractivemeaningsof
negationateverymomentofitsuse.TheparticipantsinCCwhoseinteractionalgoal
istomaintainorpromotemterpersonalrapportandsolidarityappeartoresorttofbcal
prominencefbrparalinguisticmessagesofpositivepoliteness,asshowninthosehigh‑probabnitytokensfbrsupportiveinteractivemeaning(0.79)(seeExcerpt[3]above),facethreateningwithhumor(teasmg)(0.79)(Excerpt[5}below),andagreementseek‑(6)Agreementseeking

SpeakerC4a:

SPeakerC4b: 〃"．
<Yeahl1

SpeakerC4a:"0:"""""ddlyDI(0.5)h"ri.]<Iwassmngwithneedles(somanytimes)!
SpeakerC4b: [mαα:]
4Reallyf‑> SpeakerC4a: お脚memimkomwnkekkα〃dど"aidesho.

(5) Facethreatenmgwithhumor(teasing)SpeakerC3a: gnk"sei"OjJriS"形ba<@""d""e.@>{@@@@@].Itwouldworkifshepretendstobeastudent,wouldnPtit?'
SPeakerC3b:

I@@@@@]

SpeakerC3a:<@so"gnic"6""dZz･@>.Thattthebest(way):

SpeakerC3b: @@@[@@@]

28. Therelativelyhighprobabilityfbrthe"selfprotectiorf'fboting(0.57[38%,17/45])inThble
3islargelyduetothespeakerbemotionalresponses(oftenalongwithhumorandjokes)tothe
mtedocutorbchallengeregardingpersonaltopics(e､g.,aibnnerboyfriend,makeup,jobhunt‑mg,etc.).

":α"α""kisoi‑sα"解哩痂oo"加罐kudnsnitteyzJMhodOmg<Well,so,asmuchasmyattendantsaid,"pleasedoIftdoit
anymore;"mg(0.67)(Excerpt[61below).28
mExcerpt5,speakersC3aandC3bareconegeclassmateswhoarewondering
whethertheycanbringparentstoaneventatwhichstudentsaresupposedtopick
theirattiretowearfbranupcominggraduationceremonybSpeakerC3b(Masako)fbels
uneasyaboutmakingherowndecision.Shewondersaboutthepossibilityofbringing
hermothertohelpwithherdecisionmaking,butshethinksthatacollegestudentbe‑
ingaccompaniedbyhisorherparentwouldlookstrangetootherpeople.SpeakerC3a
PlyfUllypursuesC3bbthoughts.

doomoM""kotokqtte.@>@@@@

I｡Thebloodvesseldoes㎡tstandoutunderthecoldpart(oftheskin),doesit?'I

SpeakerC4b:"お脚memik"".
QYeah,because(theskin)iscold!

Theobservedpatternsofvariabnityalsoprovideempiricalevidenceofdiscordance
withanotherculturalstereotype,whichisthatjapaneselanguageuseisheavnyori‑
entedtowardnegativepohtenessanddeferencetoothers.Ascanbeseeninthisexam‑
ple,positivepolitenormsofmteractionareequallystressedandheavilyexploitedas
thecoreelementsfbrbuildingmterpersonalrelationsinthiskindofsocialsimation,
inwhichin‑grouprapportandsolidarityarehigmyvalued.Thisisalsooneoftherea‑
sonswhywehavefbundarelativelyhigherprobabnityweight(0.40)fbrtheprominent"itokensmCC(Thble2)relativetotheothersocialsimations(seeNote20mSection’
318 ShOjiThkano

Variationinprosodicfbcusof"i 319

6.1).FutureresearchonJapaneselanguageusageshouldmcludeworkonthisrelativelyneglectedaspectofJapaneselinguisticbehavior:
Theshiftoflinguisticelementstothepost-predicatepositionalsofavorsfbcal

syntacticmarkersofpreface(FG‑8inThble3).Excerpts(8)and(9)nlustratethetwo
typesofmarkersunderanalysis・In(8),SpeakerC4a,awomanmherlate60s,istandng
toherfriend(eady70s)aboutamutualfriendwithwhomtheyhavenotbeenincon‑
tactfbralongtime.SpeakerC4ateUsashortnarrativeaboutwhatwastalkedaboutI

prominenceinCCtoastatisticallysignificantextent(FG-9inThble3)-i.e.,postpositionstronglyfavorsfbcalprominence(0.65),whereascanonicalwordorderhasalmost
noeffect(0.49)(seeExcerpt{7]fbranillustration).

overthephonewhenshefinallydecidedtogiveheracaU.
(8)

SpeakerC2a：

Prefaceasahint(inboldface)

SpeakerC4a: @mgggd"mmshim""idettesooitteb(7) Postposing(SpeakersC2aandC2b,coUegeclassmates,aretalkingaboutC2ab
0pastboyfriendhavingheadlice.)‐ぅ加jmk o〃 ？
@Ybuhaven'tseen(lice)?'@'ah,isthatSg?(I)didnPtknowthat;'(I)said,then"(I)wantto‑> SpeakerC2b: shim"αi碗"αkotolZ"yoso""α〃α｡IdonPtknowbl'vemEXEXseensuchathing:
SpeakerC2bbresponsewouldbeso""α〃o碗"αkoto""yoifitfbnowedcanonicalwordorderinJapanese,butinsteadthenounphrasewasdislocatedtothepost‑verbal
position.AstrikingcontrastwithPDandNBliesinitsfrequencyofoccurrence.While
postpositionsco‑occurredwithnegation8.5%ofthetimeinCC(49/577),theyco‑
occurredonly1.7%ofthetimeinPD(5/287)andneverco‑occurredinNB.ThisdifL

mi加戚打i汰勉j〃血keziotmm,i)MzimQcho αimk"狸"e)'""〃血)心延,…

goandseeyou;'(I)said.
But(she)said,"Nah,(I)kindofdoLQL̲Wanttosee(people):'So.j

I

Theutterance‑mitiali)Mz((negativelyimplied} @weU')hintstothehstenerthenegative
α"αk""αithatisonitswayb

In(9),SpeakerC3b(Masako)hasastrongdesiretoliveinaruraltownlikethe
oneSpeakerC3aisfrom・SpeakerC3aisstronglyagainsttheideaandtriestopersuade

fbrenceisstatisticallyhighlysignificant(P<.001).

Masakotogiveitup.

OnoandSuzuki(1992)arguethat,mcontrasttopostpositionsinwhichabreakinintonationcontourorapauseintervenesbetweenthepredicateandthepostposedele‑ment,postpositionsexpressedthroughoutasmgleintonationcontourwithoutany
breakevokeemotiveovertones,enhancediscoursecohesivenesswiththeprecedmg
context,andstrengthenthespeakerbstancetowardtheproposition,referent,ortopic(9) PIefaceasanupgrader(inboldface).
SpeakerC3a: i)ﾉα::M"nkozetmim"ridawn.
@No,itb…理pgggihl且fbryou(tolivethere.)'beingdiscussedintheprecedingcontext.29FUjii(1995),thoughnotrefbrringtointo‑‑> SpeakerC3a: d"te加"わ〃α"m0打""")ﾉo o加加o"ogn･SpeakerC3b: @@@nationalcharacteristics,alsomakesasimilargeneralizationthatpostpositionsfUnction
tohigmightthepropositionalcontentoftheprecedingclause. 'Ihepatternsofvariabn‑@Becausethereisreally…gtodofbrfimaround(there)'Aconnectived"tte(cbecause')upgradestheupcomingnegative"α"mo狸』(@nothmg')

itymfbcalprominencedetectedherepreciselyrepresentthesecharacteristics‑i.e.,
postposedelementscontributetohighlightmgthelocusofnegationmtheprecedingclausebyprosodicmeans(0.65).Itshouldalsobenotedthatpostpositionsarelinked
tothepositionalfactordiscussedinFG‑2:thefartherthenegative‑"αjislocatedfrom

asapreface.

Theresultsshowthattheuseofsuchprefacemarkersexertsconsistenteffbctsfa‑
Ivoringfbcalprominenceon"jinallofthesocialsituations,althoughtherelativeef
企ctivenessisfbundnottobestatisticallysignificantinPDandNB.Paststudiesof
syntacticoperationsmJapanesedisagreement(e､g.,Honda2002,Jonesl990,Mori
1999,Watanabel993,Yamadal992)commonlydemonstratethatJapanesewaysof

theendoftheintonationphrase,themorelikelyitistoreceivefbcalprominence.Itis
evidentthatsyntacticdislocationcreatesthisfavorableprosodicenvironmentfbrbcal
prominenceandthatthespeakerseemscapableofmanipulatingbothsyntacticand
prosodicmeansoffbcusmasynergisticfashion.Thisisoneoftheexamplesofmean‑
ingmcollaborationbetweensyntaxandprosodyfbundinthepresentsmdy;
Thelastinteractiveparametertobediscussedconcernsanotherpatternofsyntax‑

deliveringdirectdisagreementarecharacteristicofwhatprecedesthelocusofdisagree‑
ment,takingadvantageofvariousinteractivedevices(e.g.,connectives,hedges,mtensi‑
fiers,discourseframmg)asthemarkersofoppositionmovesorascuestocontextuahze
suchmoves(Gumperzl982).Whilethepresentstudyconcernsnotonlydirectdisa‑
gleement(i.e.,theface‑thleateningfbotmgof"")butalsoothertypesoffbotingsas
expressedbynegation,ourfindingsareparalleltothoseofthepriorstudiesinthatthe
precedmgsyntacticelementsinteractwiththeupcominglocusofnegation,"企edmg"
itsprosodicfbcusinordertoconveycertainparalinguisticmessagestothelistenelt

prosodycollaboration‑i.e.,fbcalprominenceonthenegative""jispromotedbythe
29. Postposedelementsanalyzedinthepresentstudybelongtothislattertypebecausethein‑

tonationphraseasthedomainofanalysisisbasedonasingleintonationcontourwithouta
majorprosodicbreak.
I’Variationinprosodicfbcusof"i 321

3zoShOjiTakano

Thedegreeofthismteractivelinkagebetweentheprefaceandprosodicfbcuson
negation,ontheotherhand,seemstobedifferentiatedbetweenthetwotypes‑i.e.,
hints(0.68inCC;0.79inPD,0.63inNB)andupgraders(0.59inCC;0.55inPD;notokeninNB).Theupgradingprefaces(e.g.,d"re.because;dnkuzm/tiesIJkzzm9so;solede
4then;shimgnfte<therebre;etc.)playthepragmaticroleofconjoiningtheimmediately
precedingclause(orphrase),whichsetsupacontextrelevanttotheupcommgnega‑I

oriented''socialsitll2tionssuchasNBandPD.Ourresultsdemonstratethatitisthetion,withtheibnowinglocusofnegation(asinExcerpt[91)inawiderstretchofdis‑
course.nlehintprefaces(diemo4but:Ci"kedo4though;"<no;etc.),ontheotherhand,

seemtdinvolvemorelocaloperationswithinasmgleclause,whichcontributesdi‑
rectlytotheshi丘fromtheimmediatelyprecedingdause(orphrase)totheclausein
whichtheyalEembeddedintermsofpropositionalmeanings(seeExcerpt[81).Al‑
thoughtheseinterpretationsareallstillspeculativeatthispoint, itseemsthatthese"locaized''hintprefacesaremoreheavilymtegratedmtothemteractiveoperationsof
JapanesenegationthanpreviouslyacknowledgedandreinmrcethespeakerbupcommgI

message,asisshownbytheobservedpatternsofsystematicityinprosodicfbcus.30

7t

Summaryandcondusion

Focalprominencemnaturalspeechissuchavariablephenomenonthatcapturmgits
underlyingprinciplesisextremelydi価cult.Adoptingavariationistapproachtolin‑
guisticvariation,thepresentsmdyhasattemptedtodetectthecbrderlyheterogeneity''(Weinreichetal. 1968)involvedinthephenomenon,takingintoaccountavarietyof
constraintsfromawiderangeofdomains:language‑specificprosodicprmciples,inbr‑mationalparameteIsinadiscourse,interactiveparametersmanipulatedbythespeakerateverymomentoftalk‑m‑interaction,andthesociolinguisticpropertiesofsocialsit‑
uationsmthespeechcommunityGBasedonthesociomguisticgrammarthathasbeen

describedsofaI;wecanmakegoodpredictionsaboutwhetherthenegative"iwill
receiveornotreceiveprosodicfbcusinagivenutteranceinagivensocialsituation,and
wecanalsoaccountfbrwhyobservedvariabnityisobtainedinparticularutterances.
Thepresentanalysisoftherelativeeffectsofthewidevarietyofintersectingcon‑
stramtshasempiricallyshownthatinthecaseofJapanesefbcalprommence,language‑
specific,、tructure‑based"accountsshouldconmbutetothebrmationofamorele‑
gitimatetheorythanuniversalistic"highlighting‑based"accounts.Focalprommence
3o.nlehigherprobabilityfbrhmtprefacesthanfbrupgradeprefacescoincideswiththeresults(0.77fbrhints,0.51brUpgraders)ofmypreliminarywork(Takano2002),whichisbasedonamuchsmaller.scalesampleofcasualfriendlyconversations(atotalof264tokens).Inthispre‑
liminarysmdMtheclausesprecedingtheclausewiththenegative"iwerealsoenteredasa
separa"P唾胞cecategorymtoGoldVarbanalyses.TheIesults,howeverbwerethattheentirefac‑
tor"oupofgp唾胞cd'wasstatisticallynotsignificant,whichurgedmetofbcusmthepresent
smdyonlyonthoseconjunctiveprefcemarkersthatrepresentedpotentialvariables.

phenomenainanyofthesocialsimationswehaveinvestigatedareconsistenUysubject
totheunmarkedapplicationofprosodicprinciplesspecifictothelanguage,regardlessoftheinfbrmationalstamsthatagivenelementinfbcushasinadiscourse,andthis
aspectoflanguagespecincityhasbeenshownmosteloquendyinhighly"infbrmation-Imternalprosodicenvironmentofthemtonationphraseinwhichthefbcusedelement
isembeddedthatheavilygovernsobservedvariabnity(FG-2,3)ratherthaninhrmationalparametersinagivendiscourse(FG-6,7),whichanumberofpriorsmdiesof
Westernlanguageshaveposmlatedastheprimaryconstraintonprosodicfbcus.Furthermore,theresultsalsoshowthatJapanesespeakersinhighlymfbrmation-orientedsocialsituationssuchasPDandNBseemtoknowhowtoresorttothisprosodic
meansfbrconveyinginfbnnationeificientlytotheheareribasedonthecommunicativerequirementsofthesocialsimation.Insodomg,theyestimatethedegreeofpercepmalsaliencyofthenegativesintermsoftheirmorpho-syntacticstams(ratherthan
theinfbnnationalsignincanceofthenegativesmtheflowofdiscourse)andexploit
prosodicfbcusbasedonthatestimate(FG-1).
Thepresentstudyhasalsoattemptedto611acriticalgapinpriorresearch,which
hasneglectedthehighlyinteractiveaspectsofprosodymnaturalface-to-faceexchanges.Mygoalwastoobtainsupportingevidencebrageneralsociolinguisticprinciplethatthesocialsituationsystematicallymiluenceslanguageuse,notmerelyby
mfluencmgwordchoiceorsyntacticpositionmgbutalsobyinnuencmgeventheprosodicrealizationofwhatissaid.Theresultsobtainedfromahighlyinteraction-orientedsocialsituationsuchasCCdemonstratethatvariabnityinfbcalprominenceonthe
negativesisalsoconstrainedsystematicallybyavarietyofinteractivemeaningsnegotiatedbetweentheco-participantsateverymomentoftalk-in-interaction(FG-10).
MoreoverBthepatternsofsystematicityvaryinresponsetothecommunicativepropertiesandmteractionalgoalsofparticularsocialsimations.JapanesespeakersinPDare
mundtotakeadvantageofprosodicstrategiestoreinfbrceconfrontationalstances(FG-4)ortoappealtoboththeopponentandalargeraudience(FG-5),accordingto
thecommunicativerequirementsoftheaCtivityL
Ourresultshaveempiricallydemonstratedthatthespeakerbmappingofmeaningfillconstramtsintosociolinguisticgrammarisalsocloselylinkedtothesociolinguisticpropertiesofsocialsituations.Inotherwords,thecommunicativepropertiesof
socialsimationsexertdecisiveefibctsonthesociolinguisticgrammarJapaneSespeakersrelyonine"loitingprosodicfbcusmparticularsocialsimations.Inhighlymteraction-orientedsocialsimationssuchasCC,themajorityofpowerfillconstraintsthat@Promotg'prosodicbcusstemfrominteractiveparametersasweUasinternalstructuresoftheintonationphrase(i.e､,FG‑10,8,9,3,2indescendingorderofefibctive‑ness),whereasmfluentialconstraintsthat"inhibif'fbcalprominencearederivedpri‑
marilyfiFomthestrucmralprinciplesofprosodyspecifictotheJapaneselanguage(i､e,，
FG‑3,2).Asanotabledimensionofthesociolmguisticgrammarlhavedescribed,theresultsrevealedthesignihcantinterplaybetweensyntaxandprosody‑theparticipants

I

VariationinpIosodicfbcusof"αi 323

3zz ShOjiThkano

inhighlyinteractivesocialsituationssuchasCCmanipulatethesyntacticmeansto
fbedorcompensatefbrprosodicdistinctions(FG‑8,9).Inhighlyinfbrmativesocial
situationssuchasPD,ontheotherhand,manyoftheinteractiveparametersbecome

Refrences1

Azuma,1.1992a."Fbnoshisatsutochookakuinshoonimotozukunihongointoneeshonhyooki
nokanooseinitsuite(ObservationofFoandpossibledescriptionsofJapaneseintonation

lessmnuentialinpromotmgfbcalprommence・Instead,register‑specifiCdimensionsof

basedonauditoryperception)!'1n城加P咽pAk"e"loto励め"e露加",M.SugitOU(ed.),prosodybegintoprevanmfavoroffbcalprommenceinresponsetothecommunica‑
tiverequirementsoftheactivity(FG‑5,4,1),whilethedisfavoringeffectsofstrucmralprinciplesofprosodyremainpowerfUl(FG‑2).Inthenon‑interactivesocialsituation

89‑97．

Azuma,1. 1992b."Nihongonoinritsutaikei(Prosodicsystemsoflapanese)!'Pmceeffi"qflil‑ter"α"o"α1S)ﾉ"qposiumo"jzIPimeseP#℃sodM53‑61
Beckman,M.,andPierrehumbert,1.1986. GGIntonationstructuremlapaneseandEnglishJ'WIo‑"oIgyWz"もook3:255‑309.
BefIl,H.1980. qXcritiqueofthegroupmodeloflapanesesocietyf'SocinIA"α肱jS5/6:2943.
BibenD.1988."rね"o"Acm鄭印eechα"dWri"咽Cambridge:UniversityPress.
BibenD. 1995.Diyne"sio"sq/R電is蛇r肋rね"o".Cambridge:UniversityPresS.
Bell,A. 1984."Languagestyleasaudiencedesignl'L"gzJ"emSociet)'13: 145‑204.
Blom,1.R,andGumperz,1.1. 1972."SociaimeaninginlinguisUcstructure!'InDilrcti"si"Socioli"gIJiS"",J.I.GumperzandD.Hymes(eds.).NewYbrk:Holt,RinehartandWilson.
Brown,G・1983."Prosodicstrucmreandthegiven/newdistinctionj'1nA.CutlerandD.R.Ladd(eds.),PF℃so"':ModeIsImUJMe'zs邸祀加e"".Heidelberg:Springem
Brown,R,andLevinson,S.1987.助"蛇"95s:Some【〃1ivermlsi"L"gzJ"E眺昭ピ.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.

studied(NB),boththepositiveandnegativeeffbctsofthosestructuralprinciplesof
IapaneSeprosodyaremoreconspicuousthanmtheinteractivesocialsimations.
These6ndingsprovideuswithsomenewmsightsintowhichapproachistruly
validfbrinvestigatinglanguageusethatisinherentlyhigmyvariable.Approachesto

interactionaldimensionsalone,onwhichagreatmajorityofpriorsmdiesoflanguage
usehavefbcusedasthedrivingfbrceofvariablelinguisticbehaviors,maynotneces‑sarilybesuccessftllinexplicatingtheentirepictureofsuchcomplexphenomena.nle
presentsmdydemonstratesthatthestrucmralprinciplesspecifictolapaneseprosody
playcriticalrolesinexertmgrobusteHbcts.aishvoring"prosodicfbcus,anditsuggests
theimportanceofpayingmuchcloserattentiontorathermechanical,surface‑level
conditioningderivedfromthelanguage‑speci6cmakeupofprosodicstructures.

I

Moreoverithemappmgofconstraintsthatgovernssystematicvariabilityinnatural

Cedergren,H.J.,andSanko氏D.1974. qGWriablerules:Perbrmanceasastatisticalrefiectionof

speechhasalsobeenmundtodependupontheinteractive‑infbrmativeorientations
appropriatetogivensocialsituations.Theseobservationssignifythenecessityofa"multi‑stylistic(or‑register)''approachtothesmdyoflanguageusebeyondasmJe

Chafb,Wallace. 1994.Discowse,Cb"sciozJsPIessj"dTYme.Chicago:UniversityofChicagocompetence."Lα噸"咽E50:333‑55.
Press.
Isocialsituation,withcasualconversationsasthehmdamentalsite.

ThisresearchprOjectwasinitiallymotivatedbytheperceivedneedtosupplement
thedichotomyofstylesacknowledgedfbrJapanesesurfacemorpho‑syntacticcharac‑
teristics(i､e､,direct‑casualordistal‑polite).Systematicanalysisofparalinguisticas‑
pectsoflanguageuse‑prosodicstyleshi仕‑suggeststhatlapanesestyleshiaingshould
beaccountedfbrasamulti‑layeredmechanisminvolvingprosodicparametersasone
component.Whnesurfacemorpho‑syntacticstylesmaybeovertwaysfbrspeakersto
confbrmtothesocioculturalnormsfbrinteractioninparticularsocialsettingsorpar‑
ticipantfiPameworks(BefUl980,Belll984),prosodicstylesprovidethespeakerwitha
richrepertoireofrathercovert,non‑transparent,strategicchoicesfbrrepresentinghis
orheractualstance,thoughts,andfeelingsthatdynamicallyrespondtoeverymoment
oftalk‑in‑interactioninagivensocialsimation. Itishopedthatexploringthisne‑
glectedareaofsociolmguisticvariationfUrtherwiUevenmallyleadtoamorelegiti‑
matepictureofstyleinJapaneselanguageuse.

Couper‑Kuhlen,E.,andSeltin9,M.(eds.).1996.PrOsOdyi"Co"vers"iO".Cambridge:Univer‑sityPress.

Cruttenden,Alan.1986."m"α加卯・Cambridge:UniversityPress.
CutleIIA.,Dahan,D.,andvanDonselaal;W1997."Prosodyinthecomprehensionofspoken

language:Aliteraturereviewf'LcMgw"eα"d"eecll40(2):141‑201.
Ferguson,C､A.1964.Diglossia.InL""gz4Wei"CIJI如花α'rdSociety,D.Hymes(ed.).NewYbrk:
HarperandRow

FUjii,Y:1995."NihongonogOjunnogyakutennitsutite:Kaiwanonakanojoohoononagareo
chuushinni(Onthereversalofwordorderinlapanese:Focusingoninfbnnationflowin
II

conversation)J'InMchi‑e妙"oUhooldboMo"":So"oKoozoo如臓"oo(RightDisloca‑
tioninJapaneseandEnglish:ItsStructureandFunctions),K.Thkami(ed.),167‑198.Tb‑
kyo:HitUjiSyobo.
FUjisaki,H.,Hirose,K.,Thkahashi,N.,andYbkoo,M.1984."Renzokuonseichuunoakusento
seibunnojitsugen(Realizationofaccentcomponentsmconnectedspeech)J｡M加加O"‐
kyooG"kkdmiO"sei雄"ky"‑kuziSMyoo84‑36:279‑286.
Gorman,E.1981."rmsγ通k.Oxford:Blackwell.
Grosz,B.,andSidneriC. 1986. @nttention,intention,andthestrucmreofdiscoursej'ﾉbIJr"αIqf
Cり 脚如"o""ILi噸"応" 12:175‑204．

Gumperz,J.J.1982.DiSco"応eStmfWies・Cambridge:UniversityPress.
Hattori,S.1933."Akusentotohoogen(Accentsanddialects)J'KbkzgDKWnk"KbozaⅥI.MeWi
Shoin.

Hinds,1.1982.副ゆsiSi"仲α"ese.Edmonton,Alberta:LinguisticResearch.

Variationmpmsodicfbcusof"αi 325

3z4ShOjiTakano

Nooteboom,S.G.,andKruyt,1.G.1987."Accents,bcusdistribution,andtheperceiveddistri‑

Hirschberg,I. 1990. Ghccentanddiscoursecontext:Assigningpitchaccentinsyntheticspeech:
ThegivenﾉnewdistinctionanddeaccentabilityrProceedirgsqf"le8tjiN"io"αJ"雄花"butionofgivenandnewmfbrmation:Anexperiment."ﾉbur""Iqf"'eAco"sticSocietyqf
Ameri"82:1512‑24.

o"Artifcinl肋花"呼"ce.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.952‑57.
Hirst,D.andDiCristo,A.(eds.).1998.lWo"α"o"恥彫加$:ASMrve)'qfTwe"〃Lα'咽迦哩喧s.Dor‑drecht:Kluw"

Honda,A.2002."ConflictmanagementinJapanesepublicaifiairstalkshowsﾉ'ﾉb"r""IqfP'W‑
噸α"34:573‑608．

I

Oishi,H.1959."Purominensumtsuite(Onprominence)j'InkbID6α"oKE"ty"".Tbkyo:Na‑tionalLanguageResearchlnstimte､87‑102.
0no,T,andSuzuki,R.1992."WordordervariabilitymJapaneseconversation:Motivationsand
grammaticizationl'Text,12(3):429‑445.

Ishida, 'I:1984."Conflictanditsaccommodation:Omote‑脚池and"Chi‑SOtOrelationg'mαル

0'ShaughnessyHD.,andAllen,J.1983. @CLinguisticmodalityeifectsonfimdamentalfrequencyf'

ルリ""",E.S.Krauss,TRRohlen,andRG・Steinhor(eds.),16‑38.Honolulu:Univer‑

ノリ"r"QIqftjieAcO''SticnlSocieりﾉqfA''zeri"74:1155‑71.
Pearson,B. 1988."Powerandpolitenessinconversation:EncodingoffaCe‑threatemngactsat
churchbusmessmeetingJA"thl"olOgicMzILiPzg4istics30(1):68‑9
Pearson,B,1989."'Role‑ingoutcontrol'atchurchbusinessmeetmgs:Directinganddisagree‑
ingl'LagzJWeSCie"CeSll(3):289‑304.3.
Pierrehumbert,J.andBeckman,M.1988.j""eseTb"eS"c""Cambridge:nneMITPreSS.
Pomerantz,A. 1984. ｡Agreemganddisagreeingwithassessments:SometamresofprefErredノ

sityofHawaiiPress.

Iones,K.1990.Colficti"kPa"eseCD"ve応α"o"・Ph.D.dissertation・UniversityofMichigan.
Iones,K.1995."MaskednegotiationinaJapaneseworksettingJ'InT7ieDisco""eqfNWctiα"o"，A.Firth(ed.),141‑158.Pergamon.

Kawakami,S. 1957."'Ibkyo‑gonotakuritsukyoochoonoonchoo(Tbnesofemphaticpromi‑
nenceinTbkyolapanese)J'KokIEり雄"b'""6:21‑31.KokugalqlmUniversity$
Kawakami,S､ 1965."boochooniyorugokeihakaitosonotekiyoohani(Intensity‑emphasis
anditsrangeofapplication)i'O"sei雄"勺"zJ6:61‑76.
Kindaichi,H.1951."Kotobanosenritsu(MelodiesofJapanese)J'InMIIoFgoO"‑i""o雄"b'脚"・
Tbkyo‑do.

Koori,S.1989a"FOokasujitsugenniokeruonseinotsuyosa,jizokujikan,FOnoyakuwari(In‑tensitybduration,theroleofFoinfbcus)J'O"eiGePgolU29‑38.

Koori,S. 1989b.""oochootointoneeshon(Emphasisandintonation)?'InkbozIzMjiolIgoto

disprefbrredturnshapesJ'InStrlJct"℃sqfSoci,zIAc"on:Shjdiesi"Cb""応α藤o"A"α iS,
J.M.Atkinsonandl.Heritage(eds.),152‑163.Cambridge:UniversityPress.
Preston,D.1989.Socioli"gwis""""dSeco"dLα"gzJ"EAcW"sitio".NewYbrk:BasilBlackwell.
Preston,D. 1991. @@SortingoutthevariablesmsociolmguistictheoryFAIMeric"〃助eech66:
33‑56．

Prince,E.1981."Tbwardataxonomyofgiven‑newmfbrmationJ'InR"di"IPI理wMti",RCole(ed.),223‑256.NewWrkEAcademicPress.

tions)J｡mAk"e"畑肋to"ees加冗,Riz84m"foWoz",T:Kunihiroetal.(eds.),169‑202.Tb‑
kyo:SanSeido.

Prince,E. 1992."TheZPGletter:Subjects,denniteness,andinmrmationstatu"InDiScol"seDescrゆ伽":DiveFseLigWsticA"alysesqfa勵施d‑RQiSimgThxt,WC.MannandS.A.
Thompson(eds.),295‑325.Philadelphia:IohnBenjamins.
Rand,D.,andSankofED・1990.Goldvarb睦応jo"2EAWriα"eRzJIeA"li"tio"んrlfzeMnci"‑

Koori,S. 1997b."'TbOjinomurayama‑shushod"nofUtatsunoimitofiltatsunoyomi(TWomeaningsandtworeadings，of"thethenPrimeMinisterMurayamaP，):，InB邸叩ooroOPfsei，Sacks,H.,SchegloifE.A.,andJeffbrson,G.1974.@1Asimplestsystematicslbrtheorganizationof

Mhomgo幻'ooikulbl.JIIM.Sugitou(ed.),316‑342. 'Ibkyo:MeViShoin.

Koori,S.1997a."Nihongonointoneeshon:Katatokinoo(Iapaneseintonation:Typesandfimc‑

OnseiBunpoo"nkyuu‑kai(ed.),123‑146.Tbkyo:画』roshio.
KrauSS,E.S.,Rohlen,TR,andStemhoif;RG. (eds.).1984.ColIITicti"岬α"・Honolulu:Univer‐sityofHawaiiPresS.

Kubozono,H.1989."SyntacticandrhythmicefYEctsondownstepmlapanese!'PIio"ol"'6(1):39‑67．

Ladd,R.D.1996.肋to""io"αIPho"I"jLCambridge:UniversityPress.
Levmson,S.C.1983.PIWwm""Cambridge:UniverSityPress.
Matsuda,K､1992. @nccusativecasemarker‑odeletioninTbkyoJapaneseﾉ'77teAFmzJ"IMEe"噸
qf肋ediicWDLi"gldisticSocieO'28:356‑366.

Maekawa,K､ 1994. ｡CIsthereaephrasing'oftheaccenmalphrasemJapanese?"OhioState【〃1i‑wisi〃恥rk沌馳pe"i"Li"guisticsjcm"teL腕guisticsL"boratory44: 146‑65.

Mori,I. 1999.N"otinti"AgFeeme"ta"dDis"花琶加ent加岬α"ese:CoPmectiveEやFEssio"α"。
"mCD""ctio".Philadelphia:IohnBenjamins.

NihongobouikuGakkai(ed.).1993.MhomgopDMik""彫"(AnEncydopediaoftheTbachingofJapanese).Tbkyo:．Ihi$hm'1mn

Niyekawa,A.M､ 1984. @IAnalysisofconnictinatelevisionhomedramal'InCoII/iicti"岬α",E.
S.Krauss,TRRohlenandRG.Steinhoff(eds.),61‑84.Honolulu:UniversityofHawaii
PIesS.

tosh・Montreal:UniversitedeMontreal.

turn‑takingfbrconversationj'Lα噸MWF5(4):696‑735.
SankomD､ 1985."StatiStiCSmlmguiStiCSJ'InEnCyCl叩α加(ySmristiCclSciences,74‑81.New
Ybrk:Wiley6

Sanko氏D・ 1986."Variablerule"mSocioliguiStiCswA"Ihter"α伽"αIHQ"dbookq/thesc花"ヅLα噸脚"Eα"dSocietyjUAmmonetal.(eds.).BerlinandNewYbrkdeGruyter:
SankofD. 1988."Sociolinguisticsandsyntacticvariationl'InLi"guistics:T7ieQz"illri"S脚据ve)fvol､4:T71eSOciO‑""r"ICD"Ext,EI.Newmeyer(ed.),140‑161.Cambridge:Univer‑sityPress.
SankoiED.,andLabovbW1979. "OntheusesofvariablerulesJ｡L"g1J"ei"Socieり'8:
189‑

ﾌ

SchegloH;E.A.1980."Prelimmariestopreliminaries:℃anlaskyouaquestion?":SociolWiclzI
伽9""50(3/4):104‑152.

SchegloH;E､,Jeffrson,G.,andSacks,H・1977."P正企rencefbrselfcorrectionintheorganiza‑
tionofrepairmconversationJ'L"gu噸ピ53:361‑82．
Silverman,K.E､A.,BlaauwiE､,Spitz,1.,andPitrelli,｝.1992.｡Xprosodiccomparisonofspontane‑
ousspeechandreadspeech."T7iePmceedi"gsqfliirer"α"o"αJCo唯だ""qf"oke"Lα"‐酔囎EPmcessimg92:1299‑1302･

Sugitou,M.1982."OsakahoogenniokerulWoochoonoonlVoo‑tekitokuchoo(Acousticchar‑acteristicsofemphasismOsakadialect)J'S加oi"Kbk脚加P咽切k"19:55‑63.

Variationinprosodicfbcusof"αi 3Z7

326 ShOjiTakano

Yaeger‑DrorhM.2002b."Registerandprosodicvariation,acrosslanguagecomparisonf'ﾉb脚maI

Sugitou,M.1985."Nihongotoeigoniokeruthm‑jooho6nohatsuwanoonkyoo‑tekitokuchoo(TheacousticcharacteristicsofnewmfbrmationinlapaneseandEnglish)J'O"sei"oKE"ky‑〃脚21:335‑348.

Sugitou,M. 1986. @fAkusentonotoraekata(Waysofunderstandingaccents)J'InO)ﾉooGePgo‑
gnk"KoozqVbl.II,S.Hayashi(ed.),76‑96.Tbkyo:MeWiShom.
Takano,S.1997.77ieA@'"lqf"Ho耐咽e""""eecﾉICo痂加""j〃:減e"eechq"mpα"eseMわ噸e〃畑Nb"‑tmditio"IGe"derRoles.Ph.D.Dissertation,'IheUniversityofArizona.
Takano,S・ 1998. ,HquantitativesmdyofgenderdiHbrencesintheeUipsisofthelapanesepost‑
positionalparticles.‑waland‑gaP:Gendercompositionasaconstraintonvariabilityf'Lα"‐1

253‑306.Philadelphia:lohnBenjamms

gnd轆叱rね"･"α"ddia唾,10(3):289‑323.
Takano,S.2001."NihonjinnogengokoushoumokerutairitsuiMnkyoumeinoinritsumodar‑
itii:Rejisutaakenkyuunoshitenkara(ExploringprosodicmodalityinJapanesedisagree‑
mentfromaperspectiveofregister)!'HokldseiRelﾉiew38:13‑31．
Takano,S.2002. Ghvariationiststudyofprosodicfbcusinnamrallyoccurringinteractions:The
caseofthenegative.‑nai'inHokkaidoJapanesej'O"seiKE"b'皿(IoumalofthePhonetic

q/PrxWfi""34:1495‑536.
Yamada,H. 1992.Americα"α"α"eseB"Si"esSDiSCOufSe:ACOmPqrisonqf"er""o"α1siyles・Norwood,N1:Ablex.
Ybmg,R.,andBayleyhR･ 1996."VARBRULanalySisfbrsecondlanguageacquisitionresearch!'
InSe""Lα噸邸昭EAc9"si"o"α"dLing"iSticWzr加加",R・BayleyandD.R.Preston(eds.),

I

SocietyofJapan)6(3):25‑47.

Takano,S.2005."Re‑examminglinguisticpower:Strategicusesofdirectivesbyprofessional
lapanesewomenmpositionsofauthorityandleadershi〆ﾉb脚r"IqfP!噸加α"cs37(5):633‑666．

'IErken,1. 1997."Variationofaccentprommencewithinthephrase:ModelsandspontaneoussPeechdata:' InCo"'P""'IgPmSo"Y:Sagisaka,N.CampbeUandN.Higuchi(edS.),
95‑116.NewYbrk:Springer‑Verlag.

Umeda,N.1982."'FodeclinatioⅡissituationdependentj'ﾉb"ry'"IqfWio"eticslO:279‑290.
Venditti,1. 1995."IapaneseTbBILabellingGuidelines!'Unpublishedmanuscript,OhioState
UniversityL (Downloadablefhom: lmg.ohio‑state.edu/phoneticsﾉI̲TbBIjjtobi̲homepage.
html).

Vbnditti,J,2005." 1heI‑TbBImodelofIapaneseintonation''1nPmsodicT 01噸y:茄ePho"01‐
咽yγ肺o"α"o"α"乱Phnsi"S.A.Jun(ed.),172‑200.Oxford:UniversityPress.
Wada,M. 1975. .Akusento,intoneeshon,purominensu(Accents, intonation,prominence)J'In
M加'咽DtoMIiomgD幻ooik"‑Hars"o"‑ID'o噸ど"He",NationalLanguageResearchlnsti‑tute,53‑86.

Watanabe,S.1993."Culmraldiffbrencesinframing:AmericanandJapanesegroupdiscussions:
InRwf@i噸伽Disco"だe,D.Thnnen(ed.),176‑209.Oxford:UniversityPress.
Weinreich,U,LaboviW,andHerzog,M.I.1968."Empiricalfbundationsfbratheoryoflan‑
guagechange."InDileclions"rHIStOriCnILil魍脚jSti",WRLehmannandY:Malkiel(eds.),
95‑195.Austin,Tbxas:UniversityofTbxasPress.

Yaeger‑DroriM･1985."IntonationalprominenceonnegativesinEnglish!'Luz"gnJ"ennd"eech
28:197‑230.

Yaeger‑DroriM. 1996."Registerasavariablemprosodicanalysis:nlecaseoftheEnglishnega‑tive:'"eeChCp湘嗣 j 加如19:39‑60．

Yaeger‑DroriM.1997."Contractionofnegativesasevidenceofvariancemregister.specincin‑
teractiveroleg'Lα噸u"EWriα"o"α"dd@α昭e9(1):1‑､.
Yaeger‑DroliM.2001."Primitivesofapossiblesystemfbr@styl6and@registe'f"InS排α"dSo‑cio"噸zjisticWrilztio",REckertandJ.Rickford(eds.), 170‑185.Cambridge:University
PreSS.

Yaeger‑DroriM.2002a."Introductionf'ﾉb脚r"αIqfP'聰'"α"cs34:1333‑43.
I