音声研究 第 6巻 第 3号
2002(平 成 14)年 12月
25‑47ア ミ

Journal ofthe Phoneic Socieけof Japan,Vo16 No 3

Deccmber 2002,pp 25‑47

A Variationist Study of Prosodic Focus in Naturally Occurring lnteractions:the Case ofthe Negativèt αj''in IIokkaido Japanesel)
ShOii TAKANO*
北海道方言話者の日常会話における韻律強調のヴァリエーション研究
否定辞「―ない」の場合
高

野

照

:

司*

要旨 :本 稿 では,言 語変異理論 (VanttiOn Theory)の 枠組 みを用いて,否 定辞 「―ないJに 付与 される,韻 律強調 の変異に内在する規則性 を明 らかにすることを目的 とす る。韻律強調 に関する従来の研究 の問題点 として
西欧諸語 (特 に英語)偏 向 と相互行為的 (interactionJ)側 面 の軽視を指摘 した上で, 日本語特有の韻律構造か ら派生する様 々な制約条件,言 語運用脈絡 (conteXt)ご とに会話参与者が構築す る否定表現 の対人交渉的意味,さらには,統 語 と韻律 の連携 といった談話文法的視点 を加味 した多変量解析 を試みる。分析 の結果,こ れまで主に西欧諸語を土台 として,韻 律強調 の起因を談話 の情報構造 に求める見解 は,日 本語の当該事象においては有効 でないことが明 らかになった。む しろ日本語 においては,否 定辞「 ―ない」 をとりま く韻律構造が確固 とした影響力,と りわけ韻律強調 を抑制す る効力 を発揮 し,一 方,否 定表現 の対人交渉的側面や談話文法的作用ハ,

強調 を促進する働 きをす ることが判明 した。資料 として,北 海道方言話者 (20代 女性 6名 )に よる一対 一の 日
常会話 を三組録音 し,ToBIシ ステム を応用 して強調 の判別 を行 った。
Key Words:focus,prosOdy,variation thcory,negation,talk―in―intcractiOn,Hokkaido Japancsc

tcnds to bc given prosodic focus(Prince,1981;

1. Introduction

Brown,1983;Grosz 2%Sidncr,1986;Nooteboom

Focal prolnincncc in naturally occurring
intcractions is such a variablc phcnomenon that& byt, 1987; scc particularly Cutler et al,1997) lhis generalization, howcver, may be

captu五 ng its undcrlying punciplcs is cxtrelnely

refutcd at lcast on the following two grollnds,

difficult. Dё spitc a great dcal of recent progrcss

which thc present study aims to vcrify:

in obtaining quality sound and conducting acous‐tic mcasurcmcnts and tFan・ SCriptions(BeCkman ct1)PriOr studies ncglcct a grcat deal of cЮ ss―

al.,to appear),a Surprisingly small amount of

linguistic variability inV01VCd in focal promi―

thcorctical attcntion has been paid to thc analysis

nence phenomena and suffer from bcing

of focal proFFllnence in prior research on pro̲
sodic cvcnts,It then follows thtt no satisfactory

English― ccntric (Ladd, 1996; Yaege← DIor,

conclusion has been drawn as to"hy and hOw
the speaker places prosodic focus on ccrtain

2002a,b);2)PHor Studies are mJnly bascd on the readingof constructed sentcnccs out of contcxt or on aelements of an uttcrance(Ladd,1996).A maOr

monologuc― rcading in a laboratory setting,universalist view put forth thus far is concernedwith information structurc in discourse,propos―
ing that an entity which has a ncwly introduced

whcre the dynalluc interacttve roles prosody issignificant status in prior context of a discourse

Sclting,1996).

supposcd to play in face― to― face exchangcs are

not taken into account(COupcr― Kuhlen &*Associate Professor,College of Humanits,Hokllsei Gakuen University(北‑25‑

星学園大学文学部助教授 )特集「音声のバ リエーシ ョンJ

The present study allns to account for the
principlcs underlying variability in Japancsc fo̲

cal prolFunCnCe observed in naturally occurringinteractions.Adopting a vttationist approach tO

involving the negative ̀̀^κ α′'' WCrc analyzcd
prosodically, based roughly On dlc Japanesc
ToBI system(Venditti,to appcar)(Scc Scc● on5).

linguisuc variation, thc study attcnlpts to rcveal

ordcrly hcterogeneity"of the variablc phenom̲

cna,focusing on twO paticular typcs of cOn̲straints (Weinreich et al.,1968): languagc―

2. PreviOus Work On Focal Prominence

speciic prosodic principlcs and intcractivc pa̲

According to Ladd(1996),thcre have bcen

rametcrs ttanipulatcd by the speakcr at cvery
momcnt of talk̲in̲interaction. To investigate

two IIlaJor theorctical stanccs that accOunt for

phcnomcna of fOcal proIIllnence in prosody.ne

how dynttmcally (and systcmatically)foCal

first stance rcsOrts tO

prorllllncncc operates in intcractivc language use,counts(Ladd,1996:163),in which focal promi̲

tlle study particularly fOcuses on thc phase of

nencc plays a pragmatic role, being typicallyhighlighting― based" ac̲

face̲tO̲facc exchanges that requires highly intcr―

given to thc wOrds or phrascs Of relativcly hcavi̲

active worki negation. nc particular locus Of

er semandc weight than the Others in an uttcr―

analysis is variablc manifestadon of fOcal prollu―

thc sOcial rncanings of nega■ on at evcry moment

ance.Any entity,which has a new salient status
in thc■ Ow Of(五scOursc,tcnds to be pronounccd、
vith fOcal prolninencc, whcreas entities thatsccm to providc 01d, previOusly mentiOned, Or
insigniicant infomation arc likcly tO bc de―of talk― in― interactiOn.

emphasizcd prosodicany Though this gcneral―nencc placed on the Japanese negadvc‑4α ら''in
which the spcaker secms to manipulatc differ―enttal degrees of focal proIIllnencc,depcnding on'

In ordcr to reach a better understanding of
how variablc uses of focal prominence in cvery―ization is meant to cstablish thc
universalist''principles that can apply to any human languagc,

day interactions are govcrncd by soci01inguistic
grarnmar2)。 ne needs to■ gure Out the lnatrix of

it can bc criticizcd as ̀̀English̲ccntric" in that

potential constraints on variability and thcir cO̲

中Cre iS abundant e宙 dence Of cross̲linguistic

variability (Ladd, 1996:168‑97). This stancc

occulencc restrictions(TerkCn,1997).lRle va̲

takcs into serious account such pragmatic no―

riadonist framcwork of analysis(i.e.,thc variablc

tions as discoursc salicncc or speakcr intentions,rule appЮ ach)a1lows onc to detect potcndal
constraints that simultancously influcnce ob̲scrvcd variability in focal prolnincncc and toconstraints(1.c., languagc― specific patterns ofaccount for thc relative significance of the con̲

focal prolnincnce.

straints responsiblc for the variation(1.e,thc
hicrttchy of cOnstraints)(SankO軋 1986; Pres―
ton,1991).]hc speciic ty7pes of cOnstraints to

The other stancc centcrs on 、vhat Ladd(1996:163)cans structure― based"accounts, inbut is lacking in attention to pOtcntial structuralacccnts and intonation) on the rcalization ofwhich fOcal prollllnence is suttect tO thc pro̲bc invcstigated in the prcscnt study includc thc

sodic structurc uniquc to cach individual lan―structural envttonment(i.c,the structural prin―guagc,

ciples of Japanesc prosody)in which thc nega―
tivc ̲̀̀4α j'' iS Cmbcdded, the status of inf0111la―thus

non― universal'' phenomena. Itemphasizcs thc rulc― govcrned naturc Or auton―

0町 Of pattcrns of focal proIFllnCnce in naturaltion cOnveycd by the negattvc in a discoursc as is

speech. Once the focused clelncnt of the utter―advanced in prior studics,particul[r intcractive

ancc is spcciflicd,thc prosodic pattern of thc rest

work in interpcrsonal exchanges(SChCgloff et

is predicね blc by languagc― spcciic rulcs or struc̲al., 1977)and thC speaker's stance or footing of
ncga● on(Goffman,1981).

incentives that may causc the speaker to ch00sc■■rce casual same― scx conVersa● ons be―
twcen closc fricnds scrvcd as analydcal data.

place focal prolllunencc are ̀̀at bcst poo■ne data were transcribcd,and all the utterances‑26‑

tllral p五 nciples.HOwever,avttiew of cOntCXtud

ccrtaln elemcnts of thc utterancc on which tO
ly un̲
dcrstood,"and more rcsettch froln intcractiOnal

A Variatlonist Smdy Of Prosodic Focus in Nattrally Occumng lnteractiOns:
the Case ofthe Negativè̀77α メ''in HokkaidO Japaneseperspectives is vital(Ladd,1996:164,197‑99)
In Japanese language cOntext, rescarch on

introducing a new prosodic bOundtty(with ei̲

focal prolllllnencc was heavily concerned with its

gencration Of lexical accents is colllnonly ob̲rclationships witll the phon010gical propcrties of

the utterance(cspecially witll lcxical acccnts)

servcd towttd the end of thc utterance(Or theintonauon phrase).TOward the right edgc of thc

from thc very beginning of invesugation(Hat̲

intonation phrase,lexical acccnts arc likcly tO be

tori, 1933; Kindaichi, 1951; Кhwakalm, 1957,

wcakening due to crcaky voice or amplitudc
lowering.Conscqucntly,pitch movemcntis high̲

1965;Oishi,1959;Wada,1975).Rccent studics

ther mcdium or strong dittuncture).De―

have bccn most active in the ficld Of laboratory

ly levcled,which characterizcs finality cOntOurs.

phonology, and havc advanccd nOn̲universal

Itis likely that prevalcnt phcnOmena of downstcp

principles specific tO Japancse.Sugitoo(1985,
1986),for cxalnple,prOvidcs empirical evidcncc

and de― gcneration Of accents creatc an antago―
nistic phonological environmcnt for thc realiza―

that disprOves tlle highlighting―bascd accOunts

likc Cutlcr's(Cutler et al.,1997;and papcrs citcd
thcre)Or the Studies surFllnarizcd in Hirst and Di

tion Of fOcal prominence in Japanese spcech
product10n.

Researchers have also discussed fomlal

C五 sto(1998).Sugit00 fOund that thc wOrd pro―rclationships betwcen lcxical acccnもviding ncw inforlllation in a discourse is unlikely

prorrllncnce. Solrnc arguc that accent■ lal patterns

to be produced with pitch(Fo or fundamental
frequencics) proIIllncncc by nativc Japaneseand fOcal

as a lexical propcrty in Japancse tend to bc
maintalned rigidly evcn whcn focal prollmence

spcakcrs,whcrcas speakcrs Of、 vestern languagcs

is realized(HattOri,1933;Sugit9o,1982,1986)

emphasize such wOrds with much highcr pitch

Thus, varlable manifcstations Of focal prom―

than the words providing 01d infOrlna■ on. In―

nence arc closely linked to thc accentual types Of

stcad, in Japanesc, a significant corclatton has
bccn found betwecn focus and its syntactic posi̲Japanesc lcxicon(ic.,た υ た ―Sん Jた ′̀accentcd' ortじtion. Focal prolrllncnce is placed typically on

λ α4‑sλ iti ̀unacccnted')(Shibata ct al., 1980:
̀Jわ
PicrК humbcrt&Beckman, 1988).In impl←

whichevcr

Incnting fOcal prolninence on acccnted words,

content

wOrds

locatedinthcutterance― /phrase― initial position, regardless ofthe speakcr takes advantage of the inherent ac―

thc infOrmation status thcy rcprescnt in a dis̲

ccntual pattcrn of the words to ampL〜 ぬccoursc(Sugit00, 1985, 1986; silnilaF Clailns inmagnitude of focal prolllllnencc;with unaccentcd

Koori,1989ab).3)

words, on the Other hand, thc manifesmtion Of

In connection with this pOsitional constraint

focal pronlinence is likely to be lcss cOnspicuouson the rcalization Of fOcal pro面 nencc in Japa―
ncsc,thcre arc also other language―

spccific char―(Sugit00, 1982, 1985, 1986; Koo五 , 1997b)
Other rcsearchers,on thc othcr hand,argue that

acteristics Of Japanese prosody that l see may be

the patterns of lexical acccnts are readily vio―

rclevant to the phcnomena:downstcp(or catathcsis)(BeCkman&Pierrchumbert,1986;Picrrc―

lated by focal prolnincnce in sevcral differcnt

humbert ぎとBeckman, 1988; Kubozono, 1989;
Azuma, 1993; Venditti, tO appear)and de̲

滅.,1984).Examining realizations of fOcal prom̲

WayS(OiShi,1959;Kawakami,1965;IttiSaki ct

gencratcd accents toward the cnd of thc utterance

inence in connccted speech, thesc studies dcm―
onstrate that factors such as combinations of thc(Maekawa, 1994; Koori, 1989b; Venditti, toaccentual patterns Of the word in focus and its

appcar).Downstcp is a gradual pith dcclinc andnarrowing typically seen in standard Japancsc

ticlcs and auxiliary verbs, intcract with one

attaCCnt wOrds,and fOcus On postposidOnal par―read sentences. Within thc intonation phrase as

anothcr and all affcct thc intonational pattcrns of

thc idcntifiable unit, thc pitch range of thc

the uttcrance as a wh01e.Focal prollllncnce is not

succeeding acccntual phrase(s)bccolnes nar―

only constraincd by the prosodic environlnent inrowcr whcn preccded by thc acccnted phrasc.It

which focal entities are embcddcd, but also

is clを 減
Inedthat focus blocks this propagation ofdownstep and functions to rcset thc pitch rangc,‑27‑

strongly affccts the shapc of intonadon of thc
whole utterance as weH as the accentual patterns

特集「音声のバ リエ ー シ ョン

1of the、 vords preceding and succceding the wOrd

sccn in cveryday language usc, shc clailns thatin bcus(Koori,1989b)tヽWhat has bcen reviewcd sO far clcariv

vo partlcular principlcs prOvidc a useful yard̲

stlck for flguring Out obscrved varlat10n Thc

suggests that pattcrns of fOcal prolluncncc in

flrst principle has been put lorth by a numbcr ofJapancsc should bc cOnstraincd by the languagc―
spcciflc structural environmcnt in、 vhich it takcs

studics(cg,Princc,1981;Brown,1983;0'S̲
haughnessy&Allen, 1983:Nootcboom&К ttuyt,

place As Terken(1997)statcs,to figurc Out this

1987;[Lrchberg, 1990;Cuticr et al 1997; Hirst
and DcCrist0 1998)― ̲what Yaegcr̲Dror(1997)
calls thc Cognitivc PrOnlincncc Principle''(CPPcol■ plex matrix Of structural cOnstraints On its

systematicity is one of thc vital qucstiOns、

vhich

necds to be tackled in studies of fOcal promi̲

hercaicr)It captures variation in fOcal promi―

nencc,and the prcsent study attempts tO do sO.

ncncc based On the speakcr's cognit市

ejudgmcnt

on thc information structurei nc、 v infomatiOn ina discOurse is given morc fOcal pronuncncc thanothcr information. Thc other principlc is what

3. PreviOus WVork on lnteractive lDilnensiOns

Yacger̲Dror(1997)calis thcof Focal PrOminence

SOcial Agrccment

Principlc''(SAP hcreafter), Originally propOscd

ne data analyzcd in past studies On fOcal

by cOnvcrsational analysts (SCheg10ff et al,pronlincncc arc dcrivcd prcdonlinantly from
specch produced in non̲intcractive cOntexts

1977): cngaged in conversatiOn, therc is auni̲

vcrsal'' prefcrence for spcakcrs tO cmphasizc(eg, the reading of scntenccs in isolation Or

mono10gucs)Givcn a widc varicty of studics

their signs Of agrecmcnt with cc̲participants A
corrcspOnding disprefcrence fOr disagrcemcnt isthat shOw hO、 v dynalnic thc roles of prosody arc

manifcstcd by nlinilnizing thc extcnt of disagrec―°

L絆 肝 Itξ 雷ょ 19塊 サⅧmcnt when it arises

Isぷ lltr胤Yacgcr̲Dror's scries of

unsolvcd problems in intOnational phOno10gy

studies dcmOnstrate that the variablc dcgrecs Of
focal prollllncncc on English ncgatiOn are rulc̲

arisc trom exarnning

governed in tcrllls of thc cxtent to which spcak―

citatiOn forms"(1.e.,sO
cially dc̲contextualized sentences)tO ty to de―crs are sutteCt tO thOse principlcs,and that thc

tcrrunc hov/scntcnces are focuscd(Ladd, 1996:
198) Thc flrst rObust attcmpt tO accOunt fOr
thcsc intcractivc aspccts Of prosOdic tOcus in

cffects Of thc principles shOuld diffcr bascd On

the intcractive mcanings of ncgation at cvcry
momcnt Oftalk̲in― intcraction

natural spcech is a scries Of variationist studies

To illustratc,sOmc mttOr typcs of interconductcd by Yacger̲Dror(1985, 1996, 1997,
2002a.b)Studying a great deal of variability inactivc mcanings Of negatives havc bcen ex―
tractcd frolll thc prcscnt dataset, based On

focal prolllincncc On thc English ncgativc(

Yacger― Dror's(1997:6‑8)classiflcatiOn

nOt'')

a)Ncgation as face thrcatening(BrOwn&LevinsOn,1978)
Speakcr B:Àヵ οrraノ ンタs″
αrα ppaJα′夕 vθ 4)Look,

juicc ifalol of thcreis FP

̀Look,there is a lot ofjuicc if(yOu want)̲'Speakcr A:

→

ノ

s

″α

α4/77α ″ Jrα ′lα J771θ ′
7

Juicc TOP much want̲Neg FP
̀I don't wantjuicc so much'

Spcakcr B:

A sθ ο71α ′ιθ7
1s that sO?

Spcakcr B invitcs Speaker A, whO is visiting B,
for a drink by pointing out that thcrc is a 101 0f
juicc in thc refligeratOr if A wants something lo‑28‑

drink Speaker A bluntly dcclincs B's invitation

br juicc in particular through the ncgadve′ ″̲
″α′ (｀ Want― Ncg.'), Whcreby this negative turn

A Variationist Study of Prosodic Focus in Naturally Occurring lnteractions:the Case ofthe Negativè̀‐ 4α J''in Hokkaldo Japanese

dircctly threats Speaker B'sf¨ c want.

b)Ncga■ on tt informative(neutral)
Spcakcr E:

ιん
0ん∫

ι
たJム αz.

hot sp二 ng go̲want

̀(I)WanttO go to a hotspring.'
Spcakcr F:→

0れ sι ん ikita::i.(2.0)′ ″α

ttJた iれαJ οんsι κ

あわwcnt incidcnt Ncg hot sp五 ng go― want
̀(I)WANT to goto a hotsp五 ng.(2.0)I wanttO go to the one I'vc never been to.'hOt spring go― want

ほt8α ∫ん αッα οjグιSpeakcr E:,'たHigashikawa
comèCoIIlc ovcr tO HigOshikawa(Spcakcr K's honlctown).'
Spcakcr F:ar夕 7

0ん sι ん

hot spring thcrc is̀Is thcre a hot spring?'

Spcakcr E:Arッθ

Jhcrc lsI]P.

̀There is.'additiond inittΠ na● on山 ough the negattve(1.e.,

Speakcr E suddcnly shiftcd the topic of conver―sation to ̀igoing to hot springs." Spcakcr F『
shc wants to go to a hot spHng to which shc hasshows her cnthusiastic agFeement with what

never been),WhiCh has a neutral status in rclト

Spcakcr E sttd by repeating ule same sentencetion to Speaker E's face while contributing to dle

with an emphasis of drawling On the vcrb jた ′′αf「 Jsucceeding exchanges bctween the speakers.

(̀Want tO go').Then,speaker F provides somcｅ@@@@@[@@@]
ι?]@@@[れ αん滋[Aし そSpeakcr C:
speaker D:

SuChFeaSOn鱒cｐ(o.5)sο ο
ックタ゛Qた ι

︒
μＣ

―

j<@わ

somc■ ling bad[@@@@@@@@]

Speaker C:″αrexclude― Pass

．
一
聰

Why?

たθz sar̀r、Ｑκο

What? cvcryonc Gen

励血

¨
闊・

c)Negttion as support市 c
Speaker D:
Nα んじ
ι
れんα

た?@>]
′

" sλ
thing
did
sarr.

Voc FPＤ Ｃ Ｄ Ｃ̀What?Are you gonna kick mc out?'@@@@@@@@
̀Why?'(D@@ Have l done anything w■ ong?'@@@@@@@@Ъ

atis notthc rcason!'
prCfCrrcd disagrccmcnts'')

Discussing loom ttslgnments for thci class trip

ツ滉 ″αたιJiCん αrr′ )(to a hot spring town,Speaker D jokingly rcacts
to Speaker C's preceding tease that Speaker D

her positivc facc,and implics that thc classnlatcs

will have to stay in a room with other classmatesin thCiF SOCial circlc all llke her and want her towith whom D is notso close.In reply to Spcakcr

stay in the same roo■ l as them.

D's playful pursuit,Speaker C finally providcs a
supportivc statoment trough thc ncgativc(sο θ‐

systematiCally controls thc dcgrcc of focal prom―‑29‑(POmerantz, 1984), so Speakcr D will not lose

It has bcen dcmonstratcd that thc spcakcr

特集 「音声 のバ リエー シ ヨンJ

incnce on negadOn, dcpcnding on what typc ofsocial lneaning a p血 cular tOken of ncgation
crcatcs at evew momcnt of talk― in― interaction(Yacger― Dror, 1996, 1997; Takano, 2001). The

involves a femalc homemaker in hcr lnid‑20s
and hcr 28‑ycar― old female friend(Spcakers A

theory predicts that focal prolninencc on thc

students in their carly 20s(Speakers C and D;Eand F).All the ptticipants in the convcrsadons
are thc speakers of Hokkaido dialect.A total of―''れα′264 occurcnces of the Japancsc ncgativc

hcc― thrcatcningand B),and cach of thc relnaining convcrsaaons
recorded in latc 2000 involve two fcln〔‐καJ"in Exccrpt(a)iS likCly tobc niniIIIllzed, and thc supportivc̀̀‑4α

j''in Ex―cerpt(c)is likCly to be maximized in accord with
the SAP.The infom江 市c(thus,neutral to thedc college、
vcre analyzed in telllls of prosodic pronlinencc.

intcrlocutor's face wants)̀̀― んα′'in Excerpt(b),Tablc l sho、 vs the disiibution of tokcns acrosson thc other hand, is likely to be prolnincnt

the speakers.5)

because the efficicnt dclivcry of inforlnation is a

mttOr COncern for thc spcakcr to contributc to
the slnooth flo、 v of convcrsation,in accord with
the CPP.
Oncc highly interactive data are closcly

5.Ⅳ Iethods for Analysお5。 1。

「rhe domain and criteria for prosodic
analysisexallllned, lt bccomcs evldent that the s● lus of
inforlnadon conveyed by thc ncgativc is not only

For my analysis of focal prominence on

deterlmncd by informational structurc of dis――''to be as consistcnt and otteCttVe as pos―κα′course, but also begins to carry certain social
meanings or parttinguistic lnessages that dyna―

ly adopting the Japancsc ToBI systenl for

lnically change from moment to moment eventranscHptton of intonational patterns(Venditti,towithin a single intcraction, Variability in focal
prolninence obscrvcd in thc prcscnt corpora also

appcar).ThC dOmain of analysis is based on thesible,I first set up the dolnttn of analysis,rough―appears to respond to such interactivc dilncn―

tonally― dcflncd intonation phrasc boundary sur―rounded by the strong dittuncture(i.e.,the into―

sions in some systeinatic, p五 ncipled ways The

nation phrasc idcntified by Break lndex 3[B13]

present study will accommodate this perspecuvc
上胤

in its rescarch dcsign.

y期

鷲

:」 翼
『

。1を 1聰

1躍撃mclre accentual phrascs surrounded by thc mc―

dium dittunCtures(Brcak lndcx 2[B12]),and iS
typically charactcrized as having rcduced pitch

4. ]Data

rangc at thc cnd of a phrase duc to a process ofdownstep and a pitch reset at the beginning of anc datasct for the present study consists ofthree inforlnal dyadic same― sex conversations.

new intonation phrase, WVhether the negativc―''is prosodically prollllnent within a single
れα′One of thc conversations recorded in carly 2000

Table l:Number of the」 apanese Negative― NAI Analyzed

CON∨ ERSATIONSSPEAKER

Conversation lA#OF TOKENS

B
Conversation 2C
DConversation 3

E
F
Total:264‑30‑

ヽA Vana■ onitt Study of Prosodic Focus in Nattlrally Occuring lnteractions―″αf''in Hokkaido Japanese

the Case ofthe Negative

words

pattta nO

glosslpttanla̲cEN

gloss2

ェwa iκ ntt

kedo

patan a nO

top‐ ToP tuct it in‐ though pttanacEN

nゴ ka ni kim
insidcLOC

wcar

NEc

￨

Bl

ず

Speaker

Hz
500
450
ｉ

400

︑

ＡＦ

︑
・ヽ ． ． ．．
・・・

′・

．
・

850

ヽ

150 mS

ヽ

ヽ
一

●

200

ｔ
︒
い

250

４

300

ｒ ・

●
′

４

350

1700

^″
｀

2550

3400

4250

Figure lintonation phrasc(i.e.,the dependent variable)isPitchworks, which pcrrrllts analysis of pitch

わr .… )thc pitCh contour is reset(1.e.,the bel到 o̲ning pitch is highcr than thc pitch peak of dle
iIIImediatcly prcceding accentual phrase),whiChmovcments(Fo)and intensity(10udncss).

indicatcs dle start of a new intonation phrasc.

judged using the spcech analysis program calledΠ GШ■ us, the domain of analysis of̲̀̀4α ′' prOmi―
ncnce in this file is IP(1)(′ ′ α'J?)and IP(2)lThe Domain of Analysis(Pα ソα″り ″θ

̀κ

̀″

αノ
rι ん
αιたιごθ),and IP(1)has

ln Figurc l,thrcc intonadon phrases(IP)Can bebccn excluded from analysis sincc it is an inter―

idcnttied by Break lndcx 3: IP(1)fre4α り?

■
ogativc utterance.

(SpCaker D asks Speaker C,̀̀Don't you tuck it

ヽhcdler thc negative ̲̀̀κ α′'' is prolFllnent、
vithin a single intOnation phrase is judgcd from[yOur shirtl in[yOur pants]?");IP(2)Paソ

α α4οιヾQ′ ″ιんαJたι′θ(Speakcr C rcsponds to D's

several specific c五 tcria. 13ased on past studies

qucstion, saying̀̀I dOn't tuck it in the pants Of

that rcgard pitch as playing the prilmary role
among various prosodic parameters and inten―
sity, and duration as playing the secondary in

my pttamas but,'');and the initial portion of IP(3)oα iatt κθ ″α β κJた'ス,″.¨ )isalSO Scen(SpC」 (cr c continucs,̀̀[whatl I WCar insidc l■ ypttamas.… ,'').D's question(′ ″κα'J?)iS an inde―pendcnt uttcrance precedcd by a slight pausc,

begun、 vith pitch movement as the primary van―ant,while paying attcndon to any markcd usc ofthus is regarded as a single intOnation phrase.
C's rcsponse to it ⑫α″ 協αんθ ι″αj″ れαゴル ごθ

α
Zα ん
οん
α βれ Jr′
ραケ
'ス

.…

phenOmcna of Japanese focus(Koori, 1989ab;
Azuma, 1992ab), the prcsent invesdgation has)is diVidCd into t、 vo

intensity or duration as well Thus,thc pdlne
criterion for the ncgattve ̀̀―

r7α'' tokcns to be′'たseparatc intonation phrascs
becausc at thc b9gin―

pro面 nentis conccrncd with thc occurrcnce of aning of the sccond clausc ⑫αヵ協α″θ4α '滋 れ′

rllllsmatch bctween the actual pitch cOntOur‑31‑

特集 「音声 のバ リエーシ ヨンJ

words
gloss
gloss
Bl

Speaker
墨

建
・

｀

令

翠鐸

Hz
500
一
． ． ．．

400

ち．
． ．．

350
250

ｒ
メ
ヽ

300

﹂﹁．

︲
︲ ■■ １︑
・

ユ

450

200
150

ms

850

1

700

2550

ヽ.″ ̲、
4250

3400

Figure 2

placed oǹ̀― 歿zJ''itself and the degrcc of dittunc̲ture(See Figurc 2).

Π GIIRE 2‐αJ"is attached as the negativc suffix,6)and On
the ilrmediately following prosodic environment" he negative ―んαJ'' itself is eithcr
of ̀̀― καみaccent― bcaring or unaccented, Whcn ̀̀‑4α j'' isMismatch between Pitch and DittunCture
ln Figurc 2,the s∝ ond intona● on phrase(Dι α′unaccentcd frolln thc intonational cnvironment in―καJ''iも elf is impos―
which it is embedded(ic,NA'Iたα αaιsた θ!, ̀]Becausc mcrc is no chancesiblc to bear its acccntcd pitch),the prcscncc or[fOr thCml tO mect people,that is why!')iS the'' pro面 nencc. Thisdomain of analysis of̀̀― れα′

the abscncc of the IIllsn11lCh is btted on the pitch

particular tokcn should be considered as prolllll―

fixed.Figurc 3 fron■ my other dattbase of Japa―''itself
nent becausc thc pitch placed on thc̀̀ん α′
is rcsct or highcr than that of the irrnediatcly

ncsc political debatcs illustra

prcceding accentual phrasc(グ ιαJ)(B12)in con―trast to expected,unmarked gradual pitch decli―

れθ′'is suis thc point.

Π GURE 3

Mismatch bctween Pith a■ l DisiunCtte:
Unacccntcd― NAfnatton(1.c.,dOWnstcp)toward the end of IP.For

In this IP (κ J力 οん′
θた′κJ Jι 'わα″Jん οκ4θ sλ θθ'rα J

analytical purposes,I considcr this type of local―″α ハИORA'4α J

izcd pitch rcsct bccausc thc IIllsmatch with thc
pitch peak in qucstion is lnarkedly high cnoughto crcat a brand new intonation phrase,despite"θ θJttα s,ὴBaSically[Spe2直 ng],I think thtt Japan[cconOmy]w■ l nOt
rccover in thc future.''),he negそ 通vc̀̀― καJ"
under investigation is the suffix to thc accentedverb,καθ'r ('reCOVCF'),WhOSC ICxical acccnt istransforlned to んαθ確 '4α J(̀nOt rccovcr').

that it is preceded by thc weaker dittuncture(BI2 Mismapeak of the lexical iteni to which̀̀―h).

Japanesc is lcxically acccnted. 1)epending

Though it is obvious that thc pitch placed on thison the acccntual typc of the lexical itcm to which‑32‑

A Variatlonist Study of Prosodic Focus in Nattally Occurnng lnteractions
thc Case ofthc Negativè̀― ″α′'in Hokkaldo Japanesc

words
gloss
gloss

bastalし8ay CONII Japan GEN

itule TOP ttcOver NEGヽ

lЭ (

,

BI
●
攘

Speaker

五.=&戴 t.饉 価証Ⅷ飩嵐‐五…1.麟 鳳:

菫丸 吻

y瑚

甲

Hz

．

一 一一

■

′

︒
■

850

〆´

．

50 mS

1700

ド・

．

■ ●

100

Ａ＝

． ．

●

150

︱︲ ︲

．
●

︲ ︲． Ａ
︹
一
・

●

200

＃︲
︲

250

2550 3400

ヽ

.ヽ

,

4250

Figure 3''itself shows a falling contour,
unaccented ―κα′and thus is not rcsct, this pttdcular token is

5.2. Potential constraints and the analyticalprogramjudgcd to bc prolmnent bccause a mismatch is

To investigate sociolinguistic graI―ar of

idcntified bctween thc pitch contour given to dle

variadon in focal prollllncncc in Japanese lan―
guage usc,I first hypotllcsize that the speakcr's

lcxical itcm(4α θ″ んαJ)and itS immcdiately'―

preccding medium juncture(B12 Mismatch).
Noticc also that thc inal acccntual phrase of thc

IP(″decision to placc focal promincnce on thc nega―
ivc ―んαJ''is affcctcd by a variety of factorsθ θj αS夕 , ̀I think that..')is grcatly

simultaneously. Multivariatc analysis considers

rcduced in terlIIs of pitch and intcnsity due to thethc effects of a1l of thc intersccting factors as
potcndal constraints and it ineasurcs the relattve

lowcred amplitude of creaky voicc,resulting in

thc loss of its pitch contour. This prosOdic
weakcning toward the end of thc IP is typical ofJapancsc speech prosody.

effcctiveness among he factors for the use Or‑4α ら''bttcd onnon― use of focal prolnincnce on
the prescnt dataset as a represcntative sample.

ing

Based on previous studies of Japanesc focal

h」 uncturc rmslnatch,thc following
cases arc also codcd as bcing pronunent,cvcn if

prolninence and prclillllnary investigadon of my

In addition lo these prilne criteria ste―from thc pi

the BI Inislnath is not obscrvcd:1)―んα′'itself

or the lcxical iteln to which̀̀― んαJ''is suffixed isown,the following is thc list of potcntial factorsthat l hypothesized may be responsible for ap―
parcntly chaotic obscrved variability.

givcn a highly lnarked dcgree of intcnsity(orloudncss)in thC natural flow of intonation, and2)a prcCeding lexical accent is movcd to an

Prosodic Structures

1)ACCCntual pattcrns of thc negative―′η′

inhercntly unacccnted̀̀― んαら''WhiCh contributcs(HattOri, 1933; Shibata et al., 1980; Sugitoo,

to its perccptual saliency.

1982,1985,1986;Picrrehumbcrt&Bechman,
―‑33

‑

'

特集「音声 のバ リエーシ ヨンJ

1988;Koori,1997b):
Accentcd;Unacccntcd;Potendally both(de―Information Statusauxlliarỳ̀‑4α J''itsclf can rcceive a lcxical acccnt

5)Hicrarchy of infol■ndon(Azulna, 1992b;
Koori,1997b).
Main clause; Subordinatc clause; Embcddcd

whcn it is suffixed to unaccented verbs(cg.,clausc [3 1evels]

んαた ̀cry' 一) んαたαんα'J), and it is unacccntcd
̀read' 一>ッ ο‐with acccntcd verbs(c.g.,ッ ο'

The Japancse negative

pending on contcxt)8)[2 1evels]

Generally spcttng, in standard Japanese theα'れ α′)(Kindttchi&Aknaga,1981).ThC ad――
んαj''preceded by nouns(e.g.,θ たαんιgα

jcctivc

Jた 夕 [wα ]κα ̀no moncy'),adiCCtiVes(c.g.,θ
'Sわんa'j ̀not dclicious')or attcCdVal nouns(c.g.,
たJ″ jグ ι[″ α]れ α ̀not bcautiful')iS inhcrcntly
'″

'′

‐
んα′'can occur eithcr inthc main clausc or in the subordinatc clause.In
terlns of thc hierarchy of inforlnation,the malnclause dclivcrs the primary information of thc
uttcrancc as a wholc, which is more likcly to■ c subordina
receivc focal prolnincncc.
clausc dclivcrs the secondary inforlnation that is

acccnt― bearing. In addidon, the prosodic struc―less likely to bc given focal prolnincncc For thc

turcs of the irrlmediatcly following environmcnt''arc takcn into account since they alsoof̀̀― κα′

purpose of analysis,the categow of min clauses

affect thc rcalization of lexical acccnts onhierarchical reladons with other clauses(sた ―た わ れ ̀complcx senten―s̀お ̀mttn Clause'in′ ι

covcrs thc utteranccs that cither sharc some

―
んα′
."9)
2)Proxilnity of thc―
καJ''tOken to thc cnd ofthc

CC')Or stand alonc without such relations

1989ab):(″ κb れ ̀Simple sentence,' including frag―lnenね 1/inconclusive utteranccs as wcll as juxta―

Long distance;Short distance(based On theposedintonation phrЖ c(Sugit00,1985,1986;Koori,

number of lnorac from thc̀̀‑4α ′'tOken to thc
end of thc intonadon phrase).[2 1evels]―"
れα′3)Othcr accented phrase(s)prCCCding thesentenccs

inノ われ ̀COInpOund

scntence').The catcgory of subordinate clauses
is further dividcd into two groups: the subor―

dinatc clausc(typiCally with cottuncuOns)whiCh
is thc ones subordinate to the main clausc in the

tokcn in the same intonatton phrase(Oishi,
1959;Kawaka血 ,1965;Fttisaki et嵐 .,1984;

complex sentcnce, and thc cmbedded clause

Pierrchumbert & Beckmn, 1988; Koori,

which is typically quotative uttcranccs, clausd

1989b).
■ e intonation phrases in Figures l and 3,for

nominals or lnodifying clauses.
κα′' in discoursc6)Informa■ On status of ―cxample,involve the acccntcd phrasё s preced―(PrinCe,1992).

ttα (̀pttama')in
ing the negativè̀― κ
αJ'':ρ αケ
αBrand― new inforlnation; Contrastive infor―

Figurc l,and Jι 'わ α (̀say¨ COnd')and Sん θθ'4α J

mation;C)ld infomation;Unuscd inforlnation;
Inferablc inforlnε 饉on.[5 1evels](̀futurc')in Figure 3.In contrast,thc into―
nation phrase in Figure 2 involvcs thc unac―
ccntcd phrase in the preceding contexti グιαJAs rcvicwed earlier,a number of studics(mainlyof EngHsh intonation)in intCractivcly impov―(̀enCOunter').

crished comunicaive scttings regard the infor―

Prcsence;Abscncc.[2 1cvels]‐
んαj"4)Other fOCused element(s)prCCeding thetoken in thc salnc intonation phrasc(Rjisaki

mational contcnt of thc word or phrase in
rclation with the prior contcxt of discourse as thect al.,1984;Pierrchumbcrt&Bcckman,1988)

impctus for focal prominencc: new significant
infollllation in thc flo、 v of discoursc tcnds to

For example, in a singlc intonation phrasc

become prolllllnent. nc theory predicts that nc―'ヽ ν̀̀Zι ι
αrfα rαttι sι 4sθ Oん ι

れαι′
θι
ι
′
S z

αれ
たιム

gadon,which inhcrcntly adds ncw or contrastiveごι∫ ッθ." (̀I kept saying [it]Will not abso―
滋J(̀absO̲
lutcly rcsult in war.'),an adverbて ι′

propositional contcnt to prior context of dis―lutely')is giVCn prosodic focus prcccding thenence. Closc cxarrllna■ on of infomation status

negativcれ arα れαJ(̀bccOmc̲Ncg').

in thc contcxt of discourse in thc prcscnt data'' tokens
れα′shows that whilc many of thc ―Prcscncc;Absencc.[2 1evels]

course,will be a good candidate for fbcal proIIll―‑34‐―

A Variationist Sttldy of Prosodic Focus in Naturally Occunnng lntcractions

the Case ofthe Negative

77α

j''in Hokkaido Japaneseprovide brand― ncw inforlnation(i.e.,discourse―
new,hcarcr― new),thCrc are a numbcr of ‐れαJ''

of the junior collegc they both graduatcd fromoccurrcnccs whose infomation can bc inferredplace:酌 クzρaSby thc listener from thc preceding context of
discourse (1.e., discourse― new, hcarcr― ncw, but
can be inferred).Similarly,thcrc arc also quite a‐''which cxpresses somc
fcw occurrences of77α ′will be changcd after its campus moves to a ncw
gα ′な夕協 あ たι6麟 滋 ″ f「 ,そ ιれ―αれκα″θタ ッθ.旦 C―
ζιん 4α 滋 ′″α れ"0 rnovcs,I dlink
pause it is simply ̀/ca″
the campus thatthat alc contcnt[Of thC programs]will nOt bechanged at all.');5)uttcrances which provide an

propositional contcnt alrcady shared by thc intcr―

account counteractivc or contrdctory to thc

actants(1.e., discoursc― new, but hearer― old). In

upcollllllng negation (e.g., Criticizing a female

addition,somè̀― れαJ''tokens providc inforlnation

friend of Speaker E)'s for her intent to lnarry amuch older man for the sake of flnancial stabil―
ity,Speakcr C provides an countcractive accountcontrastivc to pttticular cntities in prior contcxt,"tokens can bc consid―
and a fcw repeativè̲̀ん α′ered to rcprcsent old information(i.Cりdiscourse―

old,hearer― old).

as the prc― scquence:s況 た′滋 滋 滋 θれ s力 滋 れοたα θsあ J κα′た b sa,sο た0 αdcた αれgà″ αJ κα.

̀ὰThough shc nlighthave got married[with himl

Interactivc Dirllensions

for love,I would nottake it[1.C。

7)Pre― SCquences to thc̲̀̀4α J"negative(POmer̲,inancial stabil―ity]intO account[when l decide to m岬]).

antz,1984;Joncs, 1990;Yallnada,1992;Mori,
1999;Honda,2002).1°
Discourse marker as an upgradcr; E)iscourse
markcr as a hint; Scntential prc― scqucnce as
overt negation; Sentential pre― sequence as an)account;Sentcntial prO― scquence as a counter―

active account; Straight ncgatton without any
pre― scqucnce.[6 1evels]

It has been pointcd out that in studies of dis―

agreeing tums in」 apanese as well as in Englishthat certtlin linguistic lnatcrials are exploitcd toprefacc(or COntcxtualize)the upcollFllng tts―
agrecmcnt as he markcrs of opposition,and tte
ways of contcxtualizing disagreeing tums should
involve both universal and culturc― specific ele―

Based on thc previous studies, five diffcrcnt

mcnts.The fii,typC,COunteract市 e accounts,istypcs of pre― sequcnccs are idcndficd in the pres―presumably Japanesc― specific use of thc prc―
sequcncc to the upcolrllng disagreement(JoncS,

ent study. The trst sct consists of the clausc―

initial uscs of: 1)discOurse markcrs which

1990;Yamada,1992;Honda,2002).Thc present̀̀upgrade" or ̀̀asscrt'' the upcolFllng negatives

framework of analysis explores thc possibility of

ααttι ̀because,' aα たαr″des″ たα α ̀so,'

any lncaningful interplay bctwccn these syntactic(e.g。 ,gα ′[Sο rι ]dc̀thCn,'sん Jムὰtherefore,' or combi―

nations of these)and 2)血̀ι ose WhiChdeviccs and prosodic paramctcrs.

hinF'that ancg誠 市e is on the way(e.g.,″θ ̀but,'s力 J―̀たαs力 J[η agα ] ̀but/hOwever,' どα′″[″ ]′ο[ θ]̀though,' たιdO ̀though,' ′οた0´ θgα ̀but,'[ノ ]ッ ὰnah/no,' or combinations of thcsc).Thc SCCOnd
sct consists of threc types of sentential pre―'' nega―scquences to the clause involving ̀̀‐ んα′8)Concurrence with the shift of linguisdc ele―
mcnts to the pos卜 prcdicate p∝ idon(i.e.,dis―localo14)oSt― position)(HindS,1982;Ono&

Suttki,1992;Rttii,1995).
Presence;Abscncc.[2 1cvels]
It has becn pointed out that tllc dislocation oftion: 3) uttcrances which bluntly express thc

linguistic elcments to thc post― predicate position

spcaker's conflicting stancc or point of view inin Japanese,which is a strict S(〉

advance, prior to the upcoFllllng ncgative state―

to do with the spcakcr's cmphasis of information

ment(C.g。 ,Cλ 々α ッο.Moん gι κttθ καんJ ttθ 4α J
れθ.̀[You arcl w■ ong.Thcrc is no curfew,noth―in a discoursc.How prosodic cmphasis interacts

V languagc,has

ing like that.'); 4)utteranccs which provide anwith this syntactic alternativc will bc inves―dgated.

account'' for a ncgative statement to follow

9)Fooung(Goffman,1981;Ycagcr― Dror,1996,(e.g.,Spcakcr C rcsponds to Spcakcr D's preced―
ing qucstion whether thc cducational progralllls

Facc― threatening(c.g., Excerpt[a]abOVe);

1997)

‑35‑

特集「音声のバ リエーシヨン」

Infom江 市c(or neutral to thc interlocutor's

dircctly cxpress the speakcr's disagreclnent with

facc wants)(SCe Excerpt[b]abOVe);Sup―thc listencr.

portive (see Exccrpt [c] abOVC); SCliThc prcscnt study uses(bldvarb(Rand&

protecaon(Or matting excuses)(c.g.,Spcakcr

on ofthc
statistical modcl initiated by Ccdcrgren andSankoff(1974).The prOgram conducts a muld―
Sankoff,1990),the Macintosh apphca■

F, mahng an cxcusc for hcr recent poor
perforlnance and disintcrest in a school sub―sλ ′sαSん れα′zθ夕滋 κ わικり θο―ject:A翻.

̀Becausc l"θ
know that l possess[the cOpies ofprcvious cxams to rcfcr to],I WOuldn't study
hard[fOr the cxam].');SClidenigration(c.g.,variatc analysis of data using thc maximum like―lihood techniquc.H)Based on natural speechdata,mis tcchniquc a1lows onc to yicld a proba―

Speakcr E, rcsponding to lnterlocutor L's

bility estilnatc of thc effcct of cach potentid

prcvious statement that she has succeedcd inlosing some weightt yasι ′ικαὶI Can't lose
wcight.'); Selicorrectton (e.g., Spcaker E,

constraint on thc application of thc rule in qucs―

tJking about a forlner tcacher ofhers injuniorθ,(.)

unavoidablc skewedness of sociolinguistic data
and the nccessity of figuring out the complcx″αsλ Jκ α;たα.̀He WAS strict,and HITintersecting rclationships among a number ofhigh school:KtbJsあ JJ′

Nag

̀sλ

r′

θ,Nαg ′ ご'')in rclation●On(i.e.,focal pro血 nence oǹ̀― καブ
to thc othcr ren■ aining constraints. 1)ue to thèsλpotcndal factors,probabilistic accounts of occur―[hiS Students].HC didn't hit,cxacay.');Agrce―

Inent sccker(c.g., Speakcr A to Speaker B:
り れαιSSん ο
′
θλ′ん′
たん′
ッαたιごοttι んακた ん滉″ι′.

rcnces or non― occurrcnces of a variablc in qucs―
tion have proven to be superior to the usc of barèYou cannot apply thc lo饉 on to prcvent sun―pcrccntagcs(SankOfl 1985, 1986, 1988). Thc

bllrn evcry 雌[you g0 0utl.'); Face―

prograln also allows onc to conduct a stepM/isethrcatening with humor(e.g。 ,Speakcr E,rc―
sponding to lnterlocutor F's preccding jokeregrcssion analysis,which sorts outthe groups ofvariables whose distributions of factor wcightsthat F's mother,who is going to visit hcr,Inayfollow her around on campus, evcn to theare statisticany significant.To run the progranl,Iof a total of 264
coded a tokcn filc that consisもstudents' cafetcda,but the mother is not pcr―‐''occurrenccs in the dattet.
んα′llluttcd to cntcr thc cafetcria without a studcnt
tte. ̀Ъ erc is no suchpass: Sθ れれα た力παriん αιrule.')[8 1evcls]

6。

In the act of negation,the spcaker not only

Results and Discussion

ncgatcs the propositional content but also creatcs

Tablc 2 shows a wide rangc of individuala variety of footing,Ineasuring up the negadon'svariability in focal proIIrllnencc on the ncgativesocial mcanings and impact on thc listcner in―んα′,''froln thc most frequent,569♭

evcry moment of intcracdon. In the present

frequent,13%.An average of 33%(88/264)of

da● set,the negadvc̀̀― れαj''is alSo used to fulfill

the negadvc tokens reccived focal prorFunCnCe.
Varbrul analysis has been conducted lo finda widc variety of interactive FnCanings as wcll as

Table 2:Individual∨ a● atlon in Focal Prominence on th9 Negajve― NAI

REGISTERSPEAKER

Conversation lA#OF TOKENS%Of― Ala/ProminenceB

56%(38/68)
35% (7/20)

Conversation 2

CD

24%(12/51)
37%(13/35)

Conversation 3

E

25%(13/51)
13% (5/39)

F

TOtal:264‑36‑

33%(88/264),to the lcast

A Variationist Stlldy of Prosodic Focus in Namrally Occurring lnteractions:the Case ofthe Negaivè̀‑77α j''in HOMdo Japanese

out any rule― governedncss undcrlying this widc

focal promincnce on

range of variability among individual spcakers.

fronl thc indepcndcnt factors considered:0.289

Table 3 shows the results of analysis Ob伎 ined

Thc average‑4α J'')Wil1 0peratc asidc

chi― square per ccll" indicates thc
degrec to which thc independent factors consid―

fronl the runs of Goldvarb, and it specifics thefrequcncy of each factor that co― ocCurS With

CrCd(i.e.,thc hypothesis constructed)aCCOunt'' and its corre―
focal prolFIInence on ―κα′sponding pЮ bability wcight(VR Wcight)with afor thc data. mc smaller than l.O this figure is,thc surer we can be that it is not nccessary toconsider additional variablcs, Values below l.5

valuc from O to l 12)

A wcight of.50 indicates that the factor has(COnServaivcly,1.0)indiCatc that the fit betwecn

no effcct on the production of thc dependentthc hypothesizcd lnodel and the data is good

vadablc(1.C.,―
καj"prolllincnce).ThC C10Scr the(PrCStOn, 1989:15‑6), and thC Values of theweightis to O,the morc strongly thc factor inhib―

prcscnt analysis, 0.8915,13)arC Within that con―

its thc dcpcndent vanablc.勁 e closcr thc weightscrvaive rangc. IFive out of ninc factor groups

is to l,the inore strongly the factor promotes it.

have becn chosen as being stadsucally signif̲■ c ̀̀input value" shown at thc bottom of thc

icant by stepwise regression analysis.

table indicates the likelihood that this rulc(i.e.,
Iable 3:Va‖ able Rule Analysis Of POtential Constraints on Focal Prominence on the Negative― NAI
Factor Groups
Factors
VR Weight―)Accentual Patterns″θ/ スοοθ θ0
J/%t/b/ZU4

Sittni■/7ι

22%(13/60:
2)Proximity to the Endof the lntonatiOn Phrase

ια7′ ″ ″ ″ο´θ″araθ

*o〈 025

22%(31/1381

3)Other Accented Phrase

4bse″ σθ54%(45/8〔Preceding― Nal

PreSa770θ

υtner■ ocus

スbSa770θ

24%(43/181
35%(74/214

ビresenο θ2896(14/50

f/77bed∂ bご 3ta″ sθ

34%(16/47;
350b(59/169)

4′

032

4b%(bノ /12〔Preceding― Nai
5)Hierarchy of lnformation

Main θわ″̀θ5)inlormation Status/r7た rre0

Sり arθ じイυソPre― sequence

33%(5/151

Bran卜、θ″

27%(21/79)

θ/0

26UO(6/2モ

Disο Oarsθ ル￠″嘴θ′as ttnι6100(11/18″r/a/Ps′
17e″ A/θ atiOЛ̀θsθ ″ra77ι あ/PSasス οοο4/17ι
Disο οursθ Ma″ θ′′s ιbgradθ ′/Va′ ケ。一,θ αυθ″σθ
77r7a/Ps as σσ″tradicι 04/ス 000t717ι
5θ 77ι θ̀θ3,Dislocation/Postposing

0%(0/2/V●

2700(63/230)ttθ

′鰤 emθ″どSee′ θ′Sθ l「Proι θοヒion/Exο ″εesse″ L″ ρ

3500(9/26

41%(7/1
29%(56/191)
74° 0(25/34

F爾 ″イ
クリHumο ′ζ ′sn■,

1°

Not Siemil

077
05(

KNOCKOL

Not Signif*oく ̲025

4700(3/17)

44%(7/16)/

3300(1/3
3400(10/291
2500(39/157;

101AL

33%(88/264

引

Not Simf

67%(6/9)
46%(12/261

Sο /「 οο
rrectio■

わあr/77a″ ″e/Ne″ tNot Si鰤 重

0(b//

ra力ゎ″

"iダ

055

50%(5/1

γbs
Sυ o00た*p〈 ̲025

27%(13/4[
40%(44/111
35%(12/34"4/se∂
Oο ″′η
stiveSθ ″ホpく .025058
ホpく 025*ニ トactor group selectedby stepw se regression analysis

lnput Value=0235
Chi― square per ce‖‑37‑=09162

特集「音声 のバ リエー シヨンJ學

As one of the general principlcs of Japanese

6.1. Prosodic constraints
恥 cc of the five factor groups(FG‑1,2,3)

intonation,pitch range tcnds to bccome narro、 verthat havc bccn found to be statistically signif―

in its magnitudc (i.e.,

icant arc concerned with purely structural condi―

thesis'')(Beckman&Picrrchumbert,1986;Pier―tioning froln the prosodic environment in which''tokcns arc embcdded.First,thc resultsthè̀‐ 77α ′rchumbcrtそ %Beckman, 1988;Kubozono, 1989;
Azuma, 1993)and aCCentuation is likely to lose
its momcntuln to、 vttd the end ofぬ e intonationof FG‑l clearly demonstrate th■ the Speakers are
discouraged to ilnplelncnt focal prolllinence bylexically unacccntcd̀̀― んα′," but take advantage

downstcp" orcata―phrase wherc̀̀dc― gcncration"of accents is com―monly obscrved(MaCkawa,1994;Koori,1989b;of lexical acccnts of ̀̀― καj'': the unaccented
̀̀― κ
αノ'strongly inhibits focal pronlincncc(0.32),

Vcnditti,to appcar)口 leSe general principlcs arc
counter― productive to the rcalization of focal

whcrcas thc accented counterpart weakly pro―promincncc on thc ncgattvè̀‐ んαJ,''which occurs

motcs it(0.56).ThiS finding accords with thc

mostly at the predicate― final position in canonicalseries of past studies of focal prorrllnence inJapancsc uttcranccs. The present results pre―ciscly dcmonstratc that focal pro面 nence on theJapancsc (Sugitoo, 1982, 1985, 1986; Koori,ncgadvc is also hea宙 ly suttect tO thcsc structurd
principles specifiC tO Japanesc intonation Fur―

1997b),whiCh also argue that lexical acccnts arc
closcly related to the realization of focal proIIIll―nence. The studics furthcr clailn that the accen―

memorc,。 ur prcccding finding that the spcaker

tual patterns of a word or phrasc tcnd to bc
maintained even when focal prorllllncnce isis inclincd to take advantage of lcxical acccnts inplaccd on the itern in focus. This is also sup―providc an indircct picce of supportivc cvidcncc

ported by thc prescnt analysis in ttat only 7
tokcns out of 264(3%)can be identified as thefor why ぬe phenomenon is consistently disfa―

implemcnting focal prollllnencc(FG‑1)can alsO

vored as its locus comcs closcr to the end of thecasc in which the pattern of lexical accents isintonation phrasc whcrc acccntual differentiation

violated to bear focal pro面 ncnce.14)

tends to be neutralized.

■ e second stuctural constraint found to be

Both FG‑3 and FG‑4 havc bcen cstablishedto cxamnc how the presence of other lexical

statistically significant is the robust effects of the―'' Within thc into―んαブ

accents or prosodic focus in thc prosodic envi―

naion phrasc(FG‑2):when dlè̀‐ んα′'tokcn is'' has cffccts on the■
onlnent preceding ̀̀― んα′vithin an into―
rcalization of focal pro血 ncncc 、

positton of dlc ncgativc

locatcd further than 6 morac(including 2 morac
of ―れα′'itselD frOm thc cnd of the intonation

nation phrasc.Past studics of connected specch

ph・ ase, it is morc likcly to rcccive focal proIIll―data from rcad matcrials show that precedingnence(Long Distancc:0.68),whcreas when it islocated fewer than 5 morac(including 2 morac

lexical accents dynalmcally ttect the shape ofof̀̀―'itselD fl・ Om the end,focal prollllncncc
れα′othcr lcxical accents in the succccding prosodic
cnvi■ onment, and also that prcccding prosodicoǹ̀― κα′'tends to bc inhibitcd(Sh∝ t Distance:

focus restralns lcxical acccnts of the succeeding0.34).■ crC SCCmsto bc a m■ or break bctwecn

clcmcnts because the peak of pitch rangc follow―

5 and 6 morac to the end ofthe intonation phrasc
in terln3 of thc frcqucncy of̀̀‑77α J''proIIllnence

ing thc focuscd items tends to be lowcr duc to a
general principlc of c江 誠hesis(Fttisaki et J.,(apprOXinlately 15%gap).ヽ hilc such lc対 cal

1984;Pierrehumbert&Bcckman,1988).

itelIIs as final particles, the extendcd prcdicate,Bascd on these obζ crvations, I hypoth―or utterancc― final conncctives are wpically ac―

rating thc propositional content furthcr,over 6 or

csizcd that somc dcgree of corrclation may cxist
between the prevalcnt phenomena and variability
in focal prominence on ―んαJ''since the loca■ onof̀̀‑4α デ'is predolllinantly to、 vard thc cnd of theutterance ln Japancsc ■ e hypothesls has been

more lnorac, from thc end of thc intonation

found rclcvant only to the prcscnce/absencc ofphrasc.

lexical acccnts.「 rhc statistically significant re―

COllFlmOdated with

‑4α j''

within 5 or fewer

morac to the cnd of thc intonation phrase,anoth―
cr clausc or phrasc tcnds to follo、 v‑4α J,"elabo―‑38‑

A Variationist Study of Prosodic Focus in Naturally Occurl■lhe Case ofthe Ncgativeng lnteractions″αJ''in Hobido Japanesesults(FG‑3)dcmonstrate that it is unlikcly ttt
spcakers who havc assigncd proper accents in―tours,as comptted wiぬ the main clause(Azuma,
1992b).ThiS particular wcight,howcver,appcars

hcrent t0 1cxical itcms still illlplcment focal
prollllncnce in a singlc intonation phI・ asc: theto be linked to interactional dilnensions in theprcsent corpora. Focal prollllllnencc frcqucntly

mcnt preccding

absencc Of Other lexical acccnts in thc envtton――'' strongly promotcs focal
κα″prollllncnce(0.73),whcreas their presencc inhib―

nine out of 16 proIIllncnt

its it(0.39). The effccts Of prosodic fOcus onclauscs result from quotadvc spccch(56%;cf,
thc average of 34%for the embeddcd clausc).

other clelllcnts prcceding̲̀̀4α ′''(FG‑4),on thC

othcr hand, 額e found tO cxert all■ ost neutral
effccts(PreSencc:0.55,Absencc:0.49).

CO‑OCCurred with quotadve(or reportcd)Spccch:―
καJ''in the embedded

QuOtatiVe speech is a domain of discOurse inwhich affcctive lneaning is likcly tO bc ex̲

prcssed, and prosody is a

りpical affcct̲

Thc statistically insignificant rcsults in

COFrullunicating channcl(Besnier, 1992) In the

FG‑5 alld 6(Table 3)dcmonstrate thtt Japanesc

present corpora of highly intcractivc casual cx―

focal prolllllncnce is not suttcct tO the Cognittvc

changcs,thc speakers' involvcmcnt in the utter―Prol■ incnce Principle(CPP)in that the speaker's

ances

cognitivc judgment On thc infOrlnation structure

desc五 ptions Of evcnts ttough ̀̀replays'' wercof discOurse is unlikely to play cHtical rolcs inobserved variability in Japanese prosodic focus.

obscrvcd、 vith thosc prollllllnent ―"tokens inκαゴ
quotative speech, which resulted in that highThis ou ome coincides with sugitoo's(1985,
1986)argumCnt for language spccificiw in fOcal

degree of prOsOdic pronlincnce for thc cmbcdded

pro血 ncnce phcnomcna in Japanesc, but it iscountcr to a numbcr of prior studies of other

as

well

as

somewhat

dramatizedclauscs.
A statisucally insignificant tendcncy for thc
infollllation status of the ncgadvè̀¨fact,bOth the inding in FG‑2(i.c.,hc farther

れαJ''to affectvariability is alsO shOwn in the results Of FG‑6.
Except for a partial agrcelncnt with thc findingof past studies of nOn― intcractive dattl that 01d

καJ''iS located fronl the cnd of the intonationphrase, the more likely it is to obtain prOllll̲

ly to be givcn prosodic focus(0.33),striking

languagcs that put fOrth thehighlighting―based,"universalist view of fOcal promnence.Iǹ̀―

insignificant informatiOn in discourse is lcss hke―ncncc)and thcse stttistically insignificant results

contradictions tO dle CPP arc alsO found in thefurthcr support Sugitoo's finding that linguistic

distribution Of the probability weights(c.g.,0.43

elements in the clause― /phrase― initial position

for Brand̲nev/; 0 44 for Contrastive; 0.61 fortend to reccivc prOnlinence in Japanese,rcgard̲lnferrcd).

lcss Of whatevcr inforlnation status they may

cxplanation to Offcr for cach of the cOntradictoryrcprescnt in thc flow Of dscOurse. In addition,

numbcrs,closer cxallllnation of individual tokcns

thc statistically significant results Of FG‑3 dis̲suggcsts that the reladvely high probability for
inferrcd information(0.61)iS linked to One oftheinteractive paramcters: the ovcrall positive ef̲

cusscd above further jusu〜

thc

structurc

based" account in that tlle internal structure ofЪ ough l dO not have a plausiblc

the IP in tcrlns of thc assignmcnt of lexical

fects of ̀̀pre― scquencc'' On ̀̀― んα′" prO面 nence.

acccnts plays a dcfinitive role in Japancse focal

Thc results of FG‑7(Pre― SCquencc),WhiCh will

prollllnence.

bc discussed in detail in tllc next sectiOn, shOw

At any nte,thc results of FG‑5(Hicrarchy

that the use Of discourse markers or sententialof lnformation)indiCatc a rclatively high proba―
bility weight for thc embcddcd clause in favor Of

pre― scquenccs

as theprefacc" of upcOlllllng

negatives consistcntly favors fOcal prolllllnenCc.

focal promincnce(0.64).¶ hiS tendency is quite

That is,these interactive dcvices clearly help thecontradictory to a CPP̲linkcd gcneralization mat
the subordination of information disfavors pro̲
sodic prollluncnce.A sinlilar claiin has also been

listener infer'' what inforlnation is to be con̲
veycd by upcOllllittg nCgativcs. This particular
aspect Of the findings iS anOther cmpirical picce

made in Japancsc language contcxt that the cm―
bcdded clause tcnds to carry lo、 vcr pitch cOn―

dimcnsions at cvery moment of negation over‑39‑

of cvidence for the signittcance of intcractiOnal

特集「音声 のバ リエー ションJ

infollllattonal significancc in thc flow of dis―neglectcd thc ilnpact of interpersonal dilncnsions

coursc.The follller shott contribute more to anon the phenomena, due to prcvalcnt bias in mc

authcntic picture of prosodic variability in natu―

use of non― intcractive registers as analytical da鯰

ral face― to― facc exchanges.

A maOr thrust of the prescnt study is to shed fair

Overall,the results discussed so far suggestthat thc CPP provides a rclatively insignificant

light on the dynalllllc Systems of prosody that arc

driving forcc fo■.

generally highly susceptible to thc intcractivc

Japancsc focal prominencediinensions of cvcryday language use.

once the siinultancous effects of purcly structural

Tablc 3 shows mat the types of footing ofconditioning from the prosodic environment inme negative ̀̀― んα′'(FG‑9)(see scctions 3 andwhich thc clcmcnt in focus is cmbcdded are also

5.2 for discoursc cxamples)have been found to

taken into consideration.Focal prolFunenCc phc―
■omena in Japanese are hea宙 ly suЦ ect tO rather

cxcrt stadstically signiflcant cffccts on thc phc―

̀̀Inechanical'' application of prosodic principles(FG‑8)for interact市 e parameters is also found toexert statistically significant effects on focal―
promincncc on
れα′"nomena. One of the remaining factor groups

spcciic to the languagc.It is the prosodic envi―

ronmcnt in which thc focuscd clclnent is em―
bedded that heavily governs observed variability,

rather than such

FIst, as for the ovcrall distribution of thc''tOkens in FC}‑9(Tablc 4),about the halfんα′of the negativcs are used to creatc infollllativc

funclonal'' considcrations as̀̀―inforlnadon― proccssing,which a numbcr of paststudies of wcstcrn languages have strcsscd so(nCutral)types Of footing (60% [157/264]). In

far. Exclusive focus on the highlighting― based
accounts of focal prolrunence does not scenl tocontrast,only ll%(29/264)of thC tOkCns arc

bc productive in thc case of Japancse.One needs

uscd to express direct disagrccmcnt with co―participants, according to the Social Agreement

to pay much closer attcntion to surface― level

Principle(SAP)(Yacgcr― Dror,1997):thc Signsconditioning derived fronl thc language― specificprosodic lnakcup as well.

prcfcrcncc

of disagreelnent are rruni血 zed for the univcrsal

rcgardingagrcelnent inconver―sations.Ъ e remaining tokens display a wide
range of distribudon across various typcs of

2. Interactive parameters
Thus far,wc havc bccome wcll一 inforlncd ofthc mechanism underlying variability in focal
6。

footing.
Varbrul analysis reveals that there arc tan―proIIllnence on the negative ̀̀― んα′,'' especiany

giblc principlcs undcrlying the speakers'behav―

why sornc uttcranccs arc morc likcly to receive

lors in exploiting focal prolllllncncc on negadon:prosodic focus than othcrs, in tcrlll■ 3 of purCly

the speakcr's decision― making proccsscS are Sub―structural conditioning fronl thc prosodic envi―

ject to the interactive mcanings of ncgation atronment.As pointed out earlier,past studics on

cvcry molncnt of use.The participants in casualprosodic focus,which have been donc prcdoIIII―

conversations whose interactional goal is tonantly in laborabry phonology, have criticallymaintain or promotc intcrpcrsonal rapport andTable 4:Distribution of the Tokens and― NAI Pronlinence across FOOting%of― nai Prominence
Footing
Distribution of Tokens
1)Support

300(7/264

71%(5/7

9/264

67%(6/93)Agreement Seeker

10070(26/264

4600(12/26

4)Self― prOtection/Excuses

600(17/264

47%(8/17

5)Self― denlgration

600(16/264

4400(7/16

6)Self― correction

1%(3/264

3300(1/3

11%(29/264

34%(10/29

6000(157/264

25%(39/157

TOTAL%OF― NAI PROMINENC[

330/O(88/264

2)FTA with humor(Teasing)7)FTA8)InfOrmative/Neutral

300〈

‑40‑

Varbrul Weittht

A Variationist Study of Prosodic Focus in NaturJly Occurring lnteractions:the Casc ofthe Negatlvè̀‐ 4α ′'in Hokk」 do Japanesesolidarity appear to resott to focal prominencc as

posed clcmcnts contributc to highlighting theboth positivc― polite and ncgativc― polite paralin―locus of ncgation in the prcccding clausc by theguistic mcssagcs,as shown in such high proba―

prosodic means. It should also be noted thatbilities

postpositton is linked to thc posidond factor

assupport (0.88),

tcaSing(0.82),

agrccmcnt sccker(0.72)for the fOmcr; and in
sclidenigration(0.58)for the lattcr.15)Thcse

discusscd in FG‑2:thc fanhcr the negativc

rcsults provide clnprical cvidence countcr to theprevalent stcrcotype that Japancsc language usc

the morc likely it is to obttlin focal proIIllnencc.

is hcavily oriented to negaave p01itcncss andsodic cnvironlnent for focal pronllnence,and thc

dcfcrcnce to others,Ixllnimizing facc―

spcakcr scems capablc of manipulattng boththrcatcning

―
''
んαノ

is locatcd lloln thc end of the intonation phrase,
Syntactic dislocation creates this favorablc pro―elemcnts of spcech by all mcans. The prcscnt

syntactic and prosodic means of focus in a syner―

rcsults dcmonstrate that though the occurcnces

gistic fashion for intcractive purposes. This isof dircct disagreclnent itsclf are relativcly rarc

On, Of thC incidences of meaningful collabo―
ration bctween syntax and prosody found in thc(in aCCOrd with the SAP),faCe̲thrcats arc nottotally abhored once the participants have toprescnt study.

facc dircct disagreement(FTA:0.47).Alterna―
tivcly, positive― polite norlns of interaction arc

cqually strcssed and hcavily exploitcd as the corc

■ c last interactive paralneter to discuss,
dlough not stadstically significant,also concems
a diffcrent pattcrn of syntax― prosody collabo―

elemcnも for building intcrpcrsonal relations.
Vigorous research on this relatively ncglccted

raion: thc cffects of syntactic pre―aspcct of Japanese linguistic behaviors is vitalfor me futurc dircctton of rcsearch on Japanesc
language usc.

in Tablc 3).Past Studies of syntactic opcrattons

One remaining interactive paramctcr foundHonda, 2002)coIIImOnly stress that Japanese―

to bc statisucally significant concerns the shift ofspecific ways of delivering direct disagrecmcnt
lic in what prccedes the locus of disagreelncnt,
and thcy account for various intcractional func―

sequcncc on

prosodic focus on thc upcolltlng negativcs(FG‑7

in Japanese disagreement (c.g, JOnes, 1990;
Yarnada, 1992; Watanabe, 1993; Nlori, 1999:

linguistic clcmcnts to the pOst― prcdicate position
and its statistically signiicant effects in favor of

focal promincnce(FG‑8 in Tablc 3):postpositions■ ongly favors focal prolninence(0.88)whcrCas
canonical 、
vord ordcr weakly disfavors it(0.43).16)

Ono and Suzuki(1992)arguC hat,in con―trast to thc postposiuon in which a break indons of particular linguisuc featurcs(c.g.,con―necuves, hcdges and intcnsificrs, discoursc
alning)aS the markers of opposition lnovcs,oras thc cues to contcxtualizc such movcs(Gum―pcrz, 1982).A conncctivc such asご ι θ (̀but')fl・(Type 2, discoursc markcrs as the hint: see

intonation contour, or a pause, intervencs bc―

Factor Group[7]in SeCtiOn 5.2),for CXample,istwccn thc predicate and thc postposed elemcnt,
thc postposition cxpressed throughout a single

a typical discoursc marker of opposition(JoneS,

intonation contour without any break cvokcs
emotive overtoncs, cnhances discoursc cohe―1990), WhiCh a1lows thc speaker to cxprcss anintent to disagree in hedgcd, non― transparcnt
ways which a1low the listener to igurc out th誠

siveness with the prcccding context,or strcngth―

intent in dvance(MOH, 1999). A connectivc

cns thc speakcr's stancc to、 vard thc proposition,such as da″ ι (̀becausc')(Type l, discourse

referent,or topic bcing discussed in the prcccd―

markers as the upgradcr),on the Othcr hand,isFttii(1995),though nOt rcfcring

interpreted to rcinforcc the upcollrung disagrec―

ing context.1つ

to intonational characterisucs,also makes a silllu―

ing turn morc overtly as a jusdfication for or aslar gcncralizttion that postposidon fulfills a

an assertion with the speaker's intent to disagree(Ⅳ10ri,highlighting''function of the propositional con―1999) As for sentencc― lcvel pre―tent of the preceding clausc. Thc patterns ofvariability in focal promincncc dctcctcd hcre

actions,thc claborated systcm of̀̀facc work"isprcciscly reprcscnt these charactcristicsi post̲

conlmonly found to involvc cxtcnsive uses ofsequcnccs to disagreeing turns in Japanese inter―‑41‑

特集「音声 のバ リエー ションJ

mitigators(Typc 4), often dOng with contra―
dicting rcmarks to the upco面 ng disagrccingturns(Typc 5)(Wttanabe,1993;Honda,2002)
ne present rcsults sho、 v that the usc ofOvert Negttion[SON]0.64).18)FurthcllllorC,tllediscoursc markers as thc prc― scqucncc gcncrally
cxert stronger effects favoring focal pron■ inence
than thc scntcntial alternatives particulttly in theprc― scqucnccs cxCrtS Consistent effccts favoring

面 dgating types(DM Hint O.77 vs.SA Hint'',but docs so to quite
focal prOIIunence oǹ̀‑4α ′O.51).ConSequcntly,thc discoursc markers thatserve to prcfacc the upcoming negat市 es(iC.,varying degrces depending on thc intcractional
types of pre― sequcnccs in a discourse. Given 5
diffcrcnt typcs Of pre― sequenccs (SCC Factor

Typc 2)arc fOund to yield the stongest cffccts in
ねvor of focd prollllncnce(0.77).

Group [7]in SeCtiOn 5.2), thcrC SCCms to be a

The prcscnt analysis of potential interaction

general trcnd that thc ̀̀prefacing"typcs of prc̲sequcnccs,which provide a hint for thc ncgative

bctwcen these syntactic dcviccs and thc prosodic
parameter secms to providc a nc、 v perspective onon thc way, are more likely to co― occur With

interactional

prosodic focus(Discoursc Markcr[DM]Hint

agreement ―― thc one which would not bc at―

0 77 and Scntentialッヘccount[SA]0.56)than thetained by thc traditional fralne、 vork of analysis

upgrading" types which assert the upcolning

dcpendent on synは tic manipulations alonc.

negativcs(DM Upgrader O.51 and Sentcntial

Though they still nced a statistical confirma●、
vork colFllnon to Japanese dis―丁abie 5:Hierarchy Of COnstralnts on Focal Prominence on the Negative―
WeightPromoting Factors
09

NAl

Inhibiting Factors

Footingi Support/
POstpOsition

Footing:FTA with Humor(Teasing)08
Absence of Preceding Accented Phrase

07

Footing:Agree
Footingi Self― Protection

Long Distance06
Footingi Self― denigration

Accented― NAI‐

Footingi Self― Correction

Footing:FTA
Canonical Word Order(NO POstpOsition)

FoOting:Informatlve

Presence of Preceding Accented Phrase/
Short DistanceUnaccented― NAI

‑42 ‑

on,

A Vaiationist Study of PrOsOdic Focus in Naturally Occurrlng lnteractions''in Hokkaido Japanese
the Case ofthe Negativè̀‐ ″α′

the prcscnt results indicatc that syntactic prc̲sequcnces and prosodic focus on the locus Of
ncgation dO nOt neccssarily movc hand― in̲hand7。

ConclusiOnin the identical direction of il10cutionary force,ln the frame、 vork of variation theory, theprcsent study has attcmptcd to account for sys―

but appcar to cOnaborate in à̀cOmplemcntary''

tematic variability in Japanese fOcal pro面 nence

fashion to each othcr:prOsOdic focus is likely toobservcd in natural speech.Ъ c analysis Of rela―bc exploited 、vhen the speaker's intent to dis̲

tive effectiveness arnong the varicty of inter―
secting cOnstraints siinultaneously affecting thc

agrce is syntactically lrlltigated (or implicd)
through syntactic prcね ces(ie.,hints),WhCreas it

phenomena has empirically provcd mat thc lan―is likely is to be avoided when upco面 ng dis̲

guagc― specinc̀̀structure― based"accOunts should

agreeing turns ttc alrcady asserted through syn̲

contribute to the follllation of a more legitirnate

tactic upgradcrs.■ e rcsults also suggest that thethcory than the universalistic

prosodic parameter shares tighter rclations

qulre further cxanhnatlon with more hctero―based'' accounts in the case of Japancse focal
pronlincnce.The infomat10nal propcrties Of theelemcnt in focus in the flow of discOursc arefound tO play a relatively IIllnor rolc as the

geneous sets of data.In particular,it remains an

constraint.

、vith
the usc Of discourse markcrs than with sentential
operatiOns. All thesc Obscrvations certainly rc¨unsolved questiOn at this point whether thcse

highlighting―

FurthelHlore,the rcsults have also revcaled

patterns of syntax― prosody interplays arc a uni―that prosOdic variation is subiect tO rather

versal or culturc/1anguage― spccinc variable.

To conclude this sectiOn, Tablc 5 prcscnts

rnechanical''structural p五 nciples of prosody ofthe language(espCCially in disfavoring effccts)

the surllllnary Of constraints on variability in focal

lhis suggcsts that interac● onal perspectives

prolninence with the」 apanese ncgativeκαJ."

ancse focal prominencc consists of thc hierarchy

alonc,on which a grett rr.ttority of pHor prag―
matics studics have focused as the driving force,should not necessarily succced in accounting forof relative effectivencss among the meaningful

the whole picture ofthc phenomenon

constraints A varicty of cOmbinations of the

The present study has alsO attemptcd to flH
the critical gap in the design Of prior rcscarchSociolinguistic granlnlar of variation in Jap―

intcrsecting cOnstraints silnultaneously affect the
speaker's decision in the use or non―use of focal

pro血 ncnce. Based On variablc granllllars, 、
vc

that ncglccts highly interactive aspects of pros―
ody in natural face― to― face exchangcs Based on

can predict whether thc negative will reccive

a sociolinguisuc hypOthcsis that using negation is

focal pro血 nence Or notin a given utterance,and

inhercntly face― thrcatening in interpersonal com―

explain why Observed variability has been ob̲munication, the rcsults havc demonstratcd thatvariability in focal prolninence is constraincd

tained A m■ ority of relat市 ely powerflll con―straints in favor of fOcal prolninencc are linked

systematicaHy by a variety of interactiOnal rnean―

to the interactivc parameters,、 vhereas influential

ings ncgOtiatcd bctween he co̲participants atconstraints to inhibit focal prolrllnence are

every moment of talk― in― interaction.In addition,

derived prilnarily fronl the structural principles

the signiicancc of syntax̲prosOdy conaboradon

ofprosody speciic to thc Japancse language.

has been detccted as po、verful constraints infavor of fOcal pro血 nence. lhis issuc, however,remains suttect tO furthcr invcslgation.

‑43‑

特集 「音声 のバ リエーシ ョンJbelong tO this category havc been cxcludcd fromNotes

analysis.

l)I am Very gratcful tO Malcah Yacger― Dror for hcr

9)ThC authOr is a native speakcr of the Hokkaido

insightful conllncnts and cncOuragement l also
thank Matsuo Yuki and Kaori Matsuka、 va for thcir

dialcct, bOrn and raiscd in the southcrn part ofassistancc on data collcctiOn and transcriptions

based on my own intuitions as a nativc speaker ofThis rcsearch projcct has bccn supported by
MEXT's Grant― in― Aid for Scientiic Rescarch(C)No.13610665、
vas

the dialcct.

10) The scOpe of analysis of prc― sequencc cxtends
bcyond the lntonatlon phrase,which is the baslc unlt

2)̀̀SoCi01inguistic grammar'' is cquivalent to a
pcrformance grammar involving structured, rule―govcrned variability in language use lt is covariate、
vith a compositc of linguistic/discoursal constraints
and extra― linguistic factors(Ccdergren and SankOff,

1974)3)It shOuld be notcd that thcrc is a study focusing
on information strtlcture at the sentence lcvcl

Equating focal prominence with such a paralin―
guistic dilnension as the spcakcr's ̀̀focus of ap―
peals''(

HokkaidO. メ
ヽnalysis Of this particular aspectof analysis discusscd in Section 5 1.

11)A similar program to thisis ANOVA Algorithms
for calculating ANOVA,ho、 vevcr,normally rcquirebalanced numbcrs of tokens in cach ccll, 、
vhich
would be possible only 、vith data from controlled
cxpcrimentation(Young & Baylcy, 1996) There―
forc,VARBRUL is the only altcrnative to succcss―

fully handle thc cxtremely skcwed

naturc ofsociolinguistic data from naturally occurring spcech(scc Young&Baylcy 1 996 for further discussion on″′′
α′たα々ικοs力 οο′θん''),Koori(1997b:140)

argues that focal promincncc is likcly to bc placed

the validity and implemcntation of VARBRUL for
soclolinguistic rcsearch).

on thc word 、
vhich carrics signiflcant informatiOn12)Algorithms for VARBRUL do not a1low for any

rclativc to thc othcrs in a scntcnce

interaction among the indepcndcnt factors There―

4) BrOad transcriptions arc based on Sacks ct alfOre,I cOnductcd several Goldvarb runs so as not to(1974)system with sOme additions Mttor symb。 ls
include:[](SpeeCh OVCrlap);Underlining(Empha―

include the factors that appear tO interact with each

SiS);Underlining and CAPS(morC emphasis);(.)

FG‑2 and FG‑5,FG‑2 and FG‑8, and FG‑6 andFG‑7(ShOrt intcrval);(2.0)(tilned intcrval);::(draヽ

Vling);?(ftlll raise):periOd(fall t0 10W);cOmma(fall nOt

to low);/ /(S10W tempo);@(laughtcr);く@ @>(laugh quality) !(appcal); X (indcCiphcrablc syl―othcr in a single run.Those factors are Factor GrOup

13)This flgure rcprcscnts the worst(ie, highcst)
chi― squarc

pcr cell valuc Of all the(3oldvarb runs

14)Seven Out Of 264 tokens(3%)inv01VC a vi01ation

lable)of lexically assigned acccntual patterns l suggest a5)Thc f0110Wing spcciflc typcs of uttcrances wcrc
excludcd from analysis: frozcn/idiomatic exprcs―

possibility that this violation may be idiolectal sincc

sions(cg,― S̀ζ αr

Oι ″α7, ‑4α たι″′みα ″αrα ″α′たα―, ―″οs力 J′ ι′αι,CtC.),contractcd forms(eg,― καたι″わα→ んαり α),archaic forins(eg,ッ ο α″
L々 οてし etc),
interrogativc tltterances (Cg, κοれα″αι40?) andimperatives(cg,メ ″ακα′グ̀)6) The grammatical status of thc Japanese ncgative
rfα ′is t、 vofoldi l)thc auxiliary vcrb sufflxed to
vcrbs and other auxlliaries:2)thc negative adJcctivc

which predicatcs nouns,othcr adJcct市 es,attcCt市 aluns,and nominalized Phrascs,Oftenヽ vith postpo―

no‐sitional particlcs(ll α,グ ι,グ ι″α)intervened(Nihon―

go Kyouiku Gakkai, 1993)Most unaccentcd̀̀‑4α j'''' is suffixcd tO
tokcns tcnd to occur when ̀̀― ″α′acccnted verbs.
7)It might be possiblc tO regard thc initial portion
ο′rι たJ κJ jι 'わ α)as an indepcndcnt IP Ho、 vever,(た'力
I dccided
to absorb it into the single IP duc to thespcaker's fast, continuOus enunciation of thc entire

6 ofthc 7 tokens arc uscd prcdominantly by Speakcr

A who talks with hcr closc friend, Spcaker B
Coincidentally, Speakcr A is a spcaker、

vho grcatly

dcviates fro■ l the group 、vith hcr strikingly higher'' promincncc (56%)tllan thepercentagc of ̀̀‑72α ′average of the rcmaining speakcrs(26%)15) Thc relatively high prObability for thc ̀̀self―
protcctiOn''footing(069147%,8/17])is largcly due
to thc speaker's cmotional responscs(oftCn alongwith humor and jokcs)to the intcrlocutor's chal―lcnge regarding pcrsOnal topics(cg, fOrmer boy―fricnd,Inakeup,job hunting,etc)
16) For cxamplc, in an utterancc
ルイ α たο′ο んα ッ0̀sο rtκ α ″ο (̀1'VC never seen such a thing'), Sο ″′α″ο (̀Such a thing')is rcVCaled after tlle predicate
which contains thc negative ̀̀― ″α′" The canonicalword order should be Sο κκαれο (″ α)れ αたο′
οれαッοin、vhich sο れzα 720 iS a topic17) Needless to say, pOstposed clcments analyzcd in
j′

J

'′

IP as a single breath chunkthe present study bclong to this latter type,since thc8) Consequently,a vcry small number of tokcns that

intonation phrasc as thc domain Of analysis is bascd‑44‑

A Vanatonist Study of Prosodic Focus in Natrdly OcculTulg lnteractions:the Case ofthe Negaivè̀‑77α j''in HOkk″ddo Japanese

strictly on a single intonation contour(but regard―shin ni(On thC reversal of word Ordcr in Japanesc:

lcss of thc prcsence or absence of a pause in Japa―

focusing on information flow in conversation).'' In

ncsc ToBI).
18)The prObability wcight O.64 for sentcntial prc―
scqucnces as overt ncgatiOn is thc sOle dcviation

K.Takami(cd.)Ⅳ ピ
ι力̀′nesc and English: Its structure and functions).(pp167‑198)TokyO:Hituii SyObO
Fttisaki,H.,K.Hirose,N Tak」 lashi and M Yokoo

from this gcncral pattcrn.

(1984) Rcnzoku onsei chuu no akusento seibun no
jitsugen(Rcalization of accent componcnts in cOn‐

References

ncctcd speech),"Ⅳ Jλ ο4 0″ りοοGα ttα J O″ s′ ′κ′″滋 JS力 jヮ οο84:36,279‑286.
リタン‐
Goffman,E(1981)Fο ″ sげ %た OXford:Black‐

Azuma,J.(1992a)̀̀Fo no shisatsu to chOokaku inshoo

ni motozuku nihongo intOnccshon hyooki no ka‐■00SCi ni tSuitc (ObSCrvation of Fo and possible

wcll.

Grosz,B,&C.Sidner(1986)̀̀Attendon,intention,

descriptions Of Japanesc intonation based on audi―

tory percepJon).'' In .M. Sugitoo (Cd.) A′ Jみ ο″gοスた sι ″ゎ ゎ れゎ″′ιs力 ο″ (pp.89‑97)――――――― (1992b) NihongO no inritsu taikci(ProSOdiC

systcms of Japancsc)"P″ ε′ ″gsグ L″ r″ α′
′
ο
4α ′
5ッ

′οSj″

̀″

ο″J￠ ′α″ιs̀Prο sο ィ
ソpp 53‑61‑― ――― (1993)ル ″JなOdy)HimcJi:Kenmci JOshi CJ(uin Tanki Daigaku.
ο″οJ―。gッ y′ αrみ οοた3:255‑309
Bcckman,M.,そ %J.Pierrchumbert(1986).̀̀IntOnation
structurc in Japanese and English,''P力 ο4ο Jο gy yι αr―ιοοた3:255‑309.

Bcckman,M,J Hirschbcrg, & S Shattuck― Hufnagel(tO appcar)̀̀The original ToBI system and theevolution of the ToBI framework" In S― A Jun―′οκ αれグ ッpο ′οgy:A C7″ ′(ed)P″ οsο ′Jε r ″sε ″″′̀力「(pp.1‑29).OxfOrd:Univcrsity Prcss.

Bcsnier, N.(1992)̀̀Rcported spccch and affcct on
Nukulaelac Atoll.''In J.H.Hill&J.T Irvinc(edS)R̀ψ ο′SJら ′′′κ″Eツ カグ ειJ″ 0″α′DJscο
4ソ α

′
α′
′
οれα′LJ″ g ′s′ J̀s12,175‑204

Gumperz, 」.J(1982)Dお

rsι

̀″

ッパ
̀ο

̀ S′

脇″g″ュ Catn―bridge:Calnbridgc University Prcss.

AkuscntO tO hoogen(Acccnts anddialccts)''κοし gο καgα た κοοそα VII.TOkyo:Meli

Shoin.

IntOna―tional structurc in Japancsc and English,'' P力′A′ ′″αand the structure of discOursc,''Jο ″′″αJ gF σο4′ ″̲

HattOri,S.(1933)″ο κι″り ″ (A study of pros―

Bcckman,M.,&J.Picrrehumbcrt(1986).

fZ′gο ″ο υみοοrd。 。KOο ら ″「J―Sο んο KOο そοο ′O Kt″ οο (Right dislocatiOn in Japa―

Hinds, J.(1982)EJJ″ S'S れ J￠ ′α″

Edmonton,̀S̀・Albcrta:Linguistic Rescarch.
Hirschberg,J (1990)̀̀Acccnt and discourse context:

Assigning pitch accent in synthctic speech: The
given/new distinction and dcaccentability.'' Prο ‐ει J4gsげ ′λⅣα″ο″α′Cο ヾαι″ειO″ Arr′ cttJ
̀グ
̀̀F力
′
″″ jg̀4ε ′。(pp. 952‑57)Cambridgc, MA: MIT
J′

Press

Hirst, D & A.Di CHsto(eds)(1998)ル

public affairs talk shOws,"Jο ′ α′(pp.

161‑181).Cambridgc:Univcrsity Press.

′
ο″arrο ″si A S″ rッ ′ッ q′ rシ ッ′れ″ 二α″gク αg′ s. Dor‐drccht:Kluwcr.
Honda,A (2002) ConfliCt managcment in Japanese
Sysた

P

g″ α′
J̀S

̀√

34,573‑608.

Jones,K。 (1990)Cο ″7た ′jん J̀′ α″
Cο ″ッιrsα ′Jο ″̀s′Ph.D.Dissertation University of Michigan.
Kawakami,S.(1957)̀̀Tokyo‐ gO no takuritsu kyoo‐.

Brown, G(1983)̀̀PrOSodic structurc and the giv‐

en/ncw distinction。 ''In

A Cutler&D.R.Ladd
rS(pp

′ι
′
S α
″
グ″ι
α
s ″
(edS.)P″ sο ι「 νοウ
67‑77)Hcidelberg:Springer

̀れBrown, P., & S Levinson(1987)Pο ′Jた ″′SSI SÒ/″ jッ ιこrsα ′s′ ″ Lα 偲 ″αg̀1/Sα gι . Cambridgc:Cam―bridgc University Prcss

Oじ dcrgrcn,H.J,&D.Sankoff(1974)̀̀Variable rulcs:

Kindaichi,H.(1951)̀̀Kotoba no scnritsu(Melodies Of

tcncc,''Lα ″gン αg̀50,333‑55.

Japancsc).'' In

Coupcr‐ Kuhlcn,E,&M.Sclting(cds.)(1996)Prοs―

Aた クs′ ″̀̀Prosody in the comprchension of spOken language:

FuJ五 ,Y (1995)

ⅣJ力 οれgο θ″―J″れο κ

78‑110)TOkyo:Tokyo― do.

̀κり ″ク.(ppKindaichi,H.,&Akinaga,K(1981)ν ′′
たα′Ⅳ′
Йο″gο

οの J″ Cο れツιrsα ′′οκ.Cambridgc:University Prcss

Cutler,A.,D.Dahan,&W.van Donselaar(1997)

141‑201.

sono tckiyoo han'1(IntCnsity― emphasis and its range

of applicadOn),"Oκ s̀′ κ夕
κリ ク″6,61‑76

Pcrfomance as a statistical rcflection of cOmpc―

A litcrature review,''Lα ″
g α
g′ α
れグ 5′

choo n0 0nchoo(TOnes Of cmphatic prominencc in
Tokyo Japanese),''κ οたクgο Kι れたν 6, 21‑31, Ko―
kugakuin University.
――――――― (1965) Kyoochoo ni yoru gokei hakai to

εた40:2,
̀ι

Nihongo no g● un nO gyakuten ni

tsutitc:kaiwa no naka no j00hoo no nagare o chuu―‑45‑ικ (A Dictionary of Japanesc Accents)"JルTokyo:SanscldO.

Koori,S.(1989a)̀̀Fookasu jitsugen ni Okcru onsei notsuyosa, jizoku jikan, Fo no yakuwari(Intensity,
duration,the rolc of Fo in Focus),"θ ″∫ιJ Cι ″gο 3,

29‑38.

特集 「音声 のバ リエー ション」――――――― (1989b)̀̀Kyoochoo to intonceshon(Ernpha―sis and intonation)'' In M

Sugitoo (ed)Kο οぇ″た″ VOJ 77(pp 316‑342)
οJV′ 77ο 71gο Kyο ο′Ⅳj力 ο71gο ′Tokyo:Melji Shoin――――― (1997b)

nitencss,and information status"In W C Mann&S A Thompson(edS)DiSε ο″rs′ D′ sε 7″ ′ブ0″Dル ′rs̀″ ″g″ お″ε α″α″s̀sげ α ル ″ど ″αおれgr′ ″(pp 295‑325)PhiladeIPhial John Belllamins

ToO」 i nO murayama― shushoo'' noRand,D,&D Sanko″ ,D(1990)Gο ′〃να″b yι ″ ο″s′flltatsu no imi to l‐ tltatsu no yomi(Two meanings｀ οj″ ′
οs/1εα′Jο 71カ ″ ′力θ ノι′ι α′′′′
2: A να 4わ ′ ″ιand t、 vo rcadings of ̀̀the thcn Prime

Vlontrcali Univcrsitc dc Montreal/′

ヽ4inistcr

Ⅳiurayama'')''In Onsci Bunpoo Kenkyuu― kai(ed)οθ71s̀J(pp 123‑146)TokyO:Kurosio
β 71pο ο′
Kubozono,H(1989) Syntactic and rhythmic eflccts

Sacks,H,E A Schcgloff&G Jcffcrson(1974)̀.A
siinplest systematics for thc organization of turn―c‐bridgc:Cambridgc Univcrsity Prcss
Mackawa, K (1994) Is thCre ̀dephrasing' of the‐―′ び″iν ′′acccntual phrasc in Japanese?" θ οSrα ′/1′′
力′ ιj″ ―′csル ο
たJ4g Pα ρ′rs j″ ムf4g お′
ツ 7ο ″￢ 44,146‑65

̀αtaking for conversation,''Lα ″g″ lgご 514,696‑735

οgy 6: 1,39‑67
On downstep in Japanese,''Pた ο″ο′
Ladd, R D (1996)′ ″rο 77α ノjO″ α′ P力 0″ ο′οg}Cam―

Sj′̀

gFr,s̀′ ιs Lα わο′αrο ′ザStatiStics in linguistics''In E′ εッー

Sankoff,D (1985)′
s′ rc α′Sで た71ε ιs (pp 74‐ 81)Ncwε′ο″ι′:α のFS′ α′
York:ヽ Viley(1986)̀̀Variable rules''In U Ammon etalど′
llα rJ077α ′/1α 4ど わοοたο′:れ g″ JsrJσ s: Aれ j″ ′― (edS)Sο ε′
g
gι
″
ノ
sο
ε
″
BcHin&
′
α
″
α
α
rた
,Cた
れ
C′
げ
げ
〜
New York:dc Grtlyter

ι771̀れ ′αれグ D'Sσ g″ ′ι――――――― (1988)'̀SoCiOlinguistics and syntactic varia―′
νι′″P′ ιssJθ れSα ″′ ″4
ρα″′sι εο72″ ιθ′JO″ Philadelphia:」 ohn Belllalrtins
ι077SFr″ ε′
Nihongo Kyouiku Gakkai (cd)(1993),Vブ みο″gο κv―tion"In F J Newmeycr(cd)LJ″ g″ お″ε,1 771′

Mori,J(1999)Nagο ″α771′ 77′

̀171g Agr′

j77 Jαrι′ ′ (pp 140‑61)Cambridge:Cambridgc Univer―̀χ

̀77(An Encyclopcdia of thc Tcaching of̀たJapanese)TOkyol
Taishuukan

Nootcboom,S G,&J G Kruyt(1987)

Schegloff,E,G Jcffcrson,G&H Sacks(1977)

Accents,

focus distribution, and the perceivcd distribution of
given and nc、 v information: プ
ヽn cxpcriment,'' Jο ″r―′″ げ A″″α′ イ ′ル ACο ″s″ εSο ε′̀河εα 82‑15,

1155‑71

̀りげ(1982)̀̀Osaka hOogcn ni okcru kyoochoo

Linguistic

4711′ ″たα

Picrrchumbert,J and M Beckman(1988),製

74,

α″′S′

″ κοたクみ ″―οο′gα たlr 19,55‑63
‑― ―
――――

modality effccts on fundamental frcqucncy,'' 」ο″r―
α′ Sο
s″ ο

/′

Of cmphasis in Osaka dialect),'' Sたability in Japanese convcrsation: Motivations andgrammaticization,"r′ .′ 12,3,429‑445′ A Cο

(1980)ハ 力ο″gο ″ο Gο 71gο gα たl1 2 071',77 TOkyO:

no onkyoo― teki tokuchoo (Acoustic charactcristics

ヽVord Ordcr vari―

0'Shaughncssy,D,J &Allcn,J(1983)

Shibata, T, H Kitamura, & H Kindaichi(cdS)

Sugitoo,MTokyo:National Languagc Rcsearch lnstitutc

Ono, T, & R Suzukt, R (1992)'̀Prcference for sclf― correction in thc organization of

rcpair in convcrsation,''ι α77g″ αgθ 53,361‑82

Talshtlukan

12‑24
0ishi, H (1959)̀'Purominensu ni tsuite(On prOmi
ncncc)'' In κο′οbα rlο κ′77た ッlrlr (pp 87‑102)r力ル″α′Cο ″‐
̀″sity Press′
ο″ rl ノ′″α′ げοεα777わ rア グg′ S″ rν ′y,vo1 4:7み ′ Sο ε′(1985)

Nihongo to eigo ni okcru 'shin―

J00h00' nO hatsu、 va no onkyoo― teki tokuchoo(Theacoustic characteristics of ne、 v information in」 apa―

ncse and English),"Oπ S′ ′″ο&′ り ″21,335‑348‑―――――― (1986)

̀̀Akusento no toraekata (Ways ofunderstanding acccnts)'' In S Hayashi(ed)OJο ο
G′ ″gο ―gα た″κοοてα Vol II Tokyo:Meili ShOin″″′ Cambridge,N4ass:MIT Press
ο″ιSrr″ ε′Takano, S (2001)'INiho■ in nO gengo koushou ni

Pomerantz,A(1984)'̀Agrccing and disagrccing withokcru tairitsu iken kyoumei no inritsu modaritii:『

iSutaa kcnkyuu no shiten kara(Exploring pro―sodic modality in Japanese disagrccmcnt froni aassessmcntsi some features of prcferred/disprcfcrrcd

re」

turn shapcs"In J M Atkinson&J Heritagc(cdS)α′Aε rJο 77,S′ ″″メ′s′ ″ Cοsげ SOε ′Srr″ ε
′
″″
ι

′

77ν

̀rsar7ο

Aれ α′ysis (pp 152‑163) Cambridgei Cambridgc

perspcctivc of register),''〃 οた″S′ ′R′ νj′ w38,13‑31

Terkcn, J (1997)

Variation of accent promincnce、
vithin thc phrasel Modcls and spontancous speech

Univcrsity Press
Lα 4‐
Prcston, D (1989)Sο ε′ο′れglrJs̀′ ιs a77″ Sὶ071ノg″ αg′ 4ε 9 Isル ′οll Ncw York:Basil Blackwcll

data"In Y Sagisaka,N Campbcll&N Higuchi――――――― (1991)̀̀SOrting out the variablcs in sociolin―

York:Springer― Vcrlag

guistic thcory,"A″Jὲ″

力66,33‑56

α4 SP′(CdS)ε ο777′ ′r7″ g P″ οsο の(pp 95‑116) Ncw

The J̲ToBI model of Japa―
ncse intonation"In S A Jun(cd̲)Prο Sο ′た: rra71̲

Vcnditti, J (to appCar)

Princc,E (1981) ToWard a taxonomy of givcn― newinformation,''In P Colc(cd)Rα ′jε αI P g αrJε s̀c‐οgyrス υ ′dTッ ρο′Sε ″″″οれ αれ̀どAρ Prο αc力(pp126)Oxford:OXford Univcrsity Press(pp 223‑56)New York:Academic Prcss――――― (1992)̀̀ThC ZPG letteri SubJects, defi―‑46‑

Wada, NII (1975) ̀̀Akuscnto, intoneeshon, puromi―

A Van・a■ onist Study of Prosodic Focus in Naturally Occurring lnteractionsi
the Case ofthe Negativè̀‑7tα J''in 1lokkttdo Japanese

ncnsu(Acccnts,intonation,prominencc)."In Ⅳjみ οれ―
gο

力ο4gο
′
ο Ⅳ′

″αお′ο″ ″ッοοgι ″ ″ ・K″ ο ―
̀″Jた(pp 53‑86). TokyO: National Language Rcsearchlnstitutc.

Watanabe,S.(1993)̀̀Cultural diffcrcnccs in framing:

Amcrican and Japancsc group discussions'' In D
Tannen(ed)Fra J4gJれ Dお οο な′ (pp 176‑209).

77′

εα′
Jο ″ 19,39‑60.
(1997)

ヽ4 1 Herzog (1968)

Contraction of ncgativcs as cvidence― of variancc in registcr― speciflc intcractive roles,''jο んαLα ″g αg′ VarJα ′κ′Chα ″g′ 9: 1,1‑36.
――――――― (2002a)̀̀Register and prosodic variation, across language compaHson,"カ ン α′げ P″ gれ αrjcs

34(10‑11):1495=1536‑――
一――― (2002b)

Oxford:Oxford University Press

Wcinrcich, U, W Labov &CO′Z777

IntrOduction to the Special lssue,"j̀s34(10‐ H):1333‑1343.
α′″α″グ″ιsι β″sJκ
="α
̀α
̀ss
ε′
Jο α
J S″ Jι S
DJsε ο rsι f A CO ′α′′sο れ げ ルた
あ ッ α′げ Prag

Yamada,H(1992)ス 722̀ガ̀̀Ernpirical foundations for a thcory of languagechangc"Inヽ V P Lchmann&Y Malkicl(cdS)
D′ ″
′ε′
′
ο″sル ″″,srο ″たα′Lj″ g′ ,s′ ′εs(pp.95‑195)

Nor、 vood,NJ:Ablcx

Young,R,&R.Baylcy(1996)

Austin,Tcxas:Univcrsity of Tcxas Prcss.

Yaeger̲Dror,M.(1985)̀̀IntOnational promincncc On
Й 28,
ncgativcs in English," Lα れgrragι α グ β′′ιε197‑230VARBRUL analysis

for second languagc acquisition rcsearch" In R

Bayley & D.R Prcston (edS.)S̀̀ο ″グ Lα ″gtragι
fα rJο れ (pp.253‑306)
Aο 9ン ,s,r′ ο″α″グLJπ g〃 Js′ Jε Vα ′‑― ――――― (1996)̀̀Register as a variable in prosodic

Philadclphia:」 ohn BellJaminS・′εカ
analysis:Thc case of tllc English negativc,''s′ ι‑47‑