Japanese downstep revisited

Ishihara, Shinichiro

doi:10.1007/s11049-015-9322-8

Japanese downstep revisited

Published: 25 February 2016

Volume 34, pages 1389–1443, (2016)
Cite this article

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Shinichiro Ishihara¹

694 Accesses
12 Citations
Explore all metrics

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a production experiment in which downstep in Tokyo Japanese was re-examined. There are three major assumptions that have been widely adopted in the literature: (1) the Major Phrase (MaP) is the domain of downstep; (2) a syntactic boundary blocks downstep, as a result of the insertion of a MaP boundary; and (3) focus blocks downstep, as a result of the insertion of a MaP (left) boundary. The results of the experiment raise questions about these basic assumptions, and call for new theoretical explanations of the data. There are two major findings in the results: (i) no complete register resetting by focus of a syntactic boundary, and (ii) phonetic differences between the effect of focus and that of syntactic boundary. The first finding raises questions as to whether Assumptions 1 and 2 should be maintained, and if so, how they should be modified to capture the results. Recursive prosodic phrasing along the lines of Itô and Mester (2007, 2012, 2013) is adopted to account for the incomplete resetting. The second finding particularly casts doubt on Assumption 3, because the focus effect lacks some of the properties of the boundary effect. The difference between focus and boundary needs to be explained by assuming that the focus effect is independent of MaP-phrasing, as proposed in Ishihara (2011b).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Syntactic and prosodic scrambling in Japanese

Article 15 July 2014

Brian Agbayani, Chris Golston & Toru Ishii

Reconsidering multiple scrambling in Japanese

Article 08 August 2022

Akihiko Arano

Prosodically Constrained Localizers in Classical and Modern Chinese

Notes

Throughout this paper, the discussion is based on the Tokyo dialect.
The MaP is also called the intermediate phrase by other researchers (Pierrehumbert and Beckman 1988). These two terms can be considered alternative labels of the same prosodic category, in the sense that both terms are used in contrast with another lower-level prosodic category, the Minor Phrase (MiP) and the accentual phrase, respectively. More recently, however, Itô and Mester (2007, 2012, 2013) have claimed that these two levels (MaP/MiP, or intermediate/accentual phrase) can be subsumed under a single category, phonological phrase (PPhrase). In this paper, we will use “MaP/MiP”, but will come back to the terminology issue in Sect. 5.1.
“H*+L” is the standard annotation of this falling pitch accent in the ToBI transcription system for Japanese (Maekawa et al. 2002; Venditti 2005; Igarashi et al. 2006; Venditti et al. 2008).
But see fn. 27 for a potential methodological limitation of the paradigmatic approach.
See Ishihara (2015) for more discussion on the syntagmatic and paradigmatic approaches and related issues.
This line of analysis has been widely accepted in the Optimality Theoretic (Prince and Smolensky 1993) accounts as one of the Align constraints (Selkirk 1996; Truckenbrodt 1995, 1999, 2007a):
1. (i)
That many of the alleged effects of syntactic branchingness can be attributed to the prosodic binarity constraints (Kusumoto 1998) is irrelevant here. The crucial point is that non-branching XPs can be ignored in the syntax–prosody mapping.
In this paper, the following definition of focus from Krifka (2008:247) will be adopted, which captures the central idea of the alternative semantics theory of focus (Rooth 1985, 1992).
1. (i)
  Focus indicates the presence of alternatives that are relevant for the interpretation of linguistic expressions.
This means that only those elements that trigger a set of alternatives in the relevant discourse are taken to be foci. Discourse-new material (i.e., what has also been called informational/presentational focus, É. Kiss 1998; Selkirk 2002) does not qualify as being focused. See Sugahara (2003), Selkirk (2008), Katz and Selkirk (2011), among others, for relevant discussion. In the experiment presented in this paper, all the sentences are produced in an all-new context. The assumption is that there is no given element in the sentence.
This term was originally called “post-FOCUS reduction” by Sugahara (2003), where “FOCUS” denotes the type of focus defined in fn. 8 (so-called contrastive focus).
Fukuoka dialect, however, is known to exhibit a special intonational pattern in wh-questions that is different from focus prosody (Hayata 1985; Kubo 1989; Hwang 2011; Smith 2013).
It should be noted that the pitch contour in Fig. 4 shows just one of the possible realizations of focal F₀-rise and post-focal reduction. For more illustrations of variants of focus prosody, see Ishihara (2011a, 2015).
Note that Kubozono’s (2007) data also raise a question regarding Assumption 2 in (4), because the wh-phrase in sentences like (11) are located at a syntactic left boundary, where downstep is expected to be canceled according to the syntax–prosody mapping. Since the wh-phrase exhibits the downstep effect, Kubozono (2007) concludes that there is no MaP-boundary to its left.
Originally, six stimuli sets were used in the experiment and recorded, but one set was removed for analysis because it contained one accented word in the [−Accent] conditions.
Although there are small F₀-rises from min1 to max of N2 and N3, they are presumably an artifact of the measurement method: since the minimum and the maximum values were measured in every sample, some amount of difference was observed in the results in most of the measurements.
The difference between the [−Focus] conditions (between the two solid lines) is much greater in magnitude compared to the one between [+Focus] conditions (between the two dashed lines). Whether speakers would be sensitive to this difference remains to be examined in future research.
There is only one subject who showed a very weak focus effect (KY). Her data is the only data in which the [+Accent, +Focus] condition is realized lower than the baseline condition, i.e., [−Accent, −Focus]. That is, the downstep effect is stronger than the F₀-rise (reset) caused by focus.
See Sect. 5.2.2 for an alternative interpretation of the results suggested by an anonymous reviewer, and the counterarguments to it.
The existence of the intonational phrase (in addition to the MaP) in the prosodic hierarchy of Japanese has been under discussion in the literature. Pierrehumbert and Beckman (1988) as well as the proponents of the ToBI transcription system (Maekawa et al. 2002; Venditti 2005; Igarashi et al. 2006; Venditti et al. 2008; Igarashi 2015) assume a single category, while some researchers (Kawahara and Shinya 2008; Itô and Mester 2012; Selkirk 2009, 2011) argue for two categories. See Ishihara (2015) for an overview.
“Two levels” here does not mean that downstep takes place not more than twice within each domain. When there are three pitch accented words within a single MaP, within-MaP downstep applies twice, from the first accent to the second, and then from the second one to the third. The same applies to across-MaP downstep.
See also Selkirk (1996), Truckenbrodt (1995, 1999), among others, for theoretical analyses of prosodic recursion.
The lowest level of the phonological phrase corresponds to what has been called the MiP. Within this level, the effect of downstep is vacuous, because each MiP contains at most one pitch accent, and register resetting is expected at the end of the same phrase. Therefore this level is irrelevant for the current discussion. See Itô and Mester (2012) for discussion.
See also Ishihara (2007) for a syntax-prosody mapping mechanism for Japanese that is based on the notion of phase and Multiple Spell-Out in the Minimalist framework (Chomsky 2000, 2001). Ishihara (2007) proposes that the Spell-Out domain of each phase is mapped on to prosody as a MaP in Japanese. The phrase-based model is also compatible with the recursive prosodic structure, as phases are syntactic objects that are intrinsically recursive.
1. (i)
  MaP = MSO Hypothesis (Ishihara 2007:144)
  
  Spell-Out domains are mapped onto prosody as MaPs.
Nonrecursivity has been formulated in different ways by different researchers, for example, by Selkirk (1996) and Truckenbrodt (1999). Various other prosodic wellformedness constraints have also been proposed to derive similar effects to Nonrecursivity, e.g., StrongStart by Selkirk (2011) and EqualSisters by Myrberg (2013). They all make different predictions as to what kind of prosodic representations are to be excluded. It still remains to be seen which one explains a wider range of empirical facts.
This option was suggested by an anonymous reviewer.
Note, however, Kubozono (1993) himself does not abandon the notion of the MaP. He proposes MB as an account for the difference in the amount of downstep within a MaP. The analysis presented here is therefore an extension of his idea.
This possibility was suggested by Hubert Truckenbrodt (p.c.).
If this analysis is on the right track, however, it poses a serious methodological challenge to the study of downstep. Kubozono (2007) stresses the importance of the paradigmatic methodology—comparing two sentences, one with unaccented words and the other with accented words—in order to isolate downstep from other factors. The experimental design in this study also follows this idea. If, however, the amount of register resetting is affected by other conflicting phonetic constraints such as effort minimization, we cannot use the paradigmatic methodology in a simpleminded fashion. If this is in fact the case, the paradigmatic approach for downstep detection needs to take such effects into account.
Note that Pierrehumbert and Beckman (1988) discuss final lowering, but they claim that the domain of this final lowering is larger than the MaP (intermediate phrase in their terms). This phenomenon is presumably of a different kind from the one being discussed here.

References

Arregi, Karlos. 2002. Focus on Basque movements. PhD diss, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Beckman, Mary, and Janet Pierrehumbert. 1986. Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook 3: 255–309.
Article Google Scholar
Berg, van den Rob, Carolos Gussenhoven, and Toni Rietveld. 1992. Downstep in Dutch: implication for a model. In Papers in laboratory phonology II: Gesture, segment, prosody, eds. Gerard J. Docherty and D. Robert Ladd, 335–367. Cambrdige: Cambridge University Press.
Chapter Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1971. Deep structure, surface structure and semantic interpretation. In Semantics, an interdisciplinary reader in linguistics, philosophy and psychology, eds. Danny D. Steinberg and Leon A. Jakobovits, 183–216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: In honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 85–155. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Google Scholar
Deguchi, Masanori, and Yoshihisa Kitagawa. 2002. Prosody and wh-questions. In North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 32, 73–92.
Google Scholar
Dilly, Laura Christine. 2005. The phonetics and phonology of tonal system. PhD diss, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Dobashi, Yoshihiko. 2003. Phonological phrasing and syntactic derivation. PhD diss, Cornell University.
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identification focus and information focus. Language 74: 245–341.
Article Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline, and Hubert Truckenbrodt. 2005. Sisterhood and tonal scaling. Studia Linguistica 59 (2/3): 223–243.
Article Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward. 1997. Phonetic optimization compromise in speech production. In Selected phonology papers from H-OT-97, eds. Bruce Morén and Viola Miglio. Vol. 5 of University of Maryland working papers in linguistics, 72–91. UMWPiL.
Google Scholar
Hayata, Teruhiro. 1985. Hakata hougen no akusento / keitairon [The accent and morphology of the Hakata dialect]. Fukuoka: Kyushu University Press.
Google Scholar
Hwang, Hyun Kyung. 2011. Scope, prosody, and pitch accent: The prosodic marking of wh-scope in two varieties of Japanese and South Kyeongsang Korean. PhD diss, Cornell University.
Igarashi, Yosuke. 2012. Prosodic typology in Japanese dialects from a cross-linguistic perspective. Lingua 122 (13): 1441–1453.
Article Google Scholar
Igarashi, Yosuke. 2014. Typology of intonational phrasing in Japanese dialects. In Prosodic typology II: The phonology of intonation and phrasing, ed. Sun-Ah Jun. London: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Igarashi, Yosuke. 2015. Intonation. In Handbook of Japanese phonetics and phonology, ed. Haruo Kubozono. Vol. 2 of Handbooks of Japanese language and linguistics, 525–568. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. Chap. 13.
Google Scholar
Igarashi, Yosuke, Hideaki Kikuchi, and Kikuo Maekawa. 2006. Inritsu joohoo [Prosodic information]. In Nihongo hanashi kotoba koopasu no koochikuhoo [Construction of the Corpus of Spontaneous Japanese], 347–453. Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyuujo [National Institute for Japanese Language (NINJAL)]. Chap. 7.
Google Scholar
Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2002. Invisible but audible wh-scope marking: Wh-constructions and deaccenting in Japanese. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 21, eds. Line Mikkelsen and Chris Potts, 180–193. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. 978-1-57473-053-1.
Google Scholar
Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2003. Intonation and interface conditions. PhD diss, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/17020.
Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2007. Major phrase, focus intonation, and multiple spell-out (MaP, FI, MSO). The Linguistic Review 24: 137–167. doi:10.1515/TLR.2007.006.
Article Google Scholar
Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2011a. Focus prosody in Tokyo Japanese wh-questions with lexically unaccented wh-phrases. In International Congress of Phonetic Science (ICPhS) XVII, 964–969.
Google Scholar
Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2011b. Japanese focus prosody revisited: Freeing focus from prosodic phrasing. Lingua 121 (13): 1870–1889. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2011.06.008.
Article Google Scholar
Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2015. Syntax–phonology interface. In Handbook of Japanese phonetics and phonology, ed. Haruo Kubozono. Vol. 2 of Handbooks of Japanese language and linguistics, 569–618. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9781614511984.569. Chap. 14. 978-1-61451-198-4.
Google Scholar
Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester. 2007. Prosodic adjunction in Japanese compounds. In Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics (FAJL4) 4, 97–111.
Google Scholar
Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester. 2012. Recursive prosodic phrasing in Japanese. In Prosody matters: Essays in honor of Elisabeth Selkirk, eds. Toni Browsky, Shigeto Kawahara, Takahito Shinya, and Mariko Sugahara, 280–303. London: Equinox.
Google Scholar
Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester. 2013. Prosodic subcategories in Japanese. Lingua 124 (1): 20–40.
Article Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Google Scholar
Katz, Jonah, and Elisabeth Selkirk. 2011. Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: Evidence from phonetic prominence in English. Language 87 (4): 771–816.
Article Google Scholar
Kawahara, Shigeto, and Takahito Shinya. 2008. The intonation of gapping and coordination in Japanese: evidence for intonational phrase and utterance. Phonetica 65 (1–2): 62–105. doi:10.1159/000130016.
Article Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55 (3–4): 243–276.
Article Google Scholar
Kubo, Tomoyuki. 1989. Fukuoka-shi hoogen no dare, nani too no gimon-shi o fukumu bun no pitti pataan [The pitch pattern of the sentences containing interrogative markers such as dare, nani, etc. in Fukuoka dialect]. Kokugo-gaku 156: 71–82.
Google Scholar
Kubozono, Haruo. 1989. Syntactic and rhythmic effects on downstep in Japanese. Phonology 6: 39–67.
Article Google Scholar
Kubozono, Haruo. 1993. The organization of Japanese prosody. Tokyo: Kurosio.
Google Scholar
Kubozono, Haruo. 2007. Focus and intonation in Japanese: Does focus trigger pitch reset? In Workshop on Prosody, Syntax, and Information Structure (WPSI) 2, ed. Shinichiro Ishihara. Vol. 9 of Interdisciplinary studies on information structure, 1–27. Potsdam: University of Potsdam.
Google Scholar
Kusumoto, Kiyomi. 1998. Branchingness and phrasing in Japanese. In Japanese/Korean linguistics, eds. Noriko Akatsuka, Hajime Hoji, Shoichi Iwasaki, and Susan Strauss, Vol. 7, 381–397. Stanford: CSLI.
Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1986. Intonational phrasing: the case for recursive prosodic structure. Phonology Yearbook 3: 311–340.
Article Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1988. Declination ‘reset’ and the hierarchical organization of utterance. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 84: 530–544.
Article Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 2008. Intonational phonology, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Book Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark. 1975. The intonational system of English. PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Libermann, Mark, and Janet Pierrehumbert. 1984. Intonational invariance under changes in pitch range and length. In Language, sound, structure: studies in phonology presented to Morris Halle by his teacher and students, eds. Mark Aronoff and Richard T. Oehrle, 157–223. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Google Scholar
Maekawa, Kikuo. 1991. Perception of intonation characteristics of WH and non-WH questions in Tokyo Japanese. In International Congress of Phonetic Science (ICPhS) 22, Vol. 4, 202–205. Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence.
Google Scholar
Maekawa, Kikuo, Hideaki Kikuchi, Yosuke Igarashi, and Jennifer Venditti. 2002. X-JToBI: an extended J_ToBI for spontaneous speech. In International conference on spoken language processing (ICSLP) 7, 1545–1548. Denver, Colorado.
Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1965. The accentual system of standard Japanese. PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Myrberg, Sara. 2013. EqualSysters and prosodic branching. Phonology 30 (1): 73–124.
Article Google Scholar
Nagahara, Hiroyuki. 1994. Phonological phrasing in Japanese. PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles.
Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.
Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet, and Mary Beckman. 1988. Japanese tone structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Google Scholar
Poser, William J. 1984. The phonetics and phonology of tone and intonation in Japanese. PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Technical report #2 of the Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science, Rutgers University.
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with Focus. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116.
Article Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1986. On derived domains in sentence prosody. Phonology Yearbook 3: 371–405.
Article Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1996. The prosodic structure of function words. In Signal to syntax: Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition, eds. James L. Morgan and Katherine Demuth, 187–213. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2000. The interaction of constraints on prosodic phrasing. In Prosody: Theory and experiment, ed. Merle Horne, 231–261. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Chapter Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2002. Contrastive FOCUS vs. presentational focus: Prosodic evidence from right node raising in English. In Speech prosody 2002, eds. Bernard Bel and Isabelle Marlien, 643–646. Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence.
Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2008. Contrastive focus, givenness and the unmarked status of “discourse-new”. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55 (3–4): 331–346.
Article Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2009. On clause and intonational phrase in Japanese: The syntactic grounding of prosodic constituent structure. Gengo Kenkyu 136: 35–74.
Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2011. The syntax-phonology interface, 2nd edn. In The handbook of phonological theory, eds. John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle, and Alan Yu, 435–484. Oxford: Blackwell.
Chapter Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth, and Koichi Tateishi. 1988. Constraints on minor phrase formation in Japanese. In Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 24, eds. Lynn MacLeod, Gary Larson, and Diane Brentari, Vol. 24, Part One: The General Session, 316–336. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth, and Koichi Tateishi. 1991. Syntax and downstep in Japanese. In Interdisciplinary approaches to language: Essays in honor of S.-Y. Kuroda, eds. Carol Georgopoulos and Roberta Ishihara, 519–543. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Chapter Google Scholar
Shinya, Takahito. 1999. Eigo to nihongo ni okeru fookasu ni yoru daunsteppu no sosi to tyooon-undoo no tyoogoo [The blocking of downstep by focus and articulatory overlap in English and Japanese]. Sophia Linguistics Society 14: 35–51.
Google Scholar
Shinya, Takahito, Elisabeth Selkirk, and Shigeto Kawahara. 2004. Rhythmic boost and recursive minor phrase in Japanese. In International Conference on Speech Prosody 2, 183–186.
Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer L. 2013. Fukuoka Japanese wh prosody in production and perception. Lingua 124: 96–130. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2012.04.004.
Article Google Scholar
Sugahara, Mariko. 2003. Downtrends and post-FOCUS intonation in Japanese. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Tokizaki, Hisao. 2005. Prosody and phrase structure without labels. English Linguistics 22 (2): 380–405.
Article Google Scholar
Tokizaki, Hisao. 2006. Linearizing structure with silence: A minimalist theory of syntax-phonology interface. PhD diss., University of Tsukuba.
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Phonological phrases: Their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence. PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30 (2): 219–255.
Article Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2002. Upstep and embedded register levels. Phonology 19: 77–120.
Article Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2004. Final lowering in non-final position. Journal of Phonetics 32: 313–348.
Article Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2007a. The syntax-phonology interface. In The Cambridge handbook of phonology, ed. Paul de Lacy, 435–456. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chapter Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2007b. Upstep on edge tones and on nuclear accents. In Tones and tunes, eds. Carlos Gussenhoven and Tomas Riad, Vol. 2 of Experimental studies in word and sentence prosody, 349–386. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Google Scholar
Uechi, Akihiko. 1998. An interface approach to topic/focus structure. PhD diss., University of British Columbia.
Venditti, Jennifer J. 1997. Japanese ToBI labelling guidelines. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 50: 127–162.
Google Scholar
Venditti, Jennifer J. 2005. The J_ToBI model of Japanese intonation. In Prosodic typology: The phonology and intonation of phrasing, ed. Sun-Ah Jun, 172–200. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chapter Google Scholar
Venditti, Jennifer J., Kikuo Maekawa, and Mary E. Beckman. 2008. Prominence marking in the Japanese intonation system. In The Oxford handbook of Japanese linguistics, eds. Shigeru Miyagawa and Mamoru Saito, 456–512. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Wagner, Michael. 2005. Prosody and recursion. PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank three anonymous reviewers and the NLLT editors for their valuable comments and suggestions. Special thanks to Caroline Féry, Ingo Feldhausen, Sara Myrberg, and Hubert Truckenbrodt for their comments on the earlier version of this paper, as well as discussion of relevant issues. Thanks also goes to Shin-ichi Tanaka and Yuki Hirose at University of Tokyo, and Kikuo Maekawa at the National Institute for Japanese Language for their help with the recordings in Japan. This study was funded by the SFB632 “Information Structure” at University of Potsdam.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Språk- och Litteraturcentrum, Lunds Universitet, BOX 201, 221 00, Lund, Sweden
Shinichiro Ishihara

Authors

Shinichiro Ishihara
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shinichiro Ishihara.

Appendices

Appendix A: Stimuli sets

(A0)

(A1)

(A2)

(A3)

(A4)

(A5)

Appendix B: Normalized results

The table below shows the mean normalized F₀-values and standard deviations (in brackets) of all the measurement points: min1, max, min2 of N1–N3 (see Sect. 3.2 for the normalization formula and the measurement points).

2.1 B.1 Mean normalized F0 (and standard deviation)

	N1			N2			N3
	min1	max	min2	min1	max	min2	min1	max	min2
[−A, −F, −B]	0.179	0.875	0.638	0.587	0.724	0.493	0.546	0.724	−0.127
[−A, −F, −B]	(0.226)	(0.119)	(0.135)	(0.238)	(0.111)	(0.234)	(0.250)	(0.125)	(0.157)
[+A, −F, −B]	0.400	1.107	0.037	0.108	0.550	−0.065	−0.003	0.307	−0.201
[+A, −F, −B]	(0.328)	(0.121)	(0.241)	(0.324)	(0.183)	(0.232)	(0.250)	(0.147)	(0.202)
[−A, +F, −B]	0.137	0.898	0.666	0.626	0.737	0.431	0.483	1.131	0.146
[−A, +F, −B]	(0.262)	(0.120)	(0.151)	(0.205)	(0.112)	(0.224)	(0.234)	(0.120)	(0.130)
[+A, +F, −B]	0.393	1.124	0.068	0.111	0.483	−0.079	0.042	0.953	0.037
[+A, +F, −B]	(0.355)	(0.137)	(0.168)	(0.225)	(0.197)	(0.188)	(0.273)	(0.238)	(0.113)
[−A, −F, +B]	0.164	0.858	0.588	0.561	0.664	0.305	0.420	0.935	−0.090
[−A, −F, +B]	(0.208)	(0.134)	(0.172)	(0.230)	(0.134)	(0.255)	(0.295)	(0.132)	(0.136)
[+A, −F, +B]	0.474	1.114	0.097	0.119	0.354	−0.143	0.166	0.794	−0.060
[+A, −F, +B]	(0.305)	(0.112)	(0.189)	(0.194)	(0.144)	(0.238)	(0.401)	(0.162)	(0.095)
[−A, +F, +B]	0.164	0.886	0.636	0.624	0.708	0.332	0.361	1.145	0.132
[−A, +F, +B]	(0.198)	(0.135)	(0.166)	(0.168)	(0.131)	(0.245)	(0.348)	(0.154)	(0.132)
[+A, +F, +B]	0.476	1.139	0.110	0.133	0.365	−0.137	0.112	1.056	0.163
[+A, +F, +B]	(0.300)	(0.124)	(0.204)	(0.200)	(0.154)	(0.180)	(0.318)	(0.147)	(0.149)

Appendix C: Individual results

For each subject, three figures and one table are provided below. The figures show the mean F₀-values (in Hz) of (i) [±Accent, +Focus, −Boundary] (Left), (ii) [±Accent, −Focus, +Boundary] (Center), and (iii) [±Accent, +Focus, +Boundary] (Right), with 95 % CI. Solid lines in the figures show the F₀-mean of the baseline conditions [−Foc, −Boundary]. The figures correspond to Figs. 6, 7, and 8, respectively. The table shows the mean normalized F₀-values and standard deviations (in brackets) of all the measurement points: min1, max, min2 of N1–N3 (cf. Sect. 3.2). [±A, ±F, ±B] stands for [±Accent, ±Focus, ±Boundary].

3.1 C.0 Conditions

3.2 C.1 AK (♀)

	N1			N2			N3
	min1	max	min2	min1	max	min2	min1	max	min2
[−A, −F, −B]	0.398	0.936	0.679	0.613	0.753	0.539	0.595	0.746	−0.036
[−A, −F, −B]	(0.208)	(0.110)	(0.104)	(0.137)	(0.086)	(0.124)	(0.121)	(0.089)	(0.057)
[+A, −F, −B]	0.575	1.113	0.120	0.127	0.524	−0.034	−0.029	0.304	−0.154
[+A, −F, −B]	(0.259)	(0.092)	(0.102)	(0.109)	(0.086)	(0.063)	(0.075)	(0.069)	(0.048)
[−A, +F, −B]	0.319	0.869	0.691	0.610	0.723	0.521	0.549	1.057	0.185
[−A, +F, −B]	(0.200)	(0.074)	(0.075)	(0.096)	(0.076)	(0.083)	(0.069)	(0.076)	(0.079)
[+A, +F, −B]	0.631	1.125	0.118	0.134	0.553	−0.017	−0.012	0.699	−0.006
[+A, +F, −B]	(0.245)	(0.098)	(0.084)	(0.084)	(0.132)	(0.064)	(0.057)	(0.141)	(0.096)
[−A, −F, +B]	0.321	0.823	0.532	0.545	0.629	0.205	0.303	0.824	−0.132
[−A, −F, +B]	(0.282)	(0.124)	(0.187)	(0.164)	(0.116)	(0.310)	(0.438)	(0.117)	(0.068)
[+A, −F, +B]	0.735	1.118	0.171	0.179	0.489	−0.021	0.129	0.622	−0.066
[+A, −F, +B]	(0.271)	(0.096)	(0.090)	(0.103)	(0.064)	(0.109)	(0.182)	(0.073)	(0.066)
[−A, +F, +B]	0.256	0.866	0.620	0.557	0.681	0.328	0.438	0.990	0.077
[−A, +F, +B]	(0.115)	(0.094)	(0.142)	(0.200)	(0.110)	(0.127)	(0.122)	(0.138)	(0.111)
[+A, +F, +B]	0.673	1.150	0.207	0.203	0.488	−0.017	0.028	0.913	0.131
[+A, +F, +B]	(0.241)	(0.059)	(0.069)	(0.078)	(0.093)	(0.072)	(0.066)	(0.098)	(0.093)

3.3 C.2 AY (♀)

	N1			N2			N3
	min1	max	min2	min1	max	min2	min1	max	min2
[−A, −F, −B]	0.093	0.818	0.621	0.585	0.752	0.527	0.579	0.748	−0.166
[−A, −F, −B]	(0.067)	(0.122)	(0.074)	(0.109)	(0.063)	(0.111)	(0.062)	(0.086)	(0.065)
[+A, −F, −B]	0.245	1.199	0.003	0.047	0.508	−0.085	−0.090	0.289	−0.224
[+A, −F, −B]	(0.303)	(0.079)	(0.268)	(0.219)	(0.114)	(0.080)	(0.100)	(0.079)	(0.033)
[−A, +F, −B]	0.055	0.828	0.646	0.617	0.733	0.477	0.554	1.097	0.197
[−A, +F, −B]	(0.052)	(0.129)	(0.109)	(0.129)	(0.092)	(0.063)	(0.070)	(0.054)	(0.101)
[+A, +F, −B]	0.199	1.242	0.010	−0.036	0.428	−0.133	−0.071	0.984	0.078
[+A, +F, −B]	(0.289)	(0.068)	(0.216)	(0.296)	(0.104)	(0.049)	(0.101)	(0.082)	(0.105)
[−A, −F, +B]	0.069	0.762	0.540	0.519	0.623	0.291	0.366	0.982	−0.096
[−A, −F, +B]	(0.110)	(0.110)	(0.096)	(0.126)	(0.080)	(0.148)	(0.082)	(0.072)	(0.049)
[+A, −F, +B]	0.292	1.161	0.111	0.119	0.354	−0.170	−0.020	0.783	−0.089
[+A, −F, +B]	(0.320)	(0.089)	(0.098)	(0.065)	(0.065)	(0.048)	(0.288)	(0.125)	(0.039)
[−A, +F, +B]	0.037	0.801	0.602	0.559	0.668	0.283	0.316	1.144	0.169
[−A, +F, +B]	(0.060)	(0.154)	(0.135)	(0.127)	(0.095)	(0.293)	(0.264)	(0.070)	(0.116)
[+A, +F, +B]	0.277	1.188	0.109	0.096	0.322	−0.160	−0.088	0.963	0.132
[+A, +F, +B]	(0.290)	(0.074)	(0.104)	(0.087)	(0.077)	(0.041)	(0.120)	(0.067)	(0.089)

3.4 C.3 HT (♀)

	N1			N2			N3
	min1	max	min2	min1	max	min2	min1	max	min2
[−A, −F, −B]	0.034	0.918	0.589	0.575	0.755	0.428	0.442	0.759	−0.174
[−A, −F, −B]	(0.093)	(0.095)	(0.112)	(0.127)	(0.072)	(0.184)	(0.325)	(0.072)	(0.049)
[+A, −F, −B]	0.440	1.051	−0.003	0.001	0.337	−0.119	−0.141	0.220	−0.168
[+A, −F, −B]	(0.216)	(0.103)	(0.180)	(0.163)	(0.067)	(0.083)	(0.135)	(0.102)	(0.059)
[−A, +F, −B]	0.067	0.975	0.596	0.502	0.793	0.473	0.515	1.144	0.157
[−A, +F, −B]	(0.098)	(0.110)	(0.316)	(0.414)	(0.064)	(0.105)	(0.066)	(0.071)	(0.155)
[+A, +F, −B]	0.409	1.035	−0.000	−0.011	0.289	−0.124	−0.105	1.030	0.128
[+A, +F, −B]	(0.221)	(0.102)	(0.073)	(0.112)	(0.066)	(0.040)	(0.049)	(0.113)	(0.130)
[−A, −F, +B]	0.070	0.878	0.516	0.457	0.678	0.310	0.378	0.872	−0.136
[−A, −F, +B]	(0.163)	(0.149)	(0.313)	(0.412)	(0.090)	(0.136)	(0.105)	(0.097)	(0.041)
[+A, −F, +B]	0.466	1.044	−0.040	−0.036	0.214	−0.209	−0.029	0.677	−0.168
[+A, −F, +B]	(0.221)	(0.095)	(0.175)	(0.144)	(0.050)	(0.094)	(0.191)	(0.086)	(0.054)
[−A, +F, +B]	0.082	0.966	0.634	0.592	0.768	0.386	0.410	1.195	0.155
[−A, +F, +B]	(0.099)	(0.117)	(0.122)	(0.126)	(0.075)	(0.099)	(0.093)	(0.107)	(0.154)
[+A, +F, +B]	0.462	1.132	0.045	0.006	0.208	−0.174	−0.142	1.006	0.206
[+A, +F, +B]	(0.245)	(0.145)	(0.158)	(0.201)	(0.041)	(0.051)	(0.049)	(0.125)	(0.152)

3.5 C.4 IT (♂)

	N1			N2			N3
	min1	max	min2	min1	max	min2	min1	max	min2
[−A, −F, −B]	0.359	0.907	0.474	0.416	0.547	0.268	0.329	0.551	0.007
[−A, −F, −B]	(0.163)	(0.165)	(0.115)	(0.261)	(0.133)	(0.148)	(0.220)	(0.170)	(0.236)
[+A, −F, −B]	0.544	0.994	−0.028	0.280	0.604	−0.038	0.160	0.309	−0.073
[+A, −F, −B]	(0.289)	(0.129)	(0.092)	(0.327)	(0.208)	(0.051)	(0.214)	(0.131)	(0.082)
[−A, +F, −B]	0.300	0.945	0.525	0.431	0.556	0.038	0.191	1.247	0.034
[−A, +F, −B]	(0.126)	(0.105)	(0.081)	(0.231)	(0.100)	(0.308)	(0.378)	(0.092)	(0.047)
[+A, +F, −B]	0.591	1.085	−0.022	0.230	0.472	−0.063	0.374	1.246	−0.011
[+A, +F, −B]	(0.226)	(0.188)	(0.090)	(0.271)	(0.200)	(0.052)	(0.374)	(0.139)	(0.102)
[−A, −F, +B]	0.264	0.826	0.455	0.419	0.506	0.164	0.553	0.857	−0.039
[−A, −F, +B]	(0.111)	(0.095)	(0.121)	(0.141)	(0.133)	(0.101)	(0.174)	(0.110)	(0.052)
[+A, −F, +B]	0.586	1.138	0.008	0.103	0.389	0.019	0.555	0.863	−0.011
[+A, −F, +B]	(0.210)	(0.107)	(0.101)	(0.245)	(0.102)	(0.201)	(0.141)	(0.097)	(0.033)
[−A, +F, +B]	0.297	0.913	0.467	0.465	0.559	0.169	0.460	1.175	−0.032
[−A, +F, +B]	(0.162)	(0.142)	(0.165)	(0.109)	(0.108)	(0.207)	(0.273)	(0.107)	(0.106)
[+A, +F, +B]	0.631	1.193	0.033	0.172	0.353	−0.039	0.320	1.224	0.125
[+A, +F, +B]	(0.285)	(0.155)	(0.112)	(0.210)	(0.110)	(0.089)	(0.286)	(0.097)	(0.283)

3.6 C.5 KT (♂)

	N1			N2			N3
	min1	max	min2	min1	max	min2	min1	max	min2
[−A, −F, −B]	0.137	0.811	0.668	0.619	0.731	0.636	0.677	0.747	−0.087
[−A, −F, −B]	(0.065)	(0.082)	(0.077)	(0.098)	(0.065)	(0.101)	(0.076)	(0.069)	(0.035)
[+A, −F, −B]	0.326	1.070	0.101	0.121	0.498	−0.001	0.015	0.295	−0.079
[+A, −F, −B]	(0.240)	(0.074)	(0.051)	(0.046)	(0.181)	(0.039)	(0.045)	(0.203)	(0.043)
[−A, +F, −B]	0.106	0.905	0.730	0.702	0.792	0.352	0.321	1.072	0.086
[−A, +F, −B]	(0.064)	(0.093)	(0.083)	(0.106)	(0.067)	(0.117)	(0.115)	(0.069)	(0.143)
[+A, +F, −B]	0.263	1.056	0.101	0.110	0.345	−0.035	0.002	1.058	0.062
[+A, +F, −B]	(0.238)	(0.054)	(0.053)	(0.063)	(0.119)	(0.073)	(0.076)	(0.095)	(0.056)
[−A, −F, +B]	0.214	0.976	0.769	0.752	0.820	0.559	0.551	1.013	0.021
[−A, −F, +B]	(0.104)	(0.073)	(0.071)	(0.072)	(0.073)	(0.089)	(0.241)	(0.115)	(0.140)
[+A, −F, +B]	0.221	1.059	0.015	0.026	0.145	−0.127	−0.021	0.606	−0.105
[+A, −F, +B]	(0.202)	(0.084)	(0.047)	(0.043)	(0.055)	(0.054)	(0.065)	(0.140)	(0.034)
[−A, +F, +B]	0.193	1.022	0.837	0.828	0.904	0.521	0.530	1.087	0.113
[−A, +F, +B]	(0.102)	(0.069)	(0.053)	(0.082)	(0.047)	(0.101)	(0.105)	(0.049)	(0.079)
[+A, +F, +B]	0.167	1.099	0.030	0.041	0.163	−0.113	−0.072	1.001	−0.012
[+A, +F, +B]	(0.151)	(0.028)	(0.055)	(0.052)	(0.074)	(0.033)	(0.049)	(0.137)	(0.042)

3.7 C.6 KY (♂)

	N1			N2			N3
	min1	max	min2	min1	max	min2	min1	max	min2
[−A, −F, −B]	−0.003	0.930	0.785	0.753	0.815	0.651	0.688	0.740	−0.107
[−A, −F, −B]	(0.460)	(0.164)	(0.158)	(0.170)	(0.152)	(0.160)	(0.171)	(0.138)	(0.188)
[+A, −F, −B]	0.304	1.051	0.231	0.299	0.553	0.024	0.155	0.285	−0.309
[+A, −F, −B]	(0.551)	(0.152)	(0.240)	(0.100)	(0.157)	(0.246)	(0.068)	(0.089)	(0.270)
[−A, +F, −B]	0.060	1.012	0.863	0.859	0.879	0.700	0.762	1.103	0.068
[−A, +F, −B]	(0.395)	(0.141)	(0.110)	(0.109)	(0.106)	(0.114)	(0.124)	(0.167)	(0.132)
[+A, +F, −B]	0.106	1.031	0.278	0.327	0.582	−0.009	0.183	0.498	−0.012
[+A, +F, −B]	(0.600)	(0.206)	(0.184)	(0.197)	(0.136)	(0.301)	(0.092)	(0.201)	(0.109)
[−A, −F, +B]	−0.014	0.717	0.571	0.564	0.595	0.318	0.368	0.781	−0.143
[−A, −F, +B]	(0.410)	(0.114)	(0.112)	(0.114)	(0.105)	(0.168)	(0.169)	(0.121)	(0.263)
[+A, −F, +B]	0.433	1.174	0.337	0.345	0.399	−0.129	0.120	0.920	0.096
[+A, −F, +B]	(0.343)	(0.134)	(0.072)	(0.071)	(0.123)	(0.240)	(0.400)	(0.135)	(0.086)
[−A, +F, +B]	0.040	0.788	0.651	0.644	0.668	0.390	0.378	0.963	0.122
[−A, +F, +B]	(0.440)	(0.101)	(0.096)	(0.103)	(0.094)	(0.210)	(0.352)	(0.183)	(0.131)
[+A, +F, +B]	0.494	1.296	0.421	0.428	0.468	−0.075	0.068	1.114	0.284
[+A, +F, +B]	(0.463)	(0.133)	(0.106)	(0.104)	(0.116)	(0.207)	(0.138)	(0.152)	(0.114)

3.8 C.7 NM (♂)

	N1			N2			N3
	min1	max	min2	min1	max	min2	min1	max	min2
[−A, −F, −B]	0.095	0.821	0.560	0.548	0.663	0.454	0.519	0.745	−0.121
[−A, −F, −B]	(0.128)	(0.065)	(0.120)	(0.152)	(0.072)	(0.193)	(0.212)	(0.121)	(0.068)
[+A, −F, −B]	0.358	1.158	0.040	0.390	0.859	0.007	0.105	0.483	−0.150
[+A, −F, −B]	(0.189)	(0.118)	(0.183)	(0.328)	(0.149)	(0.108)	(0.177)	(0.153)	(0.079)
[−A, +F, −B]	0.089	0.830	0.592	0.617	0.699	0.496	0.391	1.163	0.126
[−A, +F, −B]	(0.144)	(0.082)	(0.129)	(0.151)	(0.073)	(0.054)	(0.106)	(0.075)	(0.126)
[+A, +F, −B]	0.419	1.154	0.114	0.203	0.803	−0.001	0.118	0.964	−0.049
[+A, +F, −B]	(0.257)	(0.112)	(0.125)	(0.286)	(0.179)	(0.062)	(0.255)	(0.245)	(0.122)
[−A, −F, +B]	0.110	0.999	0.678	0.686	0.770	0.455	0.605	1.090	−0.084
[−A, −F, +B]	(0.062)	(0.150)	(0.212)	(0.224)	(0.140)	(0.243)	(0.262)	(0.086)	(0.149)
[+A, −F, +B]	0.354	1.022	0.126	0.162	0.608	−0.086	0.278	0.869	−0.050
[+A, −F, +B]	(0.265)	(0.073)	(0.116)	(0.037)	(0.135)	(0.041)	(0.278)	(0.108)	(0.137)
[−A, +F, +B]	0.113	1.026	0.764	0.759	0.827	0.521	0.233	1.303	0.126
[−A, +F, +B]	(0.064)	(0.145)	(0.169)	(0.204)	(0.142)	(0.099)	(0.065)	(0.105)	(0.101)
[+A, +F, +B]	0.442	0.992	0.153	0.173	0.620	−0.074	0.307	1.181	0.201
[+A, +F, +B]	(0.203)	(0.083)	(0.043)	(0.058)	(0.136)	(0.027)	(0.280)	(0.110)	(0.102)

3.9 C.8 NT (♂)

	N1			N2			N3
	min1	max	min2	min1	max	min2	min1	max	min2
[−A, −F, −B]	0.359	0.869	0.696	0.663	0.736	0.579	0.600	0.713	−0.066
[−A, −F, −B]	(0.106)	(0.094)	(0.091)	(0.112)	(0.074)	(0.103)	(0.107)	(0.082)	(0.031)
[+A, −F, −B]	0.606	1.119	0.055	0.092	0.634	−0.004	0.045	0.368	−0.174
[+A, −F, −B]	(0.164)	(0.120)	(0.134)	(0.146)	(0.103)	(0.062)	(0.106)	(0.101)	(0.064)
[−A, +F, −B]	0.319	0.818	0.658	0.656	0.684	0.308	0.445	0.979	0.114
[−A, +F, −B]	(0.094)	(0.100)	(0.100)	(0.104)	(0.095)	(0.376)	(0.325)	(0.090)	(0.077)
[+A, +F, −B]	0.552	1.227	0.101	0.110	0.618	−0.058	0.050	1.006	0.037
[+A, +F, −B]	(0.170)	(0.106)	(0.066)	(0.087)	(0.198)	(0.096)	(0.189)	(0.148)	(0.093)
[−A, −F, +B]	0.299	0.879	0.679	0.675	0.690	0.227	0.366	0.914	−0.134
[−A, −F, +B]	(0.076)	(0.083)	(0.093)	(0.094)	(0.085)	(0.223)	(0.311)	(0.063)	(0.176)
[+A, −F, +B]	0.570	1.117	0.158	0.136	0.375	−0.034	0.444	0.825	−0.019
[+A, −F, +B]	(0.214)	(0.108)	(0.070)	(0.129)	(0.099)	(0.188)	(0.186)	(0.106)	(0.056)
[−A, +F, +B]	0.343	0.892	0.694	0.700	0.744	0.285	0.382	1.088	0.104
[−A, +F, +B]	(0.062)	(0.100)	(0.106)	(0.128)	(0.099)	(0.342)	(0.247)	(0.087)	(0.062)
[+A, +F, +B]	0.622	1.080	0.124	0.112	0.462	−0.089	0.455	0.941	0.138
[+A, +F, +B]	(0.154)	(0.101)	(0.065)	(0.100)	(0.112)	(0.064)	(0.154)	(0.082)	(0.073)

3.10 C.9 SM (♂)

	N1			N2			N3
	min1	max	min2	min1	max	min2	min1	max	min2
[−A, −F, −B]	0.098	0.886	0.627	0.400	0.739	0.286	0.360	0.837	−0.256
[−A, −F, −B]	(0.152)	(0.115)	(0.144)	(0.534)	(0.122)	(0.518)	(0.538)	(0.162)	(0.361)
[+A, −F, −B]	0.227	1.115	−0.080	−0.110	0.514	−0.325	−0.259	0.285	−0.527
[+A, −F, −B]	(0.192)	(0.103)	(0.527)	(0.718)	(0.185)	(0.638)	(0.621)	(0.116)	(0.476)
[−A, +F, −B]	−0.184	0.880	0.647	0.531	0.734	0.346	0.371	1.187	0.331
[−A, +F, −B]	(0.521)	(0.084)	(0.110)	(0.174)	(0.107)	(0.087)	(0.097)	(0.083)	(0.142)
[+A, +F, −B]	0.135	1.142	0.156	0.183	0.351	−0.250	−0.203	0.955	0.062
[+A, +F, −B]	(0.414)	(0.137)	(0.082)	(0.108)	(0.069)	(0.506)	(0.460)	(0.213)	(0.149)
[−A, −F, +B]	0.114	0.792	0.468	0.402	0.578	0.066	0.252	0.979	−0.103
[−A, −F, +B]	(0.143)	(0.097)	(0.119)	(0.189)	(0.111)	(0.445)	(0.280)	(0.124)	(0.081)
[+A, −F, +B]	0.342	1.201	0.063	0.108	0.348	−0.450	−0.147	0.921	−0.107
[+A, −F, +B]	(0.178)	(0.119)	(0.415)	(0.432)	(0.109)	(0.578)	(0.776)	(0.202)	(0.094)
[−A, +F, +B]	0.049	0.798	0.531	0.526	0.614	0.092	−0.393	1.153	0.300
[−A, +F, +B]	(0.123)	(0.103)	(0.159)	(0.188)	(0.120)	(0.329)	(0.481)	(0.196)	(0.180)
[+A, +F, +B]	0.325	1.185	−0.037	0.080	0.337	−0.418	−0.303	1.159	0.300
[+A, +F, +B]	(0.183)	(0.095)	(0.482)	(0.410)	(0.080)	(0.388)	(0.371)	(0.153)	(0.136)

3.11 C.10 TK (♀)

	N1			N2			N3
	min1	max	min2	min1	max	min2	min1	max	min2
[−A, −F, −B]	0.288	0.808	0.588	0.558	0.690	0.484	0.568	0.677	−0.200
[−A, −F, −B]	(0.149)	(0.102)	(0.107)	(0.118)	(0.059)	(0.092)	(0.104)	(0.096)	(0.040)
[+A, −F, −B]	0.613	1.222	−0.009	0.006	0.545	−0.151	0.030	0.340	−0.235
[+A, −F, −B]	(0.166)	(0.088)	(0.248)	(0.372)	(0.165)	(0.216)	(0.273)	(0.166)	(0.123)
[−A, +F, −B]	0.278	0.864	0.614	0.546	0.699	0.406	0.696	1.103	0.150
[−A, +F, −B]	(0.116)	(0.143)	(0.081)	(0.146)	(0.046)	(0.090)	(0.106)	(0.087)	(0.074)
[+A, +F, −B]	0.533	1.212	−0.018	−0.022	0.515	−0.112	0.299	1.063	0.043
[+A, +F, −B]	(0.375)	(0.101)	(0.222)	(0.346)	(0.178)	(0.090)	(0.295)	(0.110)	(0.091)
[−A, −F, +B]	0.270	0.906	0.513	0.390	0.632	0.301	0.591	0.985	−0.021
[−A, −F, +B]	(0.134)	(0.149)	(0.085)	(0.361)	(0.121)	(0.163)	(0.343)	(0.097)	(0.057)
[+A, −F, +B]	0.600	1.068	0.163	0.196	0.335	−0.141	0.526	0.787	−0.070
[+A, −F, +B]	(0.407)	(0.091)	(0.061)	(0.068)	(0.064)	(0.065)	(0.391)	(0.117)	(0.092)
[−A, +F, +B]	0.262	0.855	0.545	0.545	0.623	0.331	0.678	1.204	0.196
[−A, +F, +B]	(0.131)	(0.117)	(0.086)	(0.096)	(0.047)	(0.050)	(0.150)	(0.136)	(0.104)
[+A, +F, +B]	0.681	1.065	0.147	0.189	0.312	−0.121	0.564	0.998	0.137
[+A, +F, +B]	(0.192)	(0.103)	(0.079)	(0.114)	(0.077)	(0.099)	(0.207)	(0.063)	(0.125)

3.12 C.11 UM (♂)

	N1			N2			N3
	min1	max	min2	min1	max	min2	min1	max	min2
[−A, −F, −B]	0.292	0.919	0.720	0.691	0.753	0.615	0.654	0.721	−0.124
[−A, −F, −B]	(0.107)	(0.108)	(0.110)	(0.150)	(0.093)	(0.095)	(0.107)	(0.097)	(0.055)
[+A, −F, −B]	0.340	1.079	0.147	0.164	0.570	0.057	0.072	0.326	−0.132
[+A, −F, −B]	(0.512)	(0.106)	(0.086)	(0.082)	(0.111)	(0.071)	(0.109)	(0.176)	(0.083)
[−A, +F, −B]	0.281	0.949	0.744	0.725	0.764	0.534	0.568	1.295	0.149
[−A, +F, −B]	(0.096)	(0.094)	(0.084)	(0.109)	(0.083)	(0.066)	(0.079)	(0.115)	(0.097)
[+A, +F, −B]	0.577	1.048	0.131	0.141	0.418	−0.053	−0.064	1.116	0.062
[+A, +F, −B]	(0.256)	(0.097)	(0.080)	(0.081)	(0.119)	(0.052)	(0.184)	(0.073)	(0.065)
[−A, −F, +B]	0.266	0.871	0.645	0.612	0.667	0.397	0.375	0.922	−0.120
[−A, −F, +B]	(0.114)	(0.081)	(0.067)	(0.078)	(0.111)	(0.301)	(0.348)	(0.115)	(0.172)
[+A, −F, +B]	0.725	1.132	0.146	0.155	0.336	−0.152	−0.097	0.744	−0.080
[+A, −F, +B]	(0.225)	(0.127)	(0.072)	(0.076)	(0.065)	(0.208)	(0.287)	(0.114)	(0.048)
[−A, +F, +B]	0.297	0.853	0.651	0.627	0.675	0.244	0.316	1.307	0.101
[−A, +F, +B]	(0.119)	(0.073)	(0.072)	(0.091)	(0.074)	(0.326)	(0.264)	(0.102)	(0.078)
[+A, +F, +B]	0.630	1.149	0.131	0.136	0.366	−0.160	−0.005	1.139	0.144
[+A, +F, +B]	(0.279)	(0.110)	(0.066)	(0.076)	(0.118)	(0.232)	(0.078)	(0.113)	(0.082)

3.13 C.12 YS (♀)

	N1			N2			N3
	min1	max	min2	min1	max	min2	min1	max	min2
[−A, −F, −B]	−0.001	0.871	0.649	0.618	0.759	0.449	0.543	0.704	−0.191
[−A, −F, −B]	(0.060)	(0.081)	(0.127)	(0.306)	(0.069)	(0.255)	(0.256)	(0.081)	(0.068)
[+A, −F, −B]	0.222	1.111	−0.136	−0.124	0.451	−0.107	−0.099	0.181	−0.187
[+A, −F, −B]	(0.270)	(0.096)	(0.188)	(0.224)	(0.132)	(0.069)	(0.094)	(0.134)	(0.041)
[−A, +F, −B]	−0.048	0.898	0.683	0.718	0.787	0.523	0.432	1.123	0.157
[−A, +F, −B]	(0.123)	(0.109)	(0.089)	(0.088)	(0.088)	(0.143)	(0.276)	(0.049)	(0.114)
[+A, +F, −B]	0.299	1.134	−0.153	−0.034	0.424	−0.094	−0.069	0.820	0.051
[+A, +F, −B]	(0.243)	(0.068)	(0.176)	(0.180)	(0.179)	(0.080)	(0.054)	(0.082)	(0.113)
[−A, −F, +B]	−0.013	0.867	0.683	0.709	0.780	0.365	0.331	1.002	−0.090
[−A, −F, +B]	(0.076)	(0.084)	(0.087)	(0.073)	(0.057)	(0.131)	(0.369)	(0.099)	(0.117)
[+A, −F, +B]	0.358	1.129	−0.095	−0.063	0.255	−0.218	0.249	0.914	−0.054
[+A, −F, +B]	(0.255)	(0.081)	(0.187)	(0.157)	(0.065)	(0.080)	(0.262)	(0.140)	(0.076)
[−A, +F, +B]	−0.004	0.854	0.639	0.686	0.762	0.435	0.585	1.136	0.147
[−A, +F, +B]	(0.092)	(0.104)	(0.256)	(0.131)	(0.083)	(0.121)	(0.127)	(0.071)	(0.076)
[+A, +F, +B]	0.305	1.135	−0.048	−0.042	0.285	−0.210	0.214	1.030	0.167
[+A, +F, +B]	(0.238)	(0.073)	(0.167)	(0.171)	(0.081)	(0.058)	(0.285)	(0.098)	(0.118)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ishihara, S. Japanese downstep revisited. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 34, 1389–1443 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-015-9322-8

Download citation

Received: 29 May 2015
Accepted: 04 August 2015
Published: 25 February 2016
Issue Date: November 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-015-9322-8

Keywords

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Japanese downstep revisited

Abstract

Access this article

Similar content being viewed by others

Syntactic and prosodic scrambling in Japanese

Reconsidering multiple scrambling in Japanese

Prosodically Constrained Localizers in Classical and Modern Chinese

Notes

References

Acknowledgements