Analyses and pedagogy for the usage of sentence final morphology and intonation of Japanese expressing speaker's intention of an utterance

2002 Fiscal Year Final Research Report Summary

• Project/Area Number: 12610551
• Research Category: Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
• Allocation Type: Single-year Grants
• Section: 一般
• Research Field: 言語学・音声学
• Research Institution: Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology
• Principal Investigator: MISONO Yasuko TUAT, International Student Center, Professor, 留学生センター, 教授 (00209777)
• Co-Investigator(Kenkyū-buntansha): FUKAO Yuriko TUAT, International Student Center, Professor, 留学生センター, 教授 (90272640) ; ECHIZENYA Akiko TUAT, International Student Center, Professor, 留学生センター, 教授 (30213549)
• Project Period (FY): 2000 – 2002
• Keywords: sentence final morphology / pitch pattern / falling intonation / rising intonation / sentence type / listener's interpretation

Research Abstract

The relation between the intonational characteristics of the utterances ended with janai (negative/sentence final) and the listeners' interpretations of them were examined.
A professional speaker and four native speakers of Tokyo dialect recorded sentences ended with either negative or sentence final janai with falling/rising sentence final intonation. We had four groups of stimuli "sukijanai": (a) negative janai with falling intonation (b) negative janai with rising intonation (c) sentence-final janai with falling intonation (d) sentence-final janai, with rising intonation. We classified the usage of janai into four groups : (1) <negative> (2) <positive> (3) <yes-no question> (4) <agreement asking>. In the experiment, a subject listened to 37 stimuli and selected a usage from the above (1)-(4) as his/her interpretation of the speakers' intention. We had totally ten subjects.
(1) There were characteristic differences in pitch contours between the stimuli of [negative, falling] and [sente nce-final, falling].
(2) Listeners' interpretations of the stimuli of [negative, falling] were exclusively <negative>.
(3) Listeners' interpretations of the stimuli of [sentence-final, falling] were <agreement asking> 74%, <positive> 24%.
(4) Four stimuli of [negative, rising] had characteristic sentence final intonation, of which 85% of the interpretations were <y-n question>. Except these, we found no characteristic differences in pitch contours between the stimuli of [negative, rising] and [sentence-final, rising].
(5) Listeners' interpretations for the stimuli of [rising]([negative, rising] and [sentence-final, rising]) were <y-n question> 50%, <agreement asking> 38% and <positive> 10%.
(6) There was considerable variability between listeners in the way they interpreted the stimuli of [sentence-final, falling] and [rising].
(7) The number of the varieties of the interpretations also differed according to listeners. Some listeners, who seemingly had simpler system of interpretation of the stimuli, had smaller number of the varieties of interpretations, whereas some listeners had greater number of the varieties.