* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *
LINGUIST List 19.973

Sat Mar 22 2008

Diss: Psycholing: Hirotani: 'Prosody and LF Interpretation: Process...'

Editor for this issue: Evelyn Richter <evelynlinguistlist.org>


To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
Directory
        1.    Masako Hirotani, Prosody and LF Interpretation: Processing Japanese wh-questions


Message 1: Prosody and LF Interpretation: Processing Japanese wh-questions
Date: 22-Mar-2008
From: Masako Hirotani <masako_hirotanicarleton.ca>
Subject: Prosody and LF Interpretation: Processing Japanese wh-questions
E-mail this message to a friend

Institution: University of Massachusetts at Amherst
Program: Department of Linguistics
Dissertation Status: Completed
Degree Date: 2005

Author: Masako Hirotani

Dissertation Title: Prosody and LF Interpretation: Processing Japanese wh-questions

Linguistic Field(s): Psycholinguistics

Subject Language(s): Japanese (jpn)

Dissertation Director:
Lyn Frazier (Chair)
Elisabeth O Selkirk
Charles Clifton
Satoshi Tomioka
Kyle B Johnson

Dissertation Abstract:

This thesis investigates how prosodic phrasing influences listeners'
interpretation of scopally ambiguous wh-questions in Japanese. It focuses
on sentences such as that in (1), in which the wh-phrase can take either
embedded or matrix scope:

(1)[CP [IP John-wa [CP Mary-ga nani-o katta-ka] kikimasita]-ka]?
John-TOP Mary-NOM what-ACC bought-Q asked-Q
'Did John ask what Mary bought?' (Embedded scope) or 'What did John ask
whether Mary bought?' (Matrix scope)

I argue that the comprehension of the wh-phrase is guided by the prosodic
phrasing of the sentence, as specified in the Scope Prosody Correspondence
in (2):

(2) Scope Prosody Correspondence (SPC)
The scope of a term X should not extend beyond the Major (phonological)
Phrase (MaP) containing X.

The SPC predicts that there is a strong bias for an embedded scope
interpretation when a MaP boundary appears after the embedded Q-marker in
(1). Without such a prosodic boundary, the SPC predicts that both embedded
and matrix scope interpretations are equally available. The results of
off-line comprehension experiments supported these predictions of the SPC.
They also indicated that that prosodic phrasing rather than pitch
compression is the primary determinant of listeners' scope assignments. In
addition, it was shown that an embedded scope interpretation was induced by
the prosodic boundary at the embedded Q-marker, not by the focus
interpretation of the matrix verb.

Further experiments showed that the SPC also applies to unambiguous
wh-questions and to other sentences containing negative polarity items or
quantifiers (e.g., interaction between negation and negative polarity sika,
relative scope of quantifiers), but not to sentences lacking scope-relevant
items. These results suggest that the SPC is not a construction specific
principle effective only in wh-questions but rather a general principle
that listeners use when they process sentences containing all and only
scope relevant items.

Finally, speakers of Tokyo Japanese sometimes inserted a MaP boundary after
the embedded Q-marker, and sometimes didn't, for both scope interpretations
of the wh-phrase. In contrast to the comprehension results, in production,
the presence of a prosodic boundary after the embedded Q-marker was not
reserved for embedded questions except when the two structures were
explicitly compared.






This Year the LINGUIST List hopes to raise $60,000. This money will go to help keep 
the List running by supporting all of our Student Editors for the coming year.

See below for donation instructions, and don't forget to check out our Fund Drive 
2008 LINGUIST List Circus and join us on our many shows!

http://linguistlist.org/fund-drive/2008/

There are many ways to donate to LINGUIST!

You can donate right now using our secure credit card form at  
https://linguistlist.org/donation/donate/donate1.cfm

Alternatively you can also pledge right now and pay later. To do so, go to:
https://linguistlist.org/donation/pledge/pledge1.cfm

For all information on donating and pledging, including information on how to 
donate by check, money order, or wire transfer, please visit:
http://linguistlist.org/donate.html

The LINGUIST List is under the umbrella of Eastern Michigan University and as such 
can receive donations through the EMU Foundation, which is a registered 501(c) 
Non Profit organization. Our Federal Tax number is 38-6005986. These donations 
can be offset against your federal and sometimes your state tax return (U.S. tax 
payers only). For more information visit the IRS Web-Site, or contact your 
financial advisor.

Many companies also offer a gift matching program, such that they will match any 
gift you make to a non-profit organization. Normally this entails your contacting 
your human resources department and sending us a form that the EMU Foundation fills 
in and returns to your employer. This is generally a simple administrative procedure 
that doubles the value of your gift to LINGUIST, without costing you an extra penny. 
Please take a moment to check if your company operates such a program.

Thank you very much for your support of LINGUIST!


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue




Please report any bad links or misclassified data

LINGUIST Homepage | Read LINGUIST | Contact us

NSF Logo

While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.