PROSODY AND READING COMPREHENSION IN L2 JAPANESE

Thesis

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts
in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

Seth Joshua Goss, B.A.

Graduate Program in East Asian Languages and Literatures

The Ohio State University

2009

Master’s Thesis Committee:

Dr. Mineharu Nakayama, Advisor

Dr. Etsuyo Yuasa

 Copyright by

Seth Joshua Goss

2009
 ABSTRACT

Foreign language learners (L2 learners) have often been observed to lack a natural

“rhythm” when reading aloud. This rhythm of speech, referred to as prosody, has been

shown to reflect syntax in certain grammatical structures. Learner’s prosodic errors in

oral reading may be due to a lack of comprehension of these syntactic structures. As little

research on prosody in L2 oral reading exists, the current study attempted to describe the

relationship between prosody and comprehension in Japanese as a Foreign Language

(JFL) learners by posing the research questions: 1) How do JFL learners apply prosody

when reading aloud? and 2) Does this prosodic phrasing match their interpretation of the

sentences?

The experiment conducted in this thesis presented subjects with a series of

sentences each followed by a comprehension question. Two groups participated in the

experiment, JFL learners (experimental group) and native speakers (NS) of Japanese

(control group). Test sentences contained both unambiguous and ambiguous branching

modifiers, and the location of prosodic breaks in oral reading were the prosodic feature

under analysis.

Results indicated that prosodic preferences differed between the JFL learner and

NS groups when reading unambiguous sentences aloud. These preferences corresponded

to attachment patterns in the L1 of each group, suggesting the possibility of L1 transfer

ii
in the application of prosody in oral reading. Overall, both groups performed well on the

comprehension questions, indicating little difficulty in understanding the branching

modifiers contained in the test sentences. However, we found that the match between

prosody in oral reading—as evidenced by the location of a prosodic break—and the

answers to the comprehension questions were low. This indicated that although the JFL

learners were able to understand the target syntactic structures, their ability to produce the

correct prosody has not fully developed. Therefore, we concluded that production errors

were not necessarily due to the inability to comprehend the syntactic structures in the test

sentence types used in this experiment.

iii
Dedicated to my wife

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would first like to express sincere thanks to my advisor Dr. Mineharu Nakayama

for his guidance and support throughout this project. His thorough comments and advice

truly helped me to develop this thesis, from conception through to completion. I

personally feel that my knowledge of Japanese linguistics has been greatly enriched by

his guidance.

I would also like to thank my committee member Dr. Etsuyo Yuasa. Her

willingness to read my thesis drafts at short notice, and yet provide highly detailed

comments, surely improved the quality of this thesis. Her advice regarding syntax

enabled me to strengthen the conclusion of this project as well.

I must express my gratitude to all of the students in Japanese courses at Ohio

State who participated in our experiment. Without their participation, this thesis would

not have been possible. I must also thank the students I have taught over the past two

years as a graduate teaching associate. This opportunity has greatly enriched my

academic experience, and has time and again reminded me that teaching is not limited to

a one-way exchange of knowledge. Thanks are also due to my fellow DEALL graduate

students for their friendship and the laughs we shared over the past two years.

v
 I thank my family for their encouragement and support throughout the years. And

of course, I thank my wife Sayo for her love and support during these hectic years of

graduate school.

Finally, the experiment conducted in this thesis was made possible by funding

from the Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures and the Institute of

Japanese Studies at the Ohio State University. Their provision of the participant fees is

acknowledged and greatly appreciated.

vi
 VITA

June 20, 1979………..Born – Raleigh, North Carolina

December 2001….......B.A. East Asian Studies, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

2007 to present………Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: East Asian Languages and Literatures

Japanese Linguistics and Pedagogy

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………... ii

Dedication……………………………………………………………………………….. iv

Acknowledgments…………………………………………………………………….… v

Vita……………………………………………………………………...……………… vii

List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………… xi

List of Tables………………………………………………………………………....… xii

Symbol and Abbreviations………….…………………………………………………. xiii

Chapters:

1. INTRODUCTION………………………………….……………………………. 1

1.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………...…… 1

1.2 Prosody in Oral Reading……………………………………………………... 2

1.3 Prosody and Syntax Mapping…………………………………………...…… 4

1.4 Summary……………………………………………………………………... 6

2. BACKGROUND RESEARCH ON PROSODY……….……………………….. 9

2.1 Overview of Prosody……………………………………………………….... 9

viii
 2.2 Prosodic Phrasing…………………………………...………………………. 10

2.2.1 Lexical Accent in Japanese……………………………………….. 10

2.2.2 Accentual Phrase………………………………………………….. 12

2.2.3 Intonation Phrase…………………………………………………. 12

2.3 Mapping of Prosody and Syntax……………………………………………. 13

2.3.1 Studies on Prosody-Syntax Mapping………………………...…… 14

2.4 Prosody in L2……………………………………………………………….. 19

2.4.1 Prosody in L2 Japanese Oral Reading……………………………. 21

2.5 Summary……………………………………………………………………. 24

3. THE EXPERIMENT…...............………………………………………………. 25

3.1 Research Questions………………………………………………………..... 25

3.2 Participants………………………………………………………………….. 26

3.3 Materials……………………………………………………………………. 28

3.4 Procedure…………………………………………………………………… 33

3.5 Results………………………………………………………………………. 34

3.5.1 Prosody-syntax match in JFL learners and native speakers……… 35

3.5.2 Answers to comprehension questions: All groups………………... 39

3.5.3 Prosody-interpretation match in JFL learners and native speakers. 40

3.6 Summary…………………………………………………………………..... 45

4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS……………….…………………...…… 47

4.1 Discussion of Research Questions………………………………………….. 47

ix
 4.1.1 Prosody-syntax mapping in L2 Japanese…………………………. 47

4.1.2 Prosody-interpretation match……………………………………... 52

4.2 Limitations of the Study…………………………………………………….. 55

4.3 Conclusion………………………………………………………………….. 55

Appendix A: Test Sentences……………………….…………………………………… 58

Appendix B: Sentence Presentation……………………….…………………….……… 65

References……………………………………………………………………….……… 77

x
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

3.1 Percentage of correct match between prosody and syntax……………………... 36

3.2 Correct prosody-syntax match by proficiency group………………………….... 37

3.3 Correct response rate to comprehension questions by group and type………..... 39

3.4 Percentage of match between prosody and sentence interpretation…………….. 41

3.5 Prosody-interpretation match in URB/ULB sentences…………………………. 42

3.6 Percentage of prosody-interpretation match in AMB: RB/LB readings………... 45

xi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

3.1 Location of break placement in AMB sentences by group……………………... 44

xii
 SYMBOL AND ABBREVIATIONS

The following symbol and abbreviations will be used in this thesis.

˄ : prosodic break

ACC : accusative case

ADJ: adjective

DAT: dative case

GEN : genitive case

LOC : location

NOM : nominative case

NP: noun phrase

PAST : past tense

TOP : topic

xiii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

Language teachers and researchers have almost certainly encountered students

who struggle to produce natural “rhythm” when reading aloud. Although their

pronunciation of individual phonemes and, depending on the language, lexical accent or

stress is accurate enough, the rhythmic grouping of sentences above these individual

segments seems to lack organization (e.g. Dowhower, 1987; Eagan, 1975;

Schwanenflugel, 2004). This “organizational structure of speech” is referred to as

prosody, and can be observed in both spontaneous speech and oral reading (Beckman,

1996; Speer & Blodgett, 2006). Prosody has been shown to reflect surface syntax in

certain structures, such as relative clauses and branching modifiers, often manifesting as

changes in pitch or pauses in Japanese (e.g. Kubozono, 1993; Venditti, 1994). Prosodic

errors noted in the oral reading of language learners may be due to the lack of

understanding of these syntactic structures. By examining this relationship between

prosody and syntax in oral reading, we might gain insight into the source of these

1
rhythmic errors, which would be a great asset to researchers and teachers of Japanese. In

order to do so, concrete evidence of learners’ use of prosody when reading aloud is

necessary to describe how prosody is applied in oral reading by second language

(henceforth L2) learners. In the current case study, I will examine how Japanese as a

foreign language (JFL) learners apply prosody during oral reading and whether this

prosody is an accurate reflection of their interpretation of a given sentence.

1.2 Prosody in Oral Reading

Features such as length, rhythm, accent and stress that give spoken language its

natural rhythm are termed prosodic features, also known as suprasegmentals due to their

presence above individual segments (Fox, 2000). Prosody also interacts with

paralinguistic and pragmatic features of speech, for example, when a speaker places

emphasis on a certain word or phrase, or contrasts between two statements. The effective

manipulation of prosody is therefore an ever-present feature of our spoken language, and

a crucial ability for L2 learners as well. These prosodic features, once considered a

neglected area of study both in L1 and L2 language instruction, are now widely

recognized as a vital part of language proficiency, both in spoken language and oral

reading (e.g. Dowhower, 1991; Eda, 2004; Lems, 2006; Schwanenflugel, 2004).

Although an abundance of psycholinguistic research on prosody tends to focus on

prosody’s role in disambiguating speech as it is perceived by the listener, it is also

considered a key component in oral reading, albeit one whose role is difficult to

2
characterize (Mathson et al., 2006). A description of how L2 learners apply prosody in

oral reading would help us to better understand and identify the source of prosodic errors.

Researchers in phonetics and phonology have long studied the relationship between

sentence structure and prosodic representation in an attempt to create a consistent

mapping of sound and syntax (e.g. Kubozono, 1993; Pierrehumbert & Beckman, 1988;

Venditti, 1996).

For researchers on reading, questions such as “Is prosody the result of

comprehension, or does the application of prosody to a given text precede, and therefore

enable comprehension?” remain unanswered (e.g. Dowhower, 1991; Mathson et al.,

2006). Some research supports the claim that prosody applied while reading aloud is the

result of reading with comprehension (Schwanenflugel, 2004). If prosody is the final

outcome of reading after comprehension has occurred, then it would seem at least

tentatively that without comprehension, correct prosody would be difficult for the reader

to produce. However, evidence supporting this claim is strikingly scarce and inconclusive,

with the majority of related studies focusing on reading in L1 by children. Shibata &

Hurtig (2008) conducted an experiment on prosody in oral reading by L2 learners of

Japanese, but their task focused exclusively on production ability. Dowhower (1991),

summing up several older studies, identified features which hinder prosodic reading and

are characteristic of dys-fluent reading, including pausal intrusions within syntactic units,

or lack of appropriate pauses where expected, and insufficient F0 decline. In a study by

Eagan (1975), young readers who scored lower on silent reading comprehension tests

displayed more of these prosodic errors during oral reading activities. Similar studies
3
found that prosodic reading ability increases as children progress in grade levels,

suggesting a correlation between reading comprehension and the application of

appropriate prosody (Kowal et al., 1975). Although these studies examine prosody and

comprehension in English L1 grade-school children, they show an early attempt to

connect comprehension of underlying structures with prosody as a contributor to the

reader’s ability or inability to generate prosody in oral reading. The majority of these

early studies were concerned with prosody as a component of oral reading fluency, that is,

the ability to read aloud with appropriate expression and intonation. However, phonetic

analyses of the prosodic patterns or analyses of underlying syntactic structures were

generally not included in the data. In the current study, I will attempt to identify specific

structures in Japanese where the interpretation of its constituents might directly affect the

way in which prosody is applied. This will provide us with insight as to how sentence

interpretation interacts with prosody in JFL learners.

1.3 Prosody and Syntax Mapping

Several studies have demonstrated a close relationship between prosody and

syntactic structure, although the mapping is not universally one-to-one (e.g. Kubozono,

1993; Selkirk & Tateishi, 1991; Venditti, 1994; Venditti et al., 1996). Structures

frequently invoked in psycholinguistic research include left- and right-branching noun

phrases (NPs) and relative clauses. Branching NPs are structures with configurations such

4
as [X[YZ]] and [[XY]Z], in which an adjective or noun modifies a head noun. Below,

English examples are from Venditti (1994) and Japanese from Selkirk & Tateishi (1991):

(1) [Old [men and women]]

(2) [[Old men] and women]

(3) [[[Aoyama no] Yamaguchi no] aniyome] ga inai (Left branching)

‘We can’t find the sister-in-law of Mr. Yamaguchi from Aoyama.’

(4) [[Aoyama no] [[Yamaguchi no] aniyome]] ga inai (Right branching)

‘We can’t find Mr. Yamaguchi’s sister-in-law from Aoyama.’

The brackets show us that in (1) both the men and women are described as being

old, whereas in (2) only the men are described as old. In the Japanese sentences (3) and

(4), although again structurally ambiguous, the brackets indicate that Aoyama modifies

either Yamaguchi (Left-branching configuration) alone, or Yamaguchi no aniyome ‘Mr.

Yamaguchi’s sister-in-law’ (Right-branching configuration) as a whole. Selkirk &

Tateishi found that speakers produce different prosodic phrasing depending on the

location of syntactic boundaries. For example, in (4) the double brackets before

Yamaguchi no ‘Mr. Yamaguchi’s’ indicate a boundary in syntactic phrasing. In speech,

this prosodic phrasing may be phonetically realized as either a pause or a rise in F0,

resulting in a phonetically “marked” structure (Venditti, 2006). Different studies have

proposed varying accounts of the prosodic realization in similar structures, but the

consensus seems to be that prosody varies depending on the modification relationship, i.e.
5
the syntactic structure of the sentence (Kubozono, 1993). Listeners were also able to

differentiate sentence meaning in potentially ambiguous structures by the use of prosodic

phrasing in controlled experiments (e.g. Blodgett, 2004; Snedeker & Trueswell, 2003).

Studies examining the mapping of prosody and syntax in this type of structure will be

examined in more detail in Chapter 2.

Relative clauses have also been tapped by researchers due to the ambiguities that

arise in the attachment of NPs (“high attachment” vs. “low attachment”) (Jun, 2003).

Syntactic boundaries, as expressed by prosodic breaks or pitch amplitude in spoken

language, have been shown to be crucially utilized by both the speaker and listener in

expressing and interpreting meaning (Kjelgaard & Speer, 1999; Kang & Speer, 2003).

Kang and Speer (2003) provided evidence that prosodic boundary information can

provide reliable clues to the structure of spoken sentences in Korean. In a later study,

Kang, Speer & Nakayama (2006) demonstrated that this relationship between syntax and

prosody also maintains in Japanese, and they concluded that prosodic phrasing which

matches syntactic structure aids in sentence processing.

1.4 Summary

The wealth of recent research on prosody and its relationship with syntactic

structure in sentence processing in L1 will provide the background for the current case

study. Research describing L2 learners’ use of prosodic phrasing is limited, and empirical

data would provide a springboard for further research. Specifically, the current study will

6
examine prosody in oral reading and its relationship to sentence comprehension.

Assuming that a correspondence between prosodic phrasing and syntax exists in certain

sentence structures, such as branching modifiers, I propose to test similar structures with

JFL learners. Evidence suggesting that prosody can be used as a reliable indicator of

sentence interpretation in L2 learners would be of great interest to language teachers,

because areas of difficulty in production could be linked directly to their “source” in a

sentence structure. Very little research has specifically examined prosodic phrasing in L2

above the word level, and even more scant is research focusing on JFL learners. Shibata

& Hurtig (2008) conducted research on prosody acquisition in L2 Japanese, which tested

a variety of areas ranging from production of prosody to learners’ ability to distinguish

prosodic features in listening comprehension tasks. Of particular interest to the current

study is their examination of prosodic production in oral reading of left- and right-

branching modifiers, similar to those structures mentioned earlier. They assumed a

similar theoretical basis as in the current study with regards to the prosodic structure of

Japanese. However, their test sentences in the oral reading activity were presented along

with sentence meanings, removing the task of sentence comprehension by the learner and

focusing on production ability alone. In an attempt to simulate a more natural reading

activity, I propose to expand on their study by allowing learners to read test stimuli first

silently to measure comprehension, then aloud. By doing so, it will enable us to examine

the relationship between syntactic parsing during silent reading comprehension and

prosodic production. This relationship will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4.

7
 In this thesis, I propose the following two research questions relating to prosody

in L2 Japanese:

1) How do JFL learners apply prosody to sentences containing branching

modifiers?

2) Does this prosodic phrasing match their interpretation of the sentence?

My goal is to examine the nature of prosody/syntax mapping and how prosody

applied during oral reading reflects sentence interpretation in L2 Japanese. By

establishing whether prosody in oral reading has a meaningful correspondence with

sentence interpretation, it is my goal to provide evidence that interpretation of a sentence

is reflected in the decision of where to apply prosody, even in L2.

The organization of this thesis is as follows. In Chapter 2, I will provide an

overview of prosody and prosodic structure in Japanese, focusing mainly on studies

which examine the mapping of prosody to syntax. Next I will present a case study which

investigates the use of prosodic phrasing, particularly in oral reading by L2 Japanese

learners. Chapter 3 will detail the design and procedure of the experiment, as well as

present the relevant data findings. In Chapter 4, I will provide the discussion based on the

results of the experiment and draw conclusions from this data in an attempt to provide a

clearer picture of prosody in L2 Japanese oral reading.

8
 CHAPTER 2

BACKGROUND RESEARCH ON PROSODY

2.1 Overview of Prosody

Prosody, described in Chapter 1 as the “organizational structure of speech”

(Beckman, 1996), is structured by “the phonological hierarchy of constituents, with

elements at one level grouped together into larger elements at the next higher level”

(Venditti, 1996: 288). Pierrehumbert & Beckman (1988: 21) proposed a hierarchically

grouped prosodic tree, which contains the utterance as its highest unit, followed by

prosodic phrases, words, then syllables or mora at the lowest level.

Prosody is reflected in speech not only as features such as length, accent, and

stress, which concern individual words, but also at the phrasal and sentence levels. The

current study examines prosodic structure at the phrasal level in Japanese, but a

description of the prosodic features from the lexical level upwards is necessary to

understand the constituents that form prosodic phrases. As I will examine how L2

learners’ apply prosody in oral reading, a description of the prosodic structure of

Japanese, both at the lexical and phrasal levels is necessary. Below is an overview of the

key features of prosody in Japanese.

9
2.2 Prosodic Phrasing

In order to examine prosody and its relation to other language structures, a system

to describe the phonetic characteristics of spoken language is necessary. Speer &

Blodgett (2006) describe two primary methods in which prosody is “visually” analyzed,

those being phonetic analyses of duration and fundamental frequency (F0), and

intonational labeling systems, chiefly the ToBI (Tones and Break Indicies) annotation

system.1 Fundamental frequency and duration are generally analyzed phonetically by

examining the waveform of an utterance with computer software. Amplitude and duration

of pauses are the key features which show accent, pitch and sentential breaks of the

spoken signal. As we will see later, both pitch height and break duration are critical

elements in examining the relationship between prosody and syntactic structure.

2.2.1 Lexical Accent in Japanese

Japanese is considered a mora (syllable)-timed language, as opposed to a stress-

timed language such as English (Kubozono, 1988). According to Venditti (2006: 209),

“accent in English is realized as an intonational prominence associated with metrically

1
Developed for English by Silverman et al. (1992), this system has also been applied to various other
languages, including Japanese, where it is called J_ToBI, and has helped scholars of language to label
features of spoken language such as rhythm, pitch, stress and accent (Venditti, 1995). The ToBI system
represents the sound string of a sentence as a series of tonal events, and these are labeled with a notational
system. The three tonal events described by this notation include an initial boundary tone (L%), a high tone
(H-), and another (L%) phrase-final boundary tone. The phrase intonation would be the contour between
these three points (Venditti, 1995, 2006).

10
strong syllables or words at the sentence level.” Rather than accent being determined by

word structure alone, English speakers may choose to place stress on a given word for

pragmatic reasons, in order to indicate emphasis or contrast, while in Japanese accent is a

property of individual lexical items themselves (Kubozono, 1988). That is, a word is

either accented or unaccented, as is shown in the pairs below containing identical

segments, which are distinguished only by accent in the spoken language.2

(1) H LLL (2) L HHH

Kainusi ‘owner’ Kainusi ‘buyer’

Accented words display a rise in pitch on the accented mora, followed by a sharp

decrease (HL: high to low) in pitch at the end of the accented mora. Words that are

unaccented exhibit a similar initial rise in pitch (LH), but the sharp drop present in

accented words is not found in unaccented words. Both accented and unaccented words

undergo a rise in pitch on their second mora, which is termed a “phrase accent”

(Kubozono, 1993; Venditti, 2006).

Next, we will examine prosodic structure above the lexical level and introduce

key concepts related to its description.

2
These words can be distinguished in written form by Chinese characters: ‘owner’ and
‘buyer.’

11
2.2.2 Accentual Phrase

Prosody above the word level is typically grouped into accentual phrases (AP)

and intonation phrases (IP). These units of phrasing refer to the way that speakers

rhythmically group the words in an utterance (Blodgett, 2004). Venditti (2006: 211)

refers to an AP as “[a] grouping of words delimited by three tones: a low boundary tone

at the start of the phrase, a high phrase tone near the second mora and another boundary

tone at the end of the phrase.” In terms of word constituents, APs tend to be composed of

a single accented word followed by a case marker or postposition, as in Tanaka-san ga

‘Mr. Tanaka-NOM’. Venditti (1994) also provides examples in which unaccented words

phrase together with adjacent unaccented and accented words to form longer APs.3

Accentual phrases then group into a higher level of phrase, the intonation phrase, which

is the highest level of prosodic grouping in Japanese (Speer, 2004; Venditti, 1994).

2.2.3 Intonation Phrase

Intonation phrases (IPs) are also defined by tonal characteristics similar to those

found in the AP. In the hierarchy of prosodic structure, IPs form the highest level and are

composed of groupings of APs (Venditti, 2006). Since IPs often comprise entire

sentences, an optional pitch movement indicating a question, for example, at the right

edge of the utterance is often marked by a rise in pitch, depending on a speaker’s

intended pragmatic meaning (Venditti, 2006). An important feature to consider that is

3
Venditti (2006) notes that in continuous speech, individual unaccented words may be de-phrased into a
sentence-length APs.

12
found at the IP level is the phonological process of downstep. Downstep occurs when

accented APs follow in sequence, resulting in a step-like compression of pitch

(Kubozono, 1993; Selkirk & Tateishi, 1991; Venditti, 1994, 2006). As long as the

accented APs are adjacent within the same IP, downstep has been shown to occur

(Kubozono, 1993; Pierrehumbert & Beckman, 1988; Selkirk & Tateishi, 1991). A break

in the IP would cause pitch to “reset” to an initial value, effectively stopping the

downward trend of pitch movement. Boundaries between IPs have also been shown to

appear as prosodic breaks or pauses in speech. Lovric et al. (2001) found that in relative

clause attachment, prosodic breaks corresponded with IP boundaries, which in turn

reflected syntactic attachment. In the current study, prosodic breaks, which are assumed

here to be indicative of underlying syntactic structure, will be used as important

indicators as to how subjects parse sentences and apply prosody in an oral reading task.

In this section we have described the pertinent features of prosodic structure in

Japanese. The following section will consider studies which examine the mapping

relationship between prosody and syntactic structure.

2.3 Mapping of Prosody and Syntax

An abundance of recent research in the fields of phonology, phonetics, and

psycholinguistics has focused on the mapping between prosodic structure and underlying

syntax (for Japanese: Selkirk & Tateishi, 1991; Venditti, 1994; for Korean: Schafer &

Jun, 2002; for English: Blodgett, 2004; Kjelgaard & Speer, 1999). Determining the nature

of this mapping relationship would give researchers a clearer picture as to how speakers

13
use prosody to convey meaning, as well as how prosody can influence listener judgment

(Fox, 2000). Even in L2 speech, as will be seen in the current study on L2 oral reading,

establishing a mapping relationship between prosody and syntax would provide insight

into how learners are processing certain structures, such as branching pre-nominal

modifiers.

Studies specifically investigating this topic in Japanese L1 are thorough and have

shown salient evidence linking prosody and syntactic structure. Pierrehumbert &

Beckman’s (1986, 1988) studies on prosodic phenomena such as downstep pioneered the

investigation of the effect of syntactic structure on prosodic phrasing. Below I will briefly

examine a few recent studies investigating different aspects of the syntax-to-prosody

mapping relation.

2.3.1 Studies on Prosody-Syntax Mapping

Selkirk and Tateishi’s (1991) study on the prosodic phenomenon of downstep

makes a strong case for the phonetic realization of syntax in certain structures. The

structures in mention are left-branching (LB) and right-branching (RB) sentences, shown

below (p. 531).4

4
The symbol ˄ indicates a prosodic boundary.

14
 NP

(3) [[[Aoyama no] Yamaguchi no] aniyome ga] inai (LB)

‘We can’t find the sister-in-law of Mr. Yamaguchi from Aoyama.’

NP

(4) [[Aoyama no] ˄ [[Yamaguchi no] aniyome ga]] inai (RB)

‘We can’t find Mr. Yamaguchi’s sister-in-law from Aoyama.’

All test sentences in their study were composed of accented words, which have

been shown to induce down-stepping of the F0 of an utterance. Downstep was reported in

all of the accented nouns in the left node, or branch of the LB configuration [[XY]Z] in

(3), but not in the RB configuration [X[YZ]] in (4). They claim that this is due to the

presence of an IP (Major Phrase in their study) boundary intervening between the

15
elements [X] and [Y] in RB structures, and posit the following generalization regarding

downstep (p. 530):

(5) Tonal material is downstepped after an accent only if it is in the same

Intonation Phrase (Major Phrase) as that accent.

The boundary for the IP in (4) above would be the left edge of a syntactic

constituent, which corresponds to the left-branching node containing Yamaguchi no. The

absence of such a boundary in (3) allows the pitch of the accented nouns to be

compressed, or downstepped in a stair-like manner. In the current study, I will employ

branching structures of both RB and LB configurations in order to test if the presence of

similar syntactic boundaries has any effect on prosodic realization in L2 Japanese.

Venditti et al. (1996) examined prosody-syntax mapping in their study on

acquisition of syntactic structures by L1 Japanese, Korean, and English speakers. They

found similarities between the three languages in terms of prosodic groupings reflecting

syntax above the individual lexical stress and pitch patterns. In the case of Japanese, they

give the following sentence, which can have two syntactic interpretations (p. 299).

(6)

last year knitted scarf-NOM was stolen

a. [kyonen ˄ [anda erimaki ga nusumareta]].

‘The scarf that I knitted was stolen last year.’

16
 b. [[kyonen anda erimaki ga] nusumareta].

‘The scarf that I knitted last year was stolen.’

Here, the adverb kyonen ‘last year’ can modify the sentence as a whole (a), or just

the relative clause (b). When examining the F0 contours of each of the above

interpretations, it was found that the wider scope interpretation (a) was produced with a

pause coinciding with the phrase boundary that corresponds to the underlying syntactic

structure (1996: 301). They note that either a pause, or a reset in the F0 contour to a

higher pitch can provide the listener clues to the syntactic structure in this type of

modification relationship. These results, although inconclusive as evidence in their

investigation of prosody’s role in syntactic acquisition in L1,5 support our study’s claim

by showing that prosody can be a salient clue to syntactic structure in certain sentence

types.

In an earlier study, Venditti (1994) used branching NPs, similar to those that will

be employed in the current experiment, to investigate previous findings by Kubozono

(1988) and Pierrehumbert & Beckman (1988) on the nature of syntax-prosody mapping.

(7) [[kimidori no himawari no] ˄ moyoo] (LB)

Green-GEN sunflower-GEN pattern

‘A pattern of green sunflowers’

5
Their study investigates prosody’s role as a boot-strapping mechanism that aids acquisition of syntactic
structures in L1.

17
 (8) [kimidori no [himawari no moyoo]] (RB)

Green-GEN sunflower-GEN pattern

‘A green pattern of sunflowers’

When shown pictures corresponding to the LB configuration (in which only the

sunflowers were green) as in (7), some speakers placed a pause between the genitive case

marker no and the head noun moyoo ‘pattern’ (p. 309). This pause would presumably

provide the listener with a clue to the scope of the modification of the genitive no.

Prosodic breaks and their influence on syntactic parsing were the focus of

research by Clifton (2002), who formulated the Informative Boundary Hypothesis (IBH).

Originally devised for English, it was reorganized by Maynell (2005) for head-final

languages such as Japanese. Paraphrased, the IBH states that for structures [A] [B] [C],

where [A] can be attached to either [B] or [C], prosodic boundaries can encourage either

high or low attachment, depending on location. If the boundary between [A] and [B] is

relatively greater, high attachment should be preferred, but if the break between [B] and

[C] is comparatively larger, low attachment should be favored (p. 6). Although the IBH

originally described prosodic breaks in relative clauses, the occurrence of prosodic breaks

in branching modifiers, such as in (7) and (8) above, will be examined in the current

experiment assuming similar findings will apply. By comparing the relationship between

prosody in oral reading and interpretation, we will investigate the interaction of prosody

and syntax in L2 Japanese.

18
2.4 Prosody in L2

Next, I will shift my discussion toward research on prosody in L2, by both

English and Japanese speakers. At present, this area of investigation constitutes

somewhat of a “grey area” in studies of prosody, with a majority of research focusing on

production ability alone (Lems, 2006; Shibata & Hurtig, 2008). The interaction between

sentence processing mechanisms and prosody, and the usage of prosodic phrasing in

sentence interpretation, have both been well-documented by scholars in L1, but little

quantitative research exists regarding L2 prosody. Lems (2006: 236) attributes this in part

to the fact that groups of L2 learners are often composed of learners from differing

language backgrounds, and this variation makes comparison difficult. Intonational

patterns of their native languages are too great a factor in being able to use prosody as an

indicator of sentence parsing decisions. Additionally, other scholars note the particular

difficulty in teaching prosody to L2 learners, or the fact that prosody is often left

unaddressed by language teachers as factors for the paucity of research on L2 prosody.

(Eda, 2004; Lems, 2006).

Prosody in L1 oral reading was briefly mentioned in the previous chapter. Studies

in L1 reading prosody provided an initial motive for the current study; L1 children who

are still grappling with acquiring adult-like parsing skills can presumably be compared to

L2 learners, who also have an incomplete mastery of syntactic structure (Dowhower,

1991). That is, errors noted in reading research on prosody of L1 children can

conceivably be found in adult L2 learners as well.

19
 Schwanenflugel et al. (2004) conducted research on prosody and reading

comprehension in L1 children. In their study, they tested two assumptions: (1) Prosodic

reading is a by-product of reading comprehension and (2) prosodic reading might also

work conversely, with correct prosodic reading enhancing sentence parsing decisions.6

The reading models which correspond to these two assumptions are (i) reading prosody

as a partial mediator model and (ii) reading comprehension as a predictor of reading

prosody model (p. 121). These predictions seem to have some overlap with Clifton’s

(2002) Informative Boundary Hypothesis examined earlier in terms of prosody’s effect

on comprehension. This leads to the question that was raised earlier in this study: How

are prosody and sentence interpretation related in L2 Japanese?

Findings to this question have been mixed and inconclusive. Schwanenflugel et

al.’s results suggest that performance on reading comprehension tests and the speed at

which children decode words in L1 contributes to the child’s ability to apply adult-like

prosody when reading aloud. However, no evidence pointed to prosody enhancing

parsing ability of a given text. Other studies, such as that by Karlin (1985) on speakers of

Caribbean-English have shown that suprasegmental features, referred to in her study as

components of “fluency in oral reading,” are not reliable predictors of reading

comprehension ability. Her study was an early attempt to examine reading prosody in a

specific language population. The subjects in the study all performed well on

comprehension tests, but their prosody deviated from the accepted pattern. Although this

6
Schwanenflugel et al. define reading prosody as the incorporation of prosodic features such as the rise and
fall of pitch and pauses typical of conversational speech into oral reading (2004: 119).

20
is an older study, the following two weaknesses can be pointed out. First, subjects were

all college students at American universities who spoke a dialect of English, but were

nonetheless native speakers of English. Because all participants were educated L1

speakers of English with presumably excellent reading comprehension skills, it seems

that examining prosody and comprehension in this population would be fruitless in

attempting to make a connection between prosody and comprehension ability. Second, no

specific syntactic structures were focused on for their analysis of the relation between

prosody and structure; subjects were given a document and instructed to read it “with

expression” (p. 10). In order to avoid these shortcomings, in the current study specific

syntactic structures will be employed in the examination of the relationship between

prosody and sentence interpretation by L2 learners.

2.4.1 Prosody in L2 Japanese Oral Reading

Shibata & Hurtig (2008) conducted one of the few comprehensive studies on

prosody in learners of Japanese. They identify prosody’s vital role in both understanding

the nuances of intonational features in Japanese as well as making oneself understood

when speaking. Their study examines the acquisition of prosody by L1 English learners

of Japanese in terms of productive and perceptual abilities of prosody. An underlying

motivation for their study is stated that a perceived “foreign accent,” often found in even

advanced learners, hinders the ability of the non-native speaker to function in the society

of the target language (p. 176). At the root of this foreign accent are not only segmental

errors, which are considered relatively easy to identify and correct, but non-segmental

21
prosodic errors, such as pitch accent and sentence-final intonation. They reported that

prosodic factors, such as pitch height, rather than segmental errors had more influence on

an L2 Japanese speaker being perceived as having a foreign accent (p. 178). Shibata &

Hurtig identified and tested several areas of difficulty for English speaking learners of

Japanese in acquiring Japanese prosodic and segmental structure, and tested these with

learners of three proficiency levels, Advanced, Intermediate, and Novice. The areas

examined were: Ability to distinguish short/long vowels, production/perception of mora

length and word accent, ability to produce/perceive prosody for semantically and

syntactically ambiguous sentences, and ability to produce/perceive sentence-final

intonation.

Among the areas they examined, of interest to our study is the ability of Japanese

as a Foreign Language (JFL) learners to produce ambiguous branching structures, which

was labeled Task 2 in their study. Their experimental Task 2 deals with prosody and its

use in providing cues to mark certain syntactic structures, in this case branching

structures. Phrases containing ambiguous structures, that is, those which can syntactically

and semantically have two interpretations, can be disambiguated by prosody alone (p.

184). This task examined learners’ ability to produce prosodic cues to mark these

ambiguous syntactic structures, in accordance with their intended meaning.

In order to establish a baseline prosodic pattern, the test phrase [akai kuruma no

shiito] ‘red car-GEN seat’ was first given to a Japanese native speaker (NS) to establish

an intonation contour. Below are the syntactic trees representing both the RB (9) and LB

(10) configurations of this phrase from Shibata & Hurtig (2008: 184):
22
 (9) Right-branching (10) Left-branching

ADJ N P N ADJ N P N
[[akai] ˄ [kuruma no shiito]] [[akai kuruma no] ˄ shiito]

“red car-seat” “red car’s seat”

In the phonetic analysis conducted in their study, the NS placed a noticeable

pause at the major phrasal boundary in the RB-structure. In the LB configuration, akai

kuruma no was produced as a unified group, with a slight pause or break occurring before

the final noun shiito ‘seat’. They assume that RB structures in particular are prosodically

indicated in Japanese, either by a pause/break or a boost in fundamental frequency which

corresponds to the syntactic structure seen in the trees above.

The same target was then presented to JFL students, who were instructed to read

the sentence aloud in the frame Kore wa akai kuruma no shiito desu, ‘This is a red car

seat.’ Four other of similarly ambiguous structures were used. Prior to the reading,

learners were allowed to spend a few minutes analyzing the sentences and were also

presented the English translation to clarify meaning. Oral productions were recorded and

later rated for comprehensibility by three NS judges. Shibata & Hurtig conclude that

production ability clearly improves by proficiency level. However, correct production of

RB structures was clearly more difficult for learners than that of LB, even at the

23
advanced level. Observed errors include learners’ failure to raise the pitch of the N

kuruma ‘car’ as well as failure to suppress the pitch of the final noun shiito ‘seat’. These

errors by JFL learners in oral productions of the RB structures contributed to the lower

comprehensibility by the NS judges (p. 193). Although Shibata & Hurtig’s study was

designed primarily to test production, they neglected to incorporate an important aspect

of prosody, which is how sentence interpretation interacts with prosodic phrasing. By

providing sentence interpretation, a step in the normal reading process has been

effectively removed, providing little insight on how JFL learners might produce a

sentence in a typical classroom reading activity.

2.5 Summary

As we have seen, there is an abundance of research on the mapping of prosody to

syntax covering multiple languages. Specific to Japanese, phenomena such as downstep,

F0 boost and prosodic breaks have been documented as instances of prosody mapping

onto surface syntax. The question then arises as the nature of this relationship in L2

Japanese.

In the experiment described in the next chapter, I have expanded on a particular

aspect of Shibata & Hurtig’s study (Task 2) by adding a comprehension task to the oral

reading of branching modifiers. In their production task, subjects were provided with

sentence interpretation, limiting the scope of the task solely to production. By doing so,

little light is shed upon the processing decisions learners make when reading a sentence

and applying prosody.

24
 CHAPTER 3

THE EXPERIMENT

3.1 Research Questions

This chapter discusses the design and procedure of the experiment conducted in

this study which examined the relationship between prosody in oral reading and reading

comprehension in L2 Japanese. A summary of the results will be presented at the end of

the chapter. Branching modifiers with both unambiguous and ambiguous interpretations,

such as those examined in Shibata & Hurtig (2008) and discussed in Chapter 2, were

employed as test sentences because of their demonstrated correlation between prosody

and syntax. Similar structures have also been examined by researchers in sentence

processing (e.g. Pierrehumbert & Beckman, 1988; Venditti, 1994; Venditti et al., 1996).

The current experiment was designed to investigate how JFL (Japanese as a Foreign

Language) learners apply prosody during oral reading, and whether or not this prosody

reflects their interpretation on a comprehension activity. The following research

questions guided the design of this study:

25
 1) How do JFL learners apply prosody to sentences containing branching

modifiers?

2) Does this prosodic phrasing match their interpretation of the sentence?

Test sentences included the following three types: Unambiguous Right-branching

(URB), Unambiguous Left-branching (ULB) and Ambiguous (AMB) sentences. URB

and ULB sentences will be examined to see if prosody matches syntactic structure and if

this prosody matches sentence interpretation. The AMB sentences, those with two

possible interpretations, will be checked for a match between prosody and interpretation

as indicated by a comprehension question. Data from three different proficiency groups

of JFL learners, comprising the experimental group, will be analyzed and compared to a

native speaker (NS) control group.

3.2 Participants

A total of 30 participants were recruited for this study: 26 JFL learners

(experimental group) and 4 native speakers of Japanese (control group). All participants

were either undergraduate or graduate students at The Ohio State University who were

over 18 years old. They were recruited directly by the experimenter through Japanese

language classroom visits to briefly explain the experiment and distribute letters of

solicitation.

The JFL learners were all enrolled in Japanese courses at the time the experiment

was conducted. They were taking one of the following courses: Intensive Track, Level 3,

26
or Level 4 Japanese, which used Japanese: The Spoken Language, Parts 2 & 3 (Jorden &

Noda, 1988, 1990) as the course textbooks. The Intensive Track combines Levels 2 and 3

into one year of study; these participants had all been exposed to nearly the same

materials as Level 3 at the time of the study. However, this group will be analyzed

separately, as the pace of study of this course is much faster than Level 3.7

The experimental group consisted of three subject groups: Group 1 includes seven

participants from Intensive (between approx. 410-450 instruction hours over the duration

of the experiment), Group 2 includes 11 participants from Level 3 (430-450 hours), and

Group 3 contains eight participants from Level 4 (560-600 hours). The experiment was

conducted over the period of about six weeks at the end of the academic year, so contact

hours at the time of participation varied slightly among individuals. All JFL participants

spoke English as their L1, with no formal Japanese study prior to university classes. A

total of eight students had visited Japan, six of who had stayed for less than three months,

with no formal Japanese classes. Two participants from Group 2 had three to six month

stays in Japan, one of whom took Japanese language classes at a university during her

stay.

The control group of four native speakers was recruited through personal contacts

of the experimenter. They had various lengths of stay in the US, but were all enrolled in

either graduate or undergraduate courses at OSU at the time of the experiment. Dialect

variation among this group was not controlled, but three of the four participants were

7
In terms of ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages) proficiency levels,
Level 3/Intensive students are about Intermediate; Level 4 is approximately Intermediate High/Advanced
Low.

27
from eastern Japan, and one was from Nagoya.8 All participants were volunteers and

were paid ten dollars as compensation for their participation in the study.

3.3 Materials

The experiment module contained a total of 38 sentences, including five practice

stimuli in the pretest session, 16 test stimuli and 16 fillers in the main session, and one

sentence used in the initial instructions. As mentioned above, the test sentences can be

further separated into three types, URB (four sentences), ULB (four sentences) and AMB

(eight sentences). Test stimuli all contained a branching modifier structure, in the

sequence [ADJ] [N1] [N2], while fillers did not employ these structures. All sentences

were presented in Japanese script, with furigana readings above kanji that had not been

covered by the participants. Since the objective of the oral reading task was to attain a

natural reading of the test stimuli, furigana were deemed necessary to facilitate oral

reading fluency.10 Vocabulary items and grammatical structures used in all 38 sentences

were selected from material that all proficiency levels had previously covered. To avoid

any effects of lexical priming, individual vocabulary items were used only once in the

experiment module.

Each of the 37 sentences was presented in an identical format. Comprehension

questions were presented in English, to prevent confusion and reduce the length of time

8
Kanto region participants: Chiba (two subjects), Tokyo (one subject).
10
In materials designed for native readers, furigana are normally only used for kanji not included on the list
of Joyo Kanji.

28
to complete the experiment. Below are examples of each of the types of sentences

employed followed by their respective comprehension questions. Correct answers are

shown in bold. See Appendix A for a complete list of test sentences.

Aside from the target branching structures, all of the test stimuli were similar in

structure in that they began with a nominative case-marked subject and ended with a verb

in past tense. Within the target branching structures, mora length was not controlled, and

accent was only controlled on N1. For the N1 position, only unaccented nouns, or nouns

with accents on the second mora or later were used, in order to facilitate the data analysis

for presence of prosodic breaks. Below are the sentence types with English translations.11

i) URB (Unambiguous Right-branching):

(1)

Suzuki-san ga [ookii [natu no miitingu]] de supiiti o simasita.

Suzuki-NOM large summer-GEN meeting-LOC speech-ACC do-PAST

“Mr. Suzuki gave a speech at a large meeting in the summer.”

Comprehension Question:

Q: Where did Mr. Suzuki give a speech?

a) at the large meeting in the summer

b) at the meeting held during the big summer

c) either a) or b)

d) neither a) or b)
11
Translations of test stimuli were not presented during the experiment.

29
 ii) ULB (Unambiguous Left-branching):

(2)

Kimura-san ga [[yasui apaato] no soto] de tabako o suimasita.

Kimura-NOM cheap apartment-GEN outside-LOC cigarette-ACC smoke-PAST

“Mr. Kimura smoked a cigarette outside of the cheap apartment.”

Comprehension Question:

Where did Mr. Kimura smoke a cigarette?

a) outside of the cheap apartment

b) at the cheap-looking area outside the apartment

c) either a) or b)

d) neither a) or b)

The URB and ULB stimuli contained a branching structure, indicated by

bracketing, which was disambiguated by the plausibility of word choice, similar to the

test sentences used by Schafer & Jun (2002) in their research on Korean L1 prosody.

They used plausibility of word choice to create a bias toward adjectival modification of

either N1 or N2 in branching noun phrases. For example, in their pre-test study L1

Korean speakers found the structure [stylish model’s designer] to have a clear N1 bias

(model), whereas in [stylish Pope’s designer], N2 modification (designer) was rated as

more natural (p. 237).

Similarly, in (1) above, one would not normally assume that ADJ ookii ‘big’

would modify N1 natu ‘summer’ alone. By inserting an implausible word in either the

30
N1 or N2 position, the syntactically ambiguous structures can then be disambiguated. As

demonstrated in the previous chapter, it was hypothesized that prosody would vary

according to surface syntactic structure.

The comprehension question that follows each of the above URB/ULB-type

sentences presents four answer choices, of which a) and b) represent either a RB or LB

interpretation of the sentence. Answers c) “either” and d) “neither” were considered

incorrect as a result of the plausibility limiting the answer to only one correct

interpretation for this type of test sentence.

The AMB-type sentences are ambiguous, although they contain a syntactically

similar branching structure as the URB and ULB sentences. In (3) below, the ambiguity

arises from the fact that the ADJ can plausibly modify either N1 mati ‘town’ or N2

koosaten ‘intersection.’ These sentences are structurally similar to those used in the

prosody production task in Shibata & Hurtig (2008), although in the present experiment

sentence interpretation was not provided during the initial silent reading phase. The task

of sentence parsing was placed on the participant, thus enabling the later analysis of

prosody-to-interpretation match.

iii) AMB (Ambiguous):

(3)

Brown-san ga [abunai mati no koosaten] de tomodati ni aimasita.

Brown-NOM dangerous town-GEN intersection-LOC friend-DAT meet-PAST

“Mr. Brown met his friend at the intersection in the dangerous town.”

31
 “Mr. Brown met his friend at the dangerous intersection in the town.”

Comprehension Question:

Where did Mr. Brown meet his friend?

a) at the intersection in a dangerous town

b) at the dangerous intersection in the town

c) either a) or b)

d) neither a) or b)

The Filler sentence shown below is representative of the type distributed in a

pseudo-random order throughout the experiment module. A total of 16 Fillers were

contained in the experiment, each with a comprehension question of like format to the

test stimuli. Refer to the Appendix A for a complete list of test materials.

iv) Filler Sentence:

(4)

Yamanaka-san ga byooki ni natte, gakkoo o yasumimasita.

Yamanaka-NOM illness became school-ACC rest-PAST

“Mr. Yamanaka became ill and took the day off school.”

Comprehension Question:

Why was Mr. Yamanaka absent from school?

a) because he got a job

b) because he got sick

32
 c) either a ) or b)

d) neither a) or b)

3.4 Procedure

The experiment module was presented as a series of slides in PowerPoint, and

contained sentences of the four types described in the previous section. All participants

saw the same material in an identical, predetermined order. Spoken data was

continuously recorded with Audacity sound-recording software, and sound files were

later edited to remove practice and filler sentences.

A short 5-slide introduction, which contained one sentence similar to a filler, was

administered first, to familiarize learners with the experimental procedures and to make

sure their voice was being recorded clearly enough for later analysis. Participants were all

instructed to read in a natural voice, at their usual reading pace. During the introduction

only, English explanations for each step were displayed at the top of the screen along

with the sentence. Verbal instructions were given by the experimenter only if the

participant was unclear of the onscreen directions. The recording was then played back to

participants to verify speech volume and clarity. After the instruction segment concluded

and any procedural questions were answered, the experimenter left the room. A 5-

question pretest session then followed, before the 32-question test session began.

For the experimental task, each sentence had three slides which corresponded to

the three phases of the task:

33
(5) Phases of the experiment:

a. Silent reading phase: Participants were presented with a sentence in

Japanese, which they were instructed to read silently, while thinking about

the meaning.

b. Oral reading phase: Participants were instructed to read the sentence aloud

into a microphone.

c. Comprehension phase: Comprehension question to determine sentence

interpretation.

A separate answer sheet was provided for participants to indicate their responses

to the comprehension questions. For the control group, the same procedures were

followed throughout the experiment. On average, the experimental group took between

25-40 minutes to complete the entire experiment, while the control group took 15-20

minutes.

3.5 Results

For the data analysis, one subject from Group 1 was removed because audio data

was missing for half of the test sentences. The remaining 25 subjects in the experimental

group were all included in the analysis below. As mentioned earlier, the relevant prosodic

feature that was analyzed in this study was the location of a prosodic break. In the target

branching modifiers of the sequence [ADJ] [N1] [N2], the presence of a break between

[ADJ] and [N1] indicated an RB configuration. Likewise, a prosodic break placed

34
between [N1] and [N2] was considered an indicator of an LB structure. In analyzing the

audio data, break locations were judged by the experimenter and a native speaker of

Japanese. Inter-rater agreement on break location was calculated for each proficiency

group as follows: Group 1 (70%), Group 2 (77%), Group 3 (70%) and NS (61%). The

rapid pace of reading by some of the NS subjects made break locations more difficult to

identify, possibly resulting in the low inter-rater agreement. Due to the relatively low

percentage of agreement, particularly on the NS group, break duration in sentences where

the raters disagreed was evaluated with Praat sound analysis software. In these cases, the

software enabled us to examine the pitch contour and duration of the target structures,

which were used to compare the lengths of the two possible break locations. The longer

of the two breaks was considered to be the location of the break for the target structure.

Break locations were recorded as either matching/not matching the correct pattern in

URB and ULB or matching/not matching the subject’s answer to the comprehension

question in the AMB sentences. This distinction between sentence types was made

because it was assumed that there were two possible prosodic patterns for the AMB

sentences. The figures that follow present data from all groups.

3.5.1 Prosody-syntax match in JFL learners and native speakers

Figure 3.1 below shows the percentage of correct match between prosody and

syntax in the URB, the ULB, and the AMB sentences for JFL learners (Groups 1, 2 & 3)

and native Japanese speakers (NS). Note that both the RB and the LB interpretations are

35
considered correct for the AMB sentences, resulting in a 100% match between prosody

and syntax.

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
JFL NS

URB ULB AMB

Figure 3.1: Percentage of correct match between prosody and syntax

The JFL learners’ correct response rate on the URB sentences was markedly

lower than ULB. Their average rate of correct break placement was 61% for URB and

82% for ULB. The difference among the JFL group by sentence type was statistically

significant (F(1,24) = 11.325, p<0.001). These results show a higher prosody-syntax

match for the ULB sentences in the JFL learners as a group, and indicate a tendency to

place a break after [N1] in the target branching structure. Examining the NS group, an

opposite pattern was found, with better performance on URB than on ULB (94% and

69%, respectively). These types were marginally significant at (F(1,3) = 3.429, p<0.074).

A discussion of possible factors contributing to this observed difference in the application

36
of prosody will be presented in Chapter 4. Figure 3.2 below shows a clearer picture of the

performance by proficiency group. Again, note that the AMB sentences were presumed

to have two possible prosodic break locations, which accounts for the 100% prosody to

syntax match in all groups.12

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 NS

URB ULB AMB

Figure 3.2: Correct prosody-syntax match by proficiency group

Groups 1 & 2, which are both at a comparable level in terms of classroom hours,

performed similarly on placement of breaks in both the URB and the ULB sentences. As

observed in Figure 3.2, their average rate of correct break placement for URB was

relatively low in comparison to ULB, with 63% for Group 1 and 61% for Group 2. For

12
The raters assumed that all sentences had a break in one of the two possible locations when sentences
were evaluated. The break with the longest duration was selected as the break location, resulting in a 100%
prosody-syntax match in AMB sentences.

37
the ULB sentences, the correct placement for Group 1 improved to 75%, as did Group 2

with 75% correct break placement. Turning to Group 3, the average of correct prosody to

syntax match slightly decreased to 59% for the URB sentences. However, Group 3’s

correct response rate to the ULB sentences was the highest of all groups at 97%. At a

glance, from these results we can say that prosody-syntax match was consistently higher

in ULB than in the URB sentences for JFL learners, possibly indicating a tendency

toward an LB reading in this group. Furthermore, the performance on the ULB sentences

seems to improve at the higher proficiency level. However, no significant difference was

found in correct prosody-syntax match when comparing the three groups of JFL learners

(F(2,48) = 1.071, p< 0.345), as all groups showed the same tendency to perform better on

ULB matching.

As observed earlier, the NS control group, which consisted of only four subjects,

performed the best on break placement in the URB sentences, while the ULB sentences

appeared to be less consistent. Besides the small sample size for the NS group, a possible

explanation for this result is a difference in attachment preferences between English L1

JFL learners and NS subjects, which will be discussed in Chapter 4.

38
3.5.2 Answers to comprehension questions: All groups

A comprehension question was presented after each test sentence, and subject

performance is shown below in Figure 3.3. Correct responses are indicated by proficiency

group and sentence type.13

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 NS

URB ULB AMB

Figure 3.3: Correct response rate to comprehension questions by group and type

The multiple choice comprehension question for each sentence presented subjects

with four answer choices, two of which corresponded to an RB or LB interpretation, one

an “either” RB/LB choice and one a “neither” choice. For the URB and ULB sentences,

only one choice was considered correct, whereas for the AMB sentences any answer

13
Responses to Filler-type test stimuli were not included in the main data analysis. Correct response rates
to these sentences were: Group 1 (76%), Group 2 (81%), Group 3 (78%), and NS (80%). The
comparatively lower correct response rates on the Fillers appears to be due to overall low performance on
sentences (2), (14), and (16) in Appendix A. These questions required either a “c” or “d” answer.

39
choice other than “neither” was counted as a correct response. This accounts for the high

performance in all groups, particularly on the AMB sentences. Group 1 had a correct

response rate of 88% (URB), 88% (ULB) and 100% (AMB); Group 2 at 82%, 80% and

90%; Group 3 at 75%, 88% and 98%; and NS with 100%, 94% and 100%, respectively.

When the correct response rates in the URB/ULB were compared, no significant

difference was found by group (F(3,56) = 1.852, p<0.139), sentence type (F(1,24) =

0.032, p<0.845), or interaction by group/type for all groups (F(3,56) = 0.700, p<0.553).

Subject answers will be used below to examine the relationship between prosody and

interpretation, that is, whether or not the prosodic break placement matches with the

interpretation of the sentence indicated by the answer to comprehension questions.

3.5.3 Prosody-interpretation match in JFL learners and native speakers

Figure 3.4 displays the prosody-interpretation match for all groups and sentence

types. For the URB and ULB sentences, even if the response to the comprehension

question was incorrect, if that answer matched the subject’s prosody, it was considered as

a match in the figure below.

40
 100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 NS

URB ULB AMB

Figure 3.4: Percentage of match between prosody and sentence interpretation

For the JFL learners, prosody-interpretation match appears to be greater for the

ULB than the URB across all three proficiency groups. Group 1 had a 54% match for the

URB and a 67% match for the ULB. For Group 2, 55% of the URB sentences matched

and 61% of the ULB sentences matched. Group 3 appeared to have the largest difference

between the two unambiguous sentence types, with a 50% match for the URB and a 91%

match for the ULB. As noted in Figure 3.2, Group 3 also showed the best performance in

the JFL groups on ULB prosody-syntax match. The difference between prosody-

interpretation match in URB and ULB was significant when the four groups were

compared (F(3,28) = 3.021, p<0.031), but no significance was found among the URB and

ULB types (F(1,28) = 2.541, p<0.112) when all groups were included. As expected, the

NS group again showed an opposite trend to that of the JFL groups, with a 94% prosody-

interpretation match on the URB sentences and a 75% match for the ULB. This opposite
41
trend by the JFL and NS groups resulted in a significant interaction between group and

sentence type (F(3,84)=3.329, p<0.020). When comparing prosody-interpretation match

in the JFL groups alone, no statistical difference was found between the groups

(F(2,48)=1.327, p<0.268). However, a type difference (URB/ULB) was significant

(F(1,24)=8.406, p<0.004) among the JFL learners, and the group/type interaction showed

a marginal difference (F(2,48)=2.518, p<0.083) in the URB/ULB sentences.

Figure 3.4 above shows the results for prosody-interpretation match for

unambiguous sentence types that included incorrect responses to comprehension

questions. The URB/ULB sentences were also evaluated by excluding subjects who

answered incorrectly to comprehension questions, which shows us the prosody-

interpretation match for subjects who were able to correctly comprehened these sentence

types. Figure 3.5 displays these results below.

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 NS

URB ULB

Figure 3.5: Prosody-interpretation match in URB/ULB sentences

42
 When only those subjects who correctly answered the comprehension questions

were analyzed, we see a slight drop in prosody-syntax match, although the overall

performance trends appear unchanged. Group 1’s performance remained the same, while

Group 2 showed a slight dip in percentage of match at 50% for the URB and 59% for the

ULB. Group 3 also had a slightly lower performance with 47% for the URB sentences

and 88% for the ULB sentences. There was a significant difference in ULB performance

among the three JFL learner groups (F(2,72) = 3,632, p<0.030), and a Tukey test

indicated that Groups 2 & 3 were significantly different (p<0.026) on the ULB types.

URB performance showed no significant difference when the three JFL groups were

compared (F(2,72) = 0,142, p<0.868). In the NS group, performance on URB types

stayed the same, but their ULB performance dropped to 69%.

Focusing on the AMB sentences, which have two possible locations for a

prosodic break, the general pattern appears to be an increase in prosody-interpretation

match as proficiency level improves, if Groups 1 & 2 are taken to be of similar level.

Group 1 had a 71% match and Group 2 a 70% match, indicating consistency between the

two groups. Group 3 performed better, with a 80% match, while NS had the highest

prosody-interpretation match at 84%. Table 3.1 gives a further breakdown of the AMB

sentences by showing the number of sentences read by group with either an RB or LB

prosody (the demoninators in the table below are [the number of subjects by group] x 8

AMB sentences: Group 1: 6 x 8 = 48, Group 2: 11 x 8 = 88, Group 3: 8 x 8 = 64, NS: 4

x 8 = 32).

43
 Group Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 NS

Break type RB LB RB LB RB LB RB LB

Number 14/48 34/48 25/88 63/88 25/64 39/64 14/32 18/32

Percentage 29% 71% 28% 72% 39% 61% 44% 56%

Table 3.1: Location of break placement in the AMB sentences by group

Here we see a clear preference for LB prosody—a break placed between [N1] and

[N2]—in all JFL groups. Native speakers tended to have a nearly equal preference for

RB/LB prosodic readings, with a slight tendency toward an LB reading. The NS subjects’

tendency toward an LB reading is in contrast to their results on the URB/ULB sentences

(Figure 3.1), which had a disambiguating noun in the target branching structure.

Figure 3.6 breaks down the AMB sentences by break location—whether the

subject applied an RB or LB reading—and gives the prosody-interpretation match by

prosodic pattern.

44
 100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 NS

RB LB

Figure 3.6: Percentage of prosody-interpretation match in AMB, by RB/LB reading

Here we can observe that all groups had a higher prosody-interpretation match

when applying an LB reading. For the NS group, this appears to show that for ambiguous

sentences, they tend towards the application of an LB prosody reading, and when doing

so, the interpretation more frequently matches this prosody. This trend appears similar to

that of the JFL groups in the preference of an LB reading. Individual test stimuli will be

examined in Chapter 4 in an attempt to explain this seemingly opposite trend by the NS

in the AMB sentences.

3.6 Summary

In this chapter, the experiment design, procedure, and results were presented. Our

analysis of the JFL groups showed a higher rate of prosody to syntax match in ULB than

in URB. However, NS data of the same sentence types displayed an opposite trend in
45
terms of prosodic break preference, with a higher rate of match in URB. This finding

necessitates closer examination of factors that might have led to these results. In terms of

prosody-interpretation match, a higher percentage of matching was again found for the

ULB over the URB sentences in the JFL groups, while native speaker subjects showed a

higher match in URB.

For the AMB sentences, match between prosodic break placement and

interpretation, as indicated by subjects’ answers to a comprehension question, was also

examined. The JFL groups displayed a prosody-interpretation match rate of 70% or

above, indicating a relationship between break placement in oral reading and

interpretation. They also tended to choose an LB reading of the AMB sentences.

Interestingly, when the data for the AMB sentences were separated into RB/LB readings,

the NS group also tended to prefer the LB reading slightly over the RB reading.

In the chapter that follows, possible accounts for these results will be presented,

and the answer to our initial research questions will be provided. Additionally, a

discussion of the limitations of the current study will be offered.

46
 CHAPTER 4

DISUCSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

4.1 Discussion of Research Questions

This chapter will discuss possible accounts for the results of the experiment, as

well as present future directions for research and limitations of the study. The current

study examined how L2 Japanese learners apply prosody in oral reading to sentences

containing branching modifiers, and how this prosodic pattern was related to their

interpretation of the sentence. The research questions posed in Chapter 1 will provide the

framework of the discussion below.

4.1.1 Prosody-syntax mapping in L2 Japanese

The first question proposed for investigation at the outset of this study was 1)

How do L2 Japanese learners apply prosody to sentences containing branching modifiers

when reading aloud? As little data is available on prosody-syntax mapping in L2, a goal

of this study was to observe the nature of this relationship in L2 Japanese. Two types of

test stimuli were examined in the experiment: Unambiguous branching structures

(URB/ULB) and Ambiguous branching structures (AMB). Unambiguous sentences were

47
further divided into right-branching and left-branching configurations, disambiguated by

lexical plausibility. This type of sentence assumed that subjects were able to utilize the

disambiguating word choice and apply prosody which matched with this syntactic

configuration. As stated in Chapter 3, the URB sentences contained a word that is

implausible for modification by the pronominal modifier in the [N1] position and the

ULB used similar word selection for [N2] position. Syntactic representations of the

relevant portions of two test stimuli are presented below:

(1) URB (2) ULB

[ookii [natu no miitingu]] [[yasui apaato no] soto]

‘large summer meeting’ ‘outside of a cheap apartment’

The JFL learner groups were able to correctly place a prosodic break in 61% of

the URB sentences, and 82% of the ULB sentences. When the JFL learners were

separated by proficiency level, results were similarly low on URB for all groups, with the

only markedly higher figure being the 94% correct match on ULB found in Group 3. 14

These figures show a clear preference for a prosody corresponding to an LB

configuration. In (2) above, such a reading would mean that [yasui apaato no] ‘the cheap

14
It should be noted that one participant in Group 3 applied an LB prosody to all of the unambiguous
sentences, both URB and ULB, resulting in a 100% prosody-syntax match in ULB for this subject.

48
apartment’ would be read as one grouping, with a relatively longer break being found

before soto ‘outside.’

Similar results were found by Shibata & Hurtig (2008) regarding the production

of ambiguous right- and left-branching sentences by learners of Japanese (L1 English

speakers). In their production task English translations of ambiguous sentences,

corresponding to either RB or LB interpretations, were provided as a means to

disambiguate test sentences prior to oral reading. Recordings of JFL learners’ productions

were played to a group of native speaker judges, who were asked to determine whether a

particular sentence was of RB or LB configuration. Their results showed that the

productions of RB sentences were consistently more difficult for the NS to identify, a

result found for all JFL levels examined. The percentages, by learner level, of the

sentences correctly identified by the NS judges in their study were: Advanced: RB 74%,

LB 88%; Intermediate: RB 50%, LB 80%; Novice: RB 37% LB 51%. 15 Additionally,

their acoustic analysis showed that in LB sentences subjects used fewer improper

prosodic cues compared to RB, such as misplaced breaks or failure to raise pitch at a

prosodic boundary. Although the methodology of Shibata & Hurtig’s study differs from

the current experiment, their finding that LB prosody was produced more accurately and

was understood more often by the NS raters is consistent with the higher percentage of

prosody-syntax match that was observed in our ULB test stimuli. Note that the current

study placed the task of sentence interpretation on the subjects.

15
In their study, proficiency level was determined by performance on the Japanese Language Proficiency
Test (JLPT) Level 3 by taking the average of the scores on the grammar and listening sections. Average
scores by group were: ADV 92%, INT 77%, NOV 33%.
49
 Shifting the focus now to NS performance on the URB/ULB sentences in our

study, we find an opposite trend in prosody-syntax performance (94% and 69%,

respectively). In terms of performance on correctly answering comprehension questions

for the URB/ULB sentences, both the NS and JFL groups had a high percentage of

correct responses (NS: 100% and 94%, Group 1: 88% and 88%, Group 2: 82% and 80%,

Group 3: 75% and 88%; refer to Figure 3.3), indicating that they accurately

comprehended these types of test sentences. Considering this, how can we account for

this divergent trend in the application of prosody between the NS and JFL learners? First,

the observation by Shibata & Hurtig (2008) that RB structures are indicated by some type

of prosodic feature, such as a rise in pitch or a prosodic break, appears to correspond to

the NS’s performance on the URB sentences. By placing a pause between [ADJ] and

[N1], speakers may be vocally indicating the modification relationship in these branching

structures.

Next, the small sample size of the NS group (four participants) meant that each

individual’s performance heavily influenced the data outcome. Three out of four NS

subjects failed to produce the correct prosody for one of the ULB stimuli, [[oboetai

itariago no] zemi] ‘a seminar on the language he wanted to learn, which is Italian,’

resulting in a lower percentage of correct match in ULB. When the constituents of this

target structure were examined more carefully, it was noticed that the noun itariago

‘Italian’ turns the pre-nominal modifier into a non-restrictive relative clause, as can be

noted in the English translation as well. Due to the fact that some speakers may choose to

place a pause between the non-restrictive relative clause and its head in non-restrictive

50
relative clauses, in this particular stimuli the pause between the [ADJ] and [N1] may have

been more prominent than the expected LB prosodic break. Performance on prosody-

interpretation match for the NS group would be predictably higher if this ULB sentence

was removed.

Dialect was also considered as a possible factor influencing prosody, as it was not

controlled for in subject recruitment. However, the participant from Nagoya’s

performance did not seem to differ from other subjects in terms of preference for a

certain prosodic pattern in the URB/ULB types.

Attachment preferences have been observed and tested in psycholinguistic

literature as possible contributors to prosodic phrasing (e.g. Fodor, 2002; Jun, 2003;

Maynell, 2005). Jun (2003) found that ambiguous relative clauses tend to be realized with

different prosody by speakers of different languages. Speakers of head-initial languages,

such as English tended to produce a prosodic break consistent with a structurally “low”

attachment, while head-final languages like Japanese, tended to prefer a “high”

attachment. In the case of the URB/ULB sentences used in the current study, a high-

attachment preference would correspond to a URB prosody, i.e., a break between [ADJ]

and [N1], while a low attachment reading would correspond to a ULB reading, with a

break between [N1] and [N2]. These prosodic realizations of attachment preferences

seem to correlate with the results found in this study’s data, that is, that the JFL group

performed better on the ULB sentences, while the NS group performed better on URB.

This result necessitates further investigation into L1 transfer as a factor in prosody in oral

reading.

51
 In the AMB test stimuli, with two possible prosodic break locations, JFL learners

had a clear preference for break placement corresponding to LB configuration.16 This

result was found in all three JFL proficiency groups, and is again consistent with the LB

preference in L1 English speakers noted in Jun’s study. Interestingly, NS showed a slight

preference toward LB-consistent prosody as well, although the figures were nearly even

(RB: 14, LB: 18). This result could again be attributed to the sample size, as one subject

in the NS group read six out of eight (75%) of the AMB-type sentences with an LB

prosody, displaying a preference similar to the JFL groups.17 Removing this subject

would make the number of the RB/LB readings even, at 12 each.

4.1.2 Prosody-interpretation match

In this thesis, the question was also raised as to how prosodic phrasing in oral

reading relates to interpretation. Evidence supporting a relationship between prosody in

oral reading and sentence comprehension could be utilized by language teachers in

identifying sources of difficulty for JFL learners, whether they stem from

miscomprehension of structures or lack of production ability.

Regarding the URB/ULB sentences, prosody to interpretation match is quite low

for URB in all JFL groups, and only Group 3 had a high percentage of match in the ULB

sentences (91%) (refer to Figure 3.4). This low prosody-interpretation match was

16
Refer to Table 3.1.
17
This subject was from the Nagoya area, as noted earlier. Further investigation is necessary to determine if
dialect plays a role in the application of prosody in these sentences.

52
somewhat predictable for these types, as the structure was unambiguous by design,

meaning that comprehension questions also had only one possible correct answer. Even

when subjects produced a prosody which did not match syntactic structure, interpretation

was generally correctly selected, as was observed in the high percentage of correct

responses to comprehension questions (Figure 3.3). This means that JFL learners’ ability

to produce the correct prosodic patterns has not yet been fully developed, although they

may be aware of the syntactic structures. With the NS group, a greater percentage of

prosody-interpretation match in the URB types again suggests that for the unambiguous

sentences, RB prosody is favored. Considering that nearly all the comprehension

questions for the URB/ULB types were correct,18 and that RB is the preferred prosody for

the NS group, this accounts for the greater match in the URB sentences.

It was found that prosody-interpretation match in the AMB sentences was higher

than that for the URB/ULB types in all JFL groups (with the exception of Group 3’s ULB

performance), possibly suggesting an effect of L1 transfer. It was clear that JFL learners

preferred to place a syntactic break in the LB location in the AMB sentences (see Table

3.1), consistent with attachment preferences in English L1 mentioned earlier. When the

percentage of prosody-interpretation match was separated by RB/LB prosody, it was

noted that the JFL subjects performed better when reading in the LB configuration,

because of their tendency to place a break in the LB position. Considering the fact that

taking a low-attachment interpretation has been shown in the literature to be favored by

18
Only one incorrect response among four subjects.

53
English native speakers, the JFL group’s preference for an LB interpretation seems

reasonable if L1 transfer occurs.

The NS group unexpectedly displayed a result that paralleled the JFL group in the

AMB prosody-interpretation match. Examining the number stimuli in which LB

configuration prosody was applied, the NS group showed a preference for LB breaks, and

a higher percentage of matching was found when they applied prosody as such (89%).

For these AMB sentences, it was expected that NS would prefer an RB prosody, along

with an interpretation that matched this pattern as well. Examination of individuals in the

NS group found no clear pattern of error on any particular test stimuli, although one

individual could be singled out as having a lower prosody-interpretation match rate (63%

for all AMB types). Another factor possibly contributing to the results on this type is the

inclusion of an “either” choice in the answer selections to the comprehension questions.19

Selection of this answer would indicate that the subject recognized the ambiguity in the

branching structure, and eight out of 32 (or 25%) of the AMB-type comprehension

questions were answered with this choice by the NS group. Furthermore, because “either”

choices were considered as matching for data analysis of AMB, this could have increased

the overall percentages of prosody-interpretation matching answers.

19
This choice was available in the comprehension questions to the URB/ULB types as well.

54
4.2 Limitations of the Study

Before concluding, a few limitations of this study must be pointed out. For future

research, a larger sample group would be desirable, particularly for the control group.

Because only four NS subjects participated, generalizations of their behavior as a group

were difficult, and a larger sample size may yield different results. The word selection in

the target branching structures used in the test sentences must also be re-examined.

Specifically, one of the unambiguous sentences contained a non-restrictive relative clause,

while all other sentences were restrictive relative clauses. In our discussion earlier it was

noted that some speakers may place a pause in non-restrictive relative clauses, regardless

of the branching structure. Regarding the analysis of prosodic break locations, this task

was performed by two people, the experimenter and a native speaker volunteer. Inter-

rater agreement on break location was often quite low for certain groups (see Chapter 3),

and a larger group of raters would have been desirable. Although disagreements on break

location were resolved with sound-analysis software, a larger group of raters would

reduce the need to rely on this step, as one of the goals of this study was to identify

prosodic cues in oral reading, such as in a classroom activity.

4.3 Conclusion

This thesis presented a case study investigating prosody in oral reading by JFL

learners. The experiment employed branching modifiers and was designed to examine

a) how JFL learners apply prosody to sentences containing branching modifiers when

55
reading aloud and b) if this overt prosody matched interpretation to a comprehension

question. A control group comprised of native speakers of Japanese also participated in

the experiment. Results indicate that the JFL learners had a higher rate of success in

matching prosody to syntax in left-branching (ULB) sentences than when reading right-

branching (URB) sentences. It was also found that in syntactically ambiguous (AMB)

sentences, all JFL groups preferred an LB prosody when reading, and had a greater rate

of prosody-interpretation match when reading aloud with this prosody. On the contrary,

the NS group had an opposite tendency when reading aloud, with the right-branching

sentences being read with a higher percentage of correct prosody-syntax match when the

sentences had unambiguous readings. However, in contrast to the results on unambiguous

test stimuli, the native speakers tended to prefer an LB prosody when reading AMB

sentences aloud, though again the small sample size of this group made drawing

conclusions from this result difficult. These results appear to correspond to cross-

linguistic differences in attachment preferences for L1 English and L1 Japanese speakers,

and for JFL learners, it indicates that there was L1 transfer in prosody. Additionally, the

results of this study suggest that the JFL learners’ sentence comprehension and

production of prosody are separate, meaning that production errors are not necessarily

due to the inability to parse syntactic structures correctly.

An initial motivation for this study was to investigate the relationship between

prosodic cues in oral reading and syntactic parsing. In terms of overt prosody being

utilized by the language teacher to determine how a learner parses a sentence, the current

results are inconclusive but suggestive. It could be said that L1 transfer is seen in prosody

56
as well, meaning that RB or high attachment readings may be difficult for L1 English

speakers to produce. Shibata & Hurtig’s (2008) experiment found that Japanese learners

made more prosodic errors when attempting to produce RB prosody. As little research

into L2 prosody/syntax exists, further description as to the nature of this relationship

would be of great value to researchers in sentence processing, reading theory and

pedagogy. The examination of additional structures, such as relative clauses, along with a

phonetic account of the prosody applied in oral reading, would serve as a starting point

for such research.

57
 APPENDIX A

TEST SENTENCES

58
Instruction Sentence:

(1) Martin-san ga daizi na repooto o wasuremasita.

Mr. Martin-NOM important report-ACC forget-PAST
‘Mr. Martin forgot an important report.’

Practice Sentences:

(1) Morimoto-san ga oisii otya o kappu ni iremasita.

Mr. Morimoto-NOM delicious tea-ACC cup-DAT put-PAST
‘Mr. Morimoto poured the delicious tea into a cup.’
(2) Kodama-san ga daigaku no kyoozyu o asa kara matimasita.
Mr. Kodama-NOM college-GEN professor-ACC morning-from wait-PAST
‘Mr. Kodama waited for the college professor from the morning.’
(3) Phillips-san ga kiiroi nooto o teeburu ni okimasita.
Mrs. Phillips-NOM yellow notebook-ACC table-DAT place-PAST
‘Mrs. Phillips placed the yellow notebook on the table.’
(4) Oonisi-san ga purintaa o hitori de naosimasita.
Mr. Onishi-NOM printer-ACC self-by fix-PAST
‘Mr. Onishi fixed the printer by himself.’
(5) Wallace-san ga kinoo tegami o kenkyuujyo ni todokemasita.
Mr. Wallace-NOM yesterday letter-ACC research institute-DAT deliver-PAST
‘Mr. Wallace delivered the letter to the research institute yesterday.’

59
Unambiguous Sentences -- Right-Branching (URB):

(1) Tanaka-san ga [tabetai [demae no susi]] o denwa de tanomimasita.

Mr. Tanaka-NOM eat delivery-GEN sushi-ACC phone-INST order-PAST
‘Mr. Tanaka ordered the delivery sushi that he wanted to eat by phone.’
(2) Smith-san ga [yomitai [tosyokan no hon]] o sansatu karimasita.
Mr. Smith-NOM read library-GEN book-ACC three-CLASS borrow-PAST
‘Mr. Smith borrowed 3 books that he wanted to read from the library.’
(3) Suzuki-san ga [ookii [natu no miitingu]] de supiiti o simasita.
Mr. Suzuki-NOM large summer-GEN meeting-LOC speech-ACC do-PAST
‘Mr. Suzuki gave a speech at the large meeting in the summer.’
(4) White-san ga [isogasii [supeingo no sensee]] to soodan simasita.
Mr. White-NOM busy Spanish-GEN teacher-with consult do-PAST
‘Mr. White consulted with the busy Spanish teacher.’

Left-Branching (ULB):

(1) Satoo-san ga [[mitai bangumi] no zikan] o pen de kakimasita.

Mrs. Sato-NOM watch program-GEN time-ACC pen-INST write-PAST
‘Mrs. Sato wrote down the time of the program that she wanted to watch with a pen.’
(2) Miller-san ga [[oboetai itariago] no zemi] o nikai torimasita.
Mr. Miller-NOM remember Italian-GEN seminar-ACC two-CLASS take-PAST
‘Mr. Miller took a seminar twice on the language that he wanted to learn, which is
Italian.’
(3) Kimura-san ga [[yasui apaato] no soto] de tabako o suimasita.
Mr. Kimura-NOM cheap apartment-GEN outside-LOC cigarette-ACC smoke-PAST
60
 ‘Mr. Kimura smoked a cigarette outside of the cheap apartment.’
(4) Jackson-san ga [[mazui syokudoo] no sutahhu] to syokuzi o simasita.
Mr. Jackson-NOM bad cafeteria-GEN staff-with meal-ACC do-PAST
‘Mr. Jackson had a meal with the staff of a bad tasting cafeteria.’

Ambiguous Sentences (AMB):

(1) Brown-san ga [abunai mati no koosaten] de tomodati ni aimasita.

Mr. Brown-NOM dangerous town-GEN intersection-LOC friend-DAT meet-PAST
‘Mr. Brown met his friend at the intersection in a dangerous town.’
‘Mr. Brown met his friend at the dangerous intersection in the town.’
(2) Johnson-san ga [tiisai mura no ryokan] de kaisyain to hanasimasita.
Mrs. Johnson-NOM small village-GEN inn-LOC employee-with speak-PAST
‘Mrs. Johnson spoke with the company employee at an inn in a small village.’
‘Mrs. Johnson spoke with the company employee at a small inn in a village.’
(3) Nakamura-san ga [atarasii depaato no suutu] o terebi de mimasita.
Mr. Nakamura-NOM new department store-GEN suit-ACC TV-INST see-PAST
‘Mr. Nakamura saw a suit from a new department store on TV.’
‘Mr. Nakamura saw a new suit from a department store on TV.’
(4) Itoo-san ga [omoi kuruma no taiya] o torakku de hakobimasita.
Mr. Ito-NOM heavy car-GEN tire-ACC truck-INST carry-PAST
‘Mr. Ito carried a tire from a heavy car in the truck.’
‘Mr. Ito carried a heavy car-tire in the truck.’
(5) Deguti-san ga [yuumee na omawarisan no musume] to kekkon simasita.
Mr. Deguchi-NOM famous police officer-GEN daughter-with marry-PAST

61
 ‘Mr. Deguchi married the daughter of a famous police officer.’
‘Mr. Deguchi married the famous daughter of a police officer.’
(6) Nishida-san ga [genki na butyoo no hisyo] to syuttyoo simasita.
Mrs. Nishida-NOM energetic section chief-GEN secretary-with business trip do-PAST
‘Mrs. Nishida went on a business trip with the secretary of the energetic section
chief.’
‘Mrs. Nishida went on a business trip with the energetic secretary of the section
chief.’
(7) Wilson-san ga [benri na konpyuutaa no keesu] o takusan urimasita.
Mr. Wilson-NOM convenient computer-GEN case-ACC many sell-PAST
‘Mr. Wilson sold a lot of cases for convenient computers.’
‘Mr. Wilson sold a lot of convenient cases for computers.’
(8) Jones-san ga [hen na sima no hito] o oozee tasukemasita.
Mrs. Jones-NOM strange island-GEN person-ACC many help-PAST
‘Mrs. Jones helped many people from a strange island.’
‘Mrs. Jones helped many strange people from an island.’

Filler Sentences:

(1) Yamanaka-san ga byooki ni natte, gakkoo o yasumimasita.

Mr. Yamanaka-NOM sick become school-ACC rest-PAST
‘Mr. Yamanaka became sick and took off from school.’
(2) Grey-san ga suki na hanbaagaa o yottu tabemasita.
Mrs. Grey-NOM like hamburger-ACC four-CLASS eat-PAST
‘Mrs. Grey ate four of her favorite hamburgers.’
(3) Sirota-san ga guai ga waruku natta kara, kusuri o nomimasita.

62
 Mr. Shirota-NOM condition-NOM bad become-PAST because medicine-ACC
drink-PAST
‘Mr. Shirota felt bad, so he took the medicine.’
(4) Bailey-san ga tenki no ii hi ni umi ni dekakemasita.
Mr. Bailey-NOM weather-NOM good day ocean-to go out-PAST
‘Mr. Bailey went to the ocean on a day when the weather was good.’
(5) Oda-san ga tatami no heya ni tomarimasita.
Mr. Oda-NOM tatami-GEN room-LOC stay-PAST
‘Mr. Oda stayed in a room with tatami mats.’
(6) Barker-san ga uketuke no hito ni nedan o kikimasita.
Mrs. Barker-NOM reception-GEN person-DAT price-ACC ask-PAST
‘Mrs. Barker asked the receptionist the price of a room.’
(7) Taguti-san ga Sinzyuku de tikatetu ni notte, sigoto ni ikimasita.
Mr. Taguchi-NOM Shinjuku-LOC subway ride work-to go-PAST
‘Mr. Taguchi rode the subway at Shinjuku and went to work.’
(8) Clark-san ga intaanetto de nihon no hoteru o sirabemasita.
Mrs. Clark-NOM internet-INST Japan-GEN hotel-ACC look up-PAST
‘Mrs. Clark looked up hotels in Japan on the internet.’
(9) Perry-san ga Tyuugoku no ohasi o umaku tukaimasita.
Mr. Perry-NOM China-GEN chopsticks-ACC well use-PAST
‘Mr. Perry used the Chinese chopsticks well.’
(10) Takayama-san ga ginkoo no madoguti de okane o moraimasita.
Mrs. Takayama-NOM bank-GEN window-LOC money-ACC receive-PAST
‘Mrs. Takayama received the money at the bank window.’
(11) Lee-san ga Nagoya no zimusyo ni basu de kayotte imasu.
Mr. Lee-NOM Nagoya-GEN office-LOC bus-INST commuting
63
 ‘Mr. Lee takes the bus to the Nagoya office.’
(12) Yamaguti-san ga kookoo no toki ni eego o benkyoo simasita.
Mrs. Yamaguchi-NOM high school-GEN time English-ACC study-PAST
‘Mrs. Yamaguchi studied English when she was in high school.’
(13) Chen-san ga ie ni kaetta ato de, gomi o sutemasita.
Mr. Chen-NOM house-to return-PAST after trash-ACC throw away-PAST
‘Mr. Chen threw the trash away after he returned home.”
(14) Yamamura-san ga nimotu o orosite kara, takusii o yobimasita.
Mrs. Yamamura-NOM luggage-ACC drop off taxi-ACC call-PAST
‘Mrs. Yamamura dropped off her luggage, then called a taxi.’
(15) Norman-san ga karui hako o haha ni okurimasita.
Mr. Norman-NOM light package-ACC mother-to send-PAST
‘Mr. Norman sent the light package to his mother.’
(16) Kitamura-san ga hidoi ame no naka de go-kiro mo unten simasita.
Mrs. Kitamura-NOM terrible rain-GEN in five kilometers drive-PAST
‘Mrs. Kitamura drove 5 kilometers in the heavy rain.’

64
 APPENDIX B

SENTENCE PRESENTATION

65
Instruction Sentence:

Q: What did Mr. Martin forget?

a) to save an important file
b) an important report
c) either a) or b)
d) neither a) or b)

Practice Sentences:

Q: What did Mr. Morimoto make?

a) a delicious cup of tea
b) a warm glass of milk
c) either a) or b)
d) neither a) or b)

Q: Who did Mr. Kodama wait for?

a) a professor
b) someone who taught at college
c) either a) or b)
d) neither a) or b)

Q: Where did Mrs. Phillips put the notebook?

a) on the cabinet
66
 b) on the table
c) either a) or b)
d) neither a) or b)

Q: What did Mr. Onishi fix?

a) the computer
b) the word processor
c) either a) or b)
d) neither a) or b)

Q: Where did Mr. Wallace deliver the letter?

a) to the research institute
b) to the office
c) either a) or b)
d) neither a) or b)

Test Sentences:

Q: Why was Mr. Yamanaka absent from school?

a) because he got a job
b) because he got sick
c) either a ) or b)
d) neither a) or b)

67
Q: What did Mrs. Grey eat?
a) four of her favorite hamburgers
b) more than one hamburger
c) either a) or b)
d) neither a) or b)

Q: Where did Mr. Suzuki give a speech?

a) at the large meeting in the summer
b) at the meeting held during the big summer
c) either a) or b)
d) neither a) or b)

Q: Why did Mr. Shirota take the medicine?

a) because he felt bad
b) because he already took bad medicine
c) either a) or b)
d) neither a) or b)

Q: What did Mr. Smith borrow?

a) three libraries that he wanted
b) three library books that he wanted to read
c) either a) or b)

68
d) neither a) or b)

Q: When did Mr. Bailey go to the ocean?

a) on a day when the weather was good
b) on a day when the surf was good
c) either a) or b)
d) neither a) or b)

Q: Where did Mr. Brown meet his friend?

a) at the intersection in a dangerous town
b) at the dangerous intersection in the town
c) either a) or b)
d) neither a) or b)

Q: What did Mrs. Barker ask the receptionist?

a) her name
b) how to get to her room
c) either a) or b)
d) neither a) or b)

Q: Who did Mr. Deguchi marry?

a) the daughter of the famous police officer
b) the famous daughter of a police officer

69
c) either a) or b)
d) neither a) or b)

Q: Where did Mr. Kimura smoke a cigarette?

a) outside of the cheap apartment
b) at the cheap-looking area outside the apartment
c) either a) or b)
d) neither a) or b)

Q: Where did Mr. Oda stay?

a) in an old room
b) in a room with tatami mats
c) either a) or b)
d) neither a) or b)

Q: What did Mr. Tanaka order by phone?

a) delivery that he wanted to eat
b) sushi that he wanted to eat
c) either a) or b)
d) neither a) or b)

Q: Where did Mrs. Johnson speak with the company employee?

a) at an inn in a small village

70
b) at a small inn in a village
c) either a) or b)
d) neither a) or b)

Q: Where did Mrs. Takayama receive the money?

a) in Ginza
b) at a post office
c) either a) or b)
d) neither a) or b)

Q: Who did Mrs. Nishida go on a business trip with?

a) the energetic secretary of the section chief
b) the secretary of the energetic section chief
c) either a) or b)
d) neither a) or b)

Q: When did Mr. Chen throw away the trash?

a) before he got home
b) after he got to his office
c) either a) or b)
d) neither a) or b)

Q: What did Mrs. Sato write down with a pen?

71
a) the time of the TV program that she wanted to watch
b) the TV program that she wanted to watch
c) either a) or b)
d) neither a) or b)

Q: What did Mr. Nakamura see on TV?

a) a suit from a new department store
b) a new suit from a department store
c) either a) and b)
d) neither a) or b)

Q: What did Mrs. Clark research?

a) the price of the internet in Japan
b) the price of a hotel in Japan
c) either a) or b)
d) neither a) or b)

Q: What did Mr. Ito carry in the truck?

a) a heavy tire
b) a tire from a heavy car
c) either a) and b)
d) neither a) or b)

72
Q: Where does Mr. Lee commute to?
a) to his office
b) to Nagoya
c) either a) or b)
d) neither a) or b)

Q: Who did Mr. White consult with?

a) a busy Spanish teacher
b) the teacher of the busy-sounding Spanish language
c) either a) or b)
d) neither a) or b)

Q: What did Mrs. Yamaguchi study?

a) how to teach English in high school
b) English in high school
c) either a) or b)
d) neither a) or b)

Q: In what conditions did Mrs. Kitamura drive?

a) bad weather
b) a heavy rain
c) either a) or b)

73
d) neither a) or b)

Q: What did Mr. Miller take twice?

a) a seminar on the language that he wanted to learn, which is Italian
b) an Italian seminar, which he wanted to learn
c) either a) or b)
d) neither a) or b)

Q: What did Mr. Taguchi take to Shinjuku?

a) the taxi
b) the subway
c) either a) or b)
d) neither a) or b)

Q: What did Mr. Wilson sell a lot of?

a) cases for convenient computers
b) convenient cases for computers
c) either a) or b)
d) neither a) or b)

Q: What did Mrs. Yamamura do before calling a taxi?

a) return her luggage to the store
b) send off her luggage

74
c) either a) or b)
d) neither a) or b)

Q: Who did Mrs. Jackson have a meal with?

a) the bad staff of the cafeteria
b) the staff of a bad tasting cafeteria
c) either a) and b)
d) neither a) or b)

Q: What did Mr. Perry use well?

a) Chinese chopsticks
b) China
c) either a) or b)
d) neither a) or b)

Q: Who did Mrs. Jones help?

a) many people from a strange island
b) many strange people from an island
c) either a) or b)
d) neither a) or b)

Q: What did Mr. Norman send?

a) a light package
b) an inexpensive package
75
c) either a) or b)
d) neither a) or b)

76
 REFERENCES

Beckman, M. E. 1996. “Parsing of Prosody.” Language and Cognitive Processes 11:

17-68.

Blodgett, A. 2004. The Interaction of Prosodic Phrasing, Verb Bias, and

Plausibility During Spoken Sentence Comprehension. Ph.D. Dissertation.
The Ohio State University.

Clifton, C., Carlson, K. and Frazier, L. 2002. “Informative Prosodic Boundaries.”

Language and Speech 45: 87-114.

Dowhower, S. L. 1987. “Effects of Repeated Reading on Second-Grade Transitional

Readers' Fluency and Comprehension.” Reading Research Quarterly 22: 389-406.

---. 1991. “Speaking of Prosody: Fluency's Unattended Bedfellow.” Theory Into Practice
30.3: 165-175.

Eagan, R. 1975. “An Investigation into the Relationship of the Pausing Phenomena in
Oral Reading and Reading Comprehension.” The Alberta Journal of Educational
Research 21: 278-288.

Eda, S. 2004. Processing of Intonation Patterns on Japanese: Implications for

Japanese as a Foreign Language. Ph.D. Dissertation. The Ohio State University.

Fodor, J.D. 2002. “Prosodic Disambiguation in Silent Reading.” NELS 32: 113–132.

Fox, A. 2000. Prosodic Features and Prosodic Structure. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

77
Jorden, Eleanor H., and Noda, M. 1988. Japanese: The Spoken Language, Part 2.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

---. 1990. Japanese: The Spoken Language, Part 3. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.

Jun, S.-A. 2003. “Prosodic Phrasing and Attachment Preferences.” Journal of

Psycholinguistic Research 32.2: 219-249.

Kang, S., and Speer, S. 2003. “Prosodic Disambiguation of Ambiguous Clause

Boundaries in Korean.” WCCFL 22: 259-272.

Kang, S., Speer, S. and Nakayama, M. 2006. “Effects of Intonational Phrase Boundaries
on Ambiguous Syntactic Clause Boundaries in Japanese.” Japanese/Korean
Linguistics 14: 77-88.

Karlin, A. 1985. “Intonation in Oral Reading and Reading Comprehension.” Reading

Horizons 25.3: 169-175.

Kjelgaard, D. and Speer, S. 1999. “Prosodic Facilitation and Interference in the

Resolution of Temporary Syntactic Closure Ambiguity.” Journal of Memory and
Language 40: 153–194.

Kowal, S., O'Connell, D., O'Brien, E., and Bryant, E. 1975. “Temporal Aspects of
Reading Aloud and Speaking: Three Experiments.” American Journal of
Psychology 88: 549-569.

Kubozono, H. 1988. “Constraints on Phonological Compound Formation.” English

Linguistics 5: 150-169.

---. 1993. The Organization of Japanese Prosody. Tokyo: Kurosio.

Lems, K. 2006. “Reading Fluency and Comprehension in Adult English Language

Learners” 231- 252. Fluency Instruction. Eds. Rasinski, T., Blanchowicz, C., and
Lems, K. New York: Guliford.

78
Lovric, N., Bradley, D, and Fodor, J.D. 2001. “Overt Prosody and Ambiguity Resolution
in Silent Reading.” Poster presented at the 7th Annual Conference on
Architectures and Mechanisms in Language Processing (AMLaP). Saarbrücken,
Germany.

Mathson, D., Allington, R, and Solic, K. 2006. “Hijacking Fluency and Instructionally
Informative Assessments” 106-119. Fluency Instruction. Eds. Rasinski, T.,
Blanchowicz, C., and Lems, K. New York: Guliford.

Maynell, L. 2001. Prosodic Effects of Relative Clause Attachment in English.

Unpublished Manuscript. The Ohio State University.

Pierrehumbert, J. and Beckman, M. 1988. Japanese Tone Structure. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press.

Selkirk, E. and Tateishi, K. 1991. “Syntax and Downstep in Japanese” 519-543.

Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language. Eds. Georgopoulos, C. and Ishihara, R.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Publishers.

Schafer, A. and Jun, S.-A. 2002. “Effects of Accentual Phrasing on Adjective

Interpretation in Korean” 223-255. Sentence Processing in East Asian Languages.
Ed. Nakayama, M. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

Schwanenflugel, P.J., Hamilton, A.M., Kuhn, M.R., Wisenbaker, J.M. and Stahl, S.A.
2004. “Becoming a Fluent Reader: Reading Skill and Prosodic Features in the
Oral Reading of Young Readers.” Journal of Educational Psychology 96.1: 119-
129.

Shibata, T. and Hurtig, R. 2008. “Prosody Acquisition by Japanese Learners” 176-204.

Understanding Second Language Process. Ed. ZhaoHong Han. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Snedeker, J. and Trueswell, J. 2003. “Using Prosody to Avoid Ambiguity: Effects of

Speaker Awareness and Referential Context.” Journal of Memory and Language
48: 103-130.

79
Speer, S. and Blodgett, A. 2006. “Prosody” 505-537. Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 2nd
Edition. Eds. Traxler, M.J. and Gernsbacher, M.A. NY: Elsevier Inc.

Venditti, J.J. 2006. “Prosody in Sentence Processing” 208-217. The Handbook of East
Asian Psycholinguistics, Vol. 2. Eds. Nakayama, M., Mazuka, R. and Shirai, Y.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

---. 1994. “The Influence of Syntax on Prosodic Structure in Japanese.” Ed. J. J.

Venditti. Papers from the Linguistics Laboratory, Ohio State Working Papers in
Linguistics 44: 191-223.

---. 1995. “Japanese ToBI Labeling Guidelines.” Unpublished Manuscript. The Ohio
State University.

Venditti, J., Jun, S.-A., and Beckman, M. E. 1996. “Prosodic Cues to

Syntactic and Other Linguistic Structures in Japanese, Korean, and English” 287-
311. Signal to Syntax: Bootstrapping from Speech to Grammar in Early
Acquisition. Eds. J. L. Morgan and K. Demuth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

80