Lecture | research presentation
Prosody and wh-scope in Osaka Japanese: In comparison to other varieties of Japanese and Korean
- Hitomi Minamida, Cornell University
- Date
- Thursday 13 October 2022
- Time
- Location
-
- Room
- 002
Previous studies such as Deguchi & Kitagawa (2002) and Ishihara (2003) claim that wh-islands in (Tokyo) Japanese can be overcome with specific prosodic patterns. The canonical interpretation of (1) is a matrix yes/no question, but these researchers say that (1) also gives us a matrix wh-question. In other words, the wh-word in the embedded clause can have an association with the matrix Q-marker -ka with the appropriate prosody.
(1) Taro-wa [Hanako-ga nani-o tabeta-ka] iimasitaka-ka?
T.-TOP H.-NOM what-acc ate-Q said-Q
Yes/No interpretation: ‘Did Taro say [what Hanako ate]?’
Wh-interpretation: ‘What did Taro say [whether Hanako ate]?’
I conducted a perception experiment with Osaka Japanese speakers to show that (1) is not ambiguous at all. I first add control items, which were absent in previous work such as Hirotani (2005) and Hwang (2011). The control items use the quotative C -te (-tte in Tokyo Japanese), which may be specified either [+Q] or [-Q], in the embedded clause. If Deguchi & Kitagawa’s and Ishihara’s claim is correct, we predict that both experimental and control items show ambiguity. However, my data reveal that only the control items show clear ambiguity. I suggest that (1) may give the impression of ambiguity between matrix yes/no and wh-questions in informal introspective judgments because (1) allows what I call “super-informative” pragmatic answers that look like wh-answers. For example, the English translation of (1) ‘Did Taro say [what Hanako ate]?’ is a matrix yes/no question, but we can answer this question by saying, “(Yes,) sushi.” I also compare my Osaka Japanese data with Hwang’s (2011) Tokyo Japanese, Fukuoka Japanese, and Busan Korean data in this talk. Title: Prosody and wh-scope in Osaka Japanese: In comparison to other varieties of Japanese and Korean
Previous studies such as Deguchi & Kitagawa (2002) and Ishihara (2003) claim that wh-islands in (Tokyo) Japanese can be overcome with specific prosodic patterns. The canonical interpretation of (1) is a matrix yes/no question, but these researchers say that (1) also gives us a matrix wh-question. In other words, the wh-word in the embedded clause can have an association with the matrix Q-marker -ka with the appropriate prosody.
(1) Taro-wa [Hanako-ga nani-o tabeta-ka] iimasitaka-ka?
T.-TOP H.-NOM what-acc ate-Q said-Q
Yes/No interpretation: ‘Did Taro say [what Hanako ate]?’
Wh-interpretation: ‘What did Taro say [whether Hanako ate]?’
I conducted a perception experiment with Osaka Japanese speakers to show that (1) is not ambiguous at all. I first add control items, which were absent in previous work such as Hirotani (2005) and Hwang (2011). The control items use the quotative C -te (-tte in Tokyo Japanese), which may be specified either [+Q] or [-Q], in the embedded clause. If Deguchi & Kitagawa’s and Ishihara’s claim is correct, we predict that both experimental and control items show ambiguity. However, my data reveal that only the control items show clear ambiguity. I suggest that (1) may give the impression of ambiguity between matrix yes/no and wh-questions in informal introspective judgments because (1) allows what I call “super-informative” pragmatic answers that look like wh-answers. For example, the English translation of (1) ‘Did Taro say [what Hanako ate]?’ is a matrix yes/no question, but we can answer this question by saying, “(Yes,) sushi.” I also compare my Osaka Japanese data with Hwang’s (2011) Tokyo Japanese, Fukuoka Japanese, and Busan Korean data in this talk.