WHAT SORT OF TREES DO WE SPEAK? 
A COMPUTATIONAL MODEL OF THE SYNTAX-PROSODY INTERFACE 
IN TOKYO JAPANESE 
Pete Whitelock 
Sharp Laboratories of Europe Ltd. 
Neave House, Winsmore Lane 
Abingdon, Oxon., OX14 5UD, Britain 
ABSTRACT 
What is the relationship between syntax, 
prosody and phonetics? This paper argues for a 
declarative constraint-based theory, in which each 
step in a derivation adds diverse constraints to a 
pool. Some of these describe well formed objects in 
the feature structure domain, in terms of both 
syntactic and prosodic features. Some characterise 
the relative prominence of constituents as a partial 
order over some discrete domain (playing the role of 
metrical grid). Some are simultaneous equations in 
the reals, whose solutions represent the pitch level of 
phonetic objects - high and low tones. The elements 
of such a theory are illustrated with a treatment of 
prosodic phrasing and tone scaling in Tokyo 
Japanese, and the theory is compared to Selkirk and 
Tateishi's analysis based on the Strict Layer 
Hypothesis. 
INTRODUCTION 
In explorations of the relationship between 
syntax, phonology and phonetics, it is now generally 
agreed that hierarchical prosodic representations 
are an important organising concept. As 
Pierrehumbert and Beckman (P&B, 1988), vividly 
put it 'We speak trees, not strings'. One influential 
view of the geometry of ~ree representations is 
Selkirk's (1981) Strict Layer Hypothesis. For Selkirk 
and others, prosodic structures and syntactic 
structures are objects of different kinds. Yet the 
nature of the mapping between them remains a 
question to which explicit, accurate and declarative 
answers have still to be formulated. 
This paper presents an alternative view in which 
phonetic constraints are incrementally associated 
directly with syntactic derivations. More exactly, 
derivations must simultaneously meet the well- 
formedness conditions on syntactic and prosodic 
labelling, thereby guaranteeing the declarative 
nature of the syntax-prosody interface. In turn, 
prosodic labels are associated with a set of 
equational constraints on phonetic objects. The 
theory is illustrated with a treatment of prosodic 
phrasing and tone scaling in standard, i.e. Tokyo, 
Japanese. 
The possibility of equating syntactic and 
prosodic structure in this way follows from a view of 
syntax with two characteristics. First, some 
commonly assumed syntactic constituents which 
never correspond to prosodic units are insufficiently 
motivated, so such constructions are given an 
alternative syntactic analysis which respects 
prosodic constituency. Secondly, the derivation of an 
expression with a given semantic interpretation, and 
hence its prosodic structure, may be systematically 
under-determined by that interpretation. Syntactic 
structure is thus at least partly motivated by 
prosodic data, in accord with the concrete view of 
syntax presupposed in constraint-based grammars. 
Conversely, the results of Kubozono's (1987) 
careful phonetic experiments point to the existence 
of prosodic structures that are organised recursively 
and in other ways incompatible with the Strict Layer 
Assumption. Distinctions in syntactic constituency 
which have been argued to be unimportant for 
prosodic phrasing do appear to have clear phonetic 
exponents under controlled conditions, weakening 
the argument for autonomous prosodic structures. 
The paper is organised as follows. The elements 
of the syntactic model used in the analysis of 
Japanese are presented. We then approach the 
syntax-prosody interface from the opposite end, and 
look at the prosodic phonetics of Japanese 
utterances, trying to classify features of pitch 
contours. First, several relatively uncontroversial 
elements in the phonology of Japanese prosody are 
discussed - the minor phrase, the accentual and 
phrasal tones, declination and downstep. Then the 
Strict Layer Hypothesis and its application to minor 
phrasing and tone scaling are considered. Data from 
Kubozono (1987) is introduced to argue instead for 
the theory assumed here, and a preliminary 
treatment is presented. 
A CATEGORIAL UNIFICATION APPROACH 
TO JAPANESE 
I will identify the fundamental unit of Japanese 
syntax with the traditional category~ bunsetsu 
(phrase), comprising an open-class "item with 
- 75 • 
cliticised closed-class affixes. The open class lexical 
items are broadly classifiable as nouns and verbs. As 
described in Whitelock (1987), the closed-class 
items may be classified in two orthogonal 
dimensions. First, they form phrases with items of a 
certain category. Second, they indicate that such a 
phrase stands in some syntactic relationship (e.g. 
subject, modifier) to another phrase with a certain 
category. Thus the phrases of the language fall into 
the following four categories: 
nominal - adverbial, e.g. 
keiko ni (Keiko-DAT), genki ni (healthily) 
nominal - adnominal 
keiko no (Keiko-GEN), g~nki na (healthy) 
verbal - adverbial 
waratte (laugh-and), amaku (sweetly) 
verbal - adnominal 
warau (that laughs), amakatta (that was sweet) 
The bunsetsu generally behaves as a prosodic 
unit. Although the syntactic structure of a phrase 
like (1) is generally taken to be as in (la), its prosodic 
structure must be as in (lb). 
(i) Naoko no ant no 
Naoko's brother 's 
(la) \[\[\[Naoko no\] ant\] no\] 
(ib) \[\[Naoko no\] \[ant no\]\] 
Proposals to handle such 'bracketing 
paradoxes' have been made within the framework of 
extended Categorial Grammar (e.g. Moortgat, 1989). 
We will assume a Categorial Unification Grammar 
(CUG) (Uszkoreit (1986), Kartunnen (1987)). 
Whereas an extended CG might capture the 
polymorphism of a bunsetsu by the derivation step 
of type-raising, in CUG it may be represented 
simultaneously by the use of multiple features in the 
complex categories. Syntactic bracketings such as 
that shown in (la) are never assigned. 
Each complex category or sign includes a set of 
self features, plus the sign-valued features 
argument and result, which together with a 
direction constitute a function. The relevant 
structure of a typical sign, for the bunsetsu keiko hi, 
is shown in (2). 
(2) self:\[l\]cat:n 
function:arg: \[2\]self:cat:s 
dir:right 
res: \[2\]self:iobj:\[l\] 
This sign says 'if a functor is looking for me, it 
probably needs to know I'm a noun. But 1 am also a 
function from a sentence of which I am the indirect 
object into itself'. Note the assumption that well- 
formedness of the functional representations (i.e. 
those which include subj, obj etc.) is independently 
characterised (cf. Coherence and Completeness in 
LFG (Kaplan and Bresnan, 1982)). This leads to a 
massive simplification in the combinatorial syntax. 
Karttunen (1987) proposes a similar treatment for 
Finnish. Furthermore, I treat free verb forms as S, an 
approach motivated by the zero-pronominal 
property of Japanese (see Whitelock 1991 for further 
details). Also note, contra other work in extended CG 
(e.g. Barry and Pickering (1990)), that this 
formulation identifies the function in a 
combination with the dependent in a functional 
dependency representation, and the argument with 
the head. 
The syntactic rules define three ways of building 
signs. (3) shows rule A (essentially function 
application) in PATR-II notation. 
(3) M --) D,H (A) 
<D function dir> = right 
<D function arg> = H 
<D function res> = M 
The backward version of this rule (L) is the rule 
of morphological combination. Unlike a syntactic 
functor, a morphological functor, i.e. an affix, will 
typically have quite distinct values of <function arg> 
and <function result>. 
The chaining rule (C) in (4) constructs the 
• mother sign with self features from the functor sign 
• rather than the result sign. 
(4) M --) D,H (C) 
<D function dir> = right 
<D function arg> = H 
<D function res function> 
= <M function> 
<D self> = <M self> 
Finally, the merging rule (M) in (5) combines 
two functors looking for the same argument: 
(5) M --) D1 , D2 (M) 
<DI functor> = <D2 functor> 
<DI functor> = <M functor> 
<M self> = nil 
Though the details are specific to Japanese, it is 
possible to develop rules of these types for other 
76 - 
languages. Like an extended CG, but unlike the 
Lambek calculus, CUG is not structurally complete 
(i.e. not every substring may be given an analysis). 
Merging and chaining both correspond 
approximately to composition in extended CG. 
However, the CUG formulation brings out the 
essential difference between them. A constituent 
built by chaining represents a head lacking a 
dependent, while merging combines dependents 
lacking a head. Their effect on derivation depends 
on the headedness of the language concerned. The 
main effects are summarised in Fig. 1 (where <=> 
denotes truth equivalence). 
left-branching right-branching 
language language 
Fig. 1 Derivationa! Equivalence 
The important aspects of this model are as 
follows. First, all structures are directly generated by 
the grammar. The <=> is not a rule for deriving one 
structure from another. Secondly, the branching 
structure may be sensitive tO constraints other than 
semantic ones. In particular, applicatively right- 
branching structures may be given alternative, 
psychologically more plausible, analyses. Such 
analyses are useful in modelling intonation 
phenomena such as the prosodic bracketing of 
English phrases like (6) (generated using the English 
Chain rule), whose applicative bracketing is given in 
(6a). 
(6) \[this is the dog\]\[that bit the cat\] 
\[that chased the raft\[that ... 
(6a) \[this\[is\[the\[dog\[that\[bit\[the\[cat 
\[that\[chased\[the\[rat\[that .... 
THE PHONETICS OF PROSODY 
180 - •0@@~ 
•@ @@•@ • • • • 
• 0@0 
140 - • e •• • 
no mi m• no• so re wa u ma .'i 
i00 - 
Fig. 2 A pitch trace 
Fig. 2 shows a pitch trace for the Japanese 
utterance (7) which will be used to introduce the 
major features of the prosodic organisation of the 
language. 
(7) Sore-wa uma-i nomimono de-su 
That-TOP tasty-PRES drink COP-PRES 
That is a tasty drink. 
O • oee 4 
f 
so re wa 
i 
" ) 
u ~ i 
"@• • 
( I~ ..._. 
so no 
Fig. 3a Minor Phrases 
In Fig 3a, the division of the utterance into 
minor phrases (~t) (P&B's accentual phrase) is 
highlighted. A minor phrase shows exactly one pitch 
peak; in this utterance, the minor phrases 
correspond exactly to bunsetsu. In the section on 
minor phrasing below, we will look more closely at 
the relationship between the two. 
• H H* k 
so re wa u ma i no mi m• nL~ 
Fig. 3b Tones and Accent 
Fig. 3b draws attention to the distinction in 
shape between the first and the latter two minor 
phrases. The steep drop in pitch from ma to i in 
umai, and from mi to m• in nomimono, represents 
the pitch accent proper. The presence and location 
of a pitch accent is a lexical property, and its shape is 
fixed. In contrast, the gentle fall covering 'the rewa of 
sorewa is a result of sore's lexical specification as 
unaccented. In such cases, a lower pitch peak than 
the accented one is realised early in-the minor 
phrase. In fact, in minor phrases with a late accent, 
this early peak is also distinguishable, so this 
"phrasal' tone can be assumed present in all minor 
phrases. Note the phonetic justification of this 
prosodic category as the domain of high tone 
linking. 
- 77 - 
The diagram is annotated according to the 
notation of Pierrehumbert (1980). The pitch accent is 
represented as a sequence of tones, here H+L, with 
the tone that is aligned with the text marked *, hence 
H*+L. The L tone of the accent is aligned with 
respect to this. The phrasal H tone and the boundary 
L tones, L%, are also shown. P&B clearly 
demonstrate that their sparse tone model, built from 
pitch accents, phrasal H tones and boundary L 
tones, is superior to the standard Autosegmental 
account (e.g. Haraguchi, 1977), where each mora has 
a fully specified tone. Their careful phonetic 
experiments show that pitch is a simple 
interpolation between certain critical points. 
In this paper, the alignment of tones will not be 
considered. In English, the repertoire of pitch 
accents leads to phrases with a variety of tunes, 
including alignment contrasts such as that between 
H+L* and H*+L. But in Japanese, the tunes are 
restricted to the ones in (8). 
(8) (L%) H (L%) unaccented 
(L%) H H*+L (L%) accented 
I have bracketed the boundary tones at both 
ends to indicate that they belong to both preceding 
and following phrases - they are ambiphrasal. More 
exactly, I treat a boundary tone between two minor 
phrases as a property of the major phrase which 
dominates both of them, though I don't discuss L- 
tone scaling in the paper. 
In fig. 3c, the overall downward slope of the pitch 
trace is picked out. Such a slope, about 10Hz/sec, is 
often cited as an intonational universal and linked to 
physiological properties of the speech system. 
Experiments demonstrate that the second of two 
equal tones is typically perceived as higher. This 
phonetic property, declination, must be clearly 
distinguished from the phonological property 
downstep or catathesis, as also illustrated in fig. 3c. 
J w v 
• downstep • ee••@ • u- •0 @@ 
e e t i o n • • • e 
so re wa u ma i no mi me nee.. 
Fig. 3c Declination and Downstep 
The pitch difference between the accent H 
tones of the last two phrases is significantly greater 
than can be accounted for by declination alone. 
Several authors (Poser, 1987, P&B, Kubozono) have 
demonstrated that this effect occurs precisely 
because an accent lowers all tones in a subsequent 
phrase. P&B quantify the fact of downstep with a 
speaker specific constant c, (,, 0.5, in a pitch range 
normalised to 1). In effect, a tone in a phrase 
following an accented phrase is c times the height it 
would be following an unaccented phrase. The 
prosodic category major phrase is justified 
phonetically as the domain of downstep; the precise 
character of major phrases is a point at issue in this 
paper. 
so re wa u ma i no mi me no 
Fig. 3d Schematic Pitch Trace 
Fig. 3d shows a schematisation of the same pitch 
contour, correcting for declination and connecting 
adjacent peaks and troughs with straight line 
segments. 
ordered finimsetofprosodic categories: 
~,Hn >,forexample: 
< .... prosodic word (CO), 
minor phrase (~), 
major phrase (4), 
utterance(V)> 
THE STRICT LAYER HYPOTHESIS 
The Strict Layer Hypothesis posits a totally 
< li0,.. • 
Each local tree in a prosodic representation is 
licensed by a phrase structure rule of the form 
Hi "-~ Hi-l", for i E 1 .. n. Thus a category of one 
type dominates all and only the categories of one 
other type, and prosodic trees are fixed in depth and 
n-ary branching. 
Acceding to Selkirk and Tateishi (S&T, 1989) the 
syntax-prosody mapping is then defined by 
associating with each II b i E 0 .. n, a parameter pair 
of the form: 
< edge, xbar>, edge E {left,right}, 
bar E BAR, i.e. {lex, max, ...} 
- 78 - 
The parameter settings entail that a prosodic 
boundary between constituents of category H i must 
coincide with the edge of a syntactic constituent of 
category X bar . Note by SLH that a prosodic 
boundary between Hi must also be a boundary 
between Flj, for all j < i. 
MINOR PHRASING 
For S&T, the edge parameter for Japanese 
prosodic categories is uniformly set to left. The X bar 
value associated with the major phrase ((~) is X max. 
Therefore, a major phrase boundary must appear at 
the left edge of any maximal projection. 
syntactic structure I ,&,, 
. A 
NI no N2 ga prosodic 
~ N1 structures 
prosodic boundaries ~ ~ 
by S&T's SPI 0~ b) 
Fig. 4 Minor Phrasing (S&T) 
It is not easy to give such a straightforward 
account of minor phrasing. Under certain 
circumstances, a sequence Of two bunsetsu may be 
realised as a single minor phrase. For S&T bunsetsu 
is never a syntactic category, but rather appears as 
the prosodic category word (0)). It is the prosodic 
word rather than the minor phrase which has the 
parameter setting, in this case X lex. So an upcoming 
lexical item must initiate a prosodic word, but may or 
may not initiate a minor phrase. The analysis is 
summarised in fig. 4. One slight methodological 
problem is that the prosodic word has no phonetic 
justification. 
In the alternative analysis pursued here, two 
boolean-valued features major and minor are used 
to prosodically classify syntactic constituents. A 
single constituent may not be both <minor +> and 
<major +>, though it may be neither. Each of these 
feature specifications is associated with 
characteristic phonetic equations. A constituent 
labelled <minor +> will contribute a constraint that 
relates the pitch of the H tones to the value of a 
register. A constituent labelled <major +> will 
contribute two sets of constraints - over the relative 
values of its daughter's registers, and on the pitch of 
the intermediate L% tones. These constraints are 
discussed below. 
The admissible prosodic labellings are defined 
as those which extend the following prosodic rules. 
in (9) (+(~), the mother is constrained to be a major 
phrase, while in (10) (-4~), the mother is constrained 
not to be a major phrase, though it may or may not 
be a minor phrase. 
(9) Mother -~ Left Right (+~) 
<Mother major> = + 
<Mother minor> = - 
<Left major> = 
<Left minor> = -~ 
<Right major> = 
<Right minor> = -6 
(i0) Mother -9 Left Right (-~) 
<Mother major> = - 
<Left major> = - 
<Left minor> = - 
<Right major> = - 
<Right minor> = - 
Note how the category major phrase is recursive 
(or compound, in the sense of Ladd (1990)), while 
minor phrase is a single layer. 
The syntax-prosody interface (SPI) is defined as 
a subset of <prosodic rules X syntactic rules>. For 
instance, the optionality of minor phrase formation 
follows from the inclusion of <+~),A> and <-4~,A> in 
SPI. 
syntactic structure 
A N made 
phrasing 
A 
prosodic 
structure? 
Fig. 5 A problem for SLH 
S&T assume that a minor phrase boundary may 
never appear within a bunsetsu (£0). However, 
Kubozono shows that such phrasings can occur, 
when the phrase contains both an accented lexical 
item and a particle with its own accent, such as 
- 79 - 
made, 'up to'. The SLH cannot license structures as 
in fig. 5. In the theory assumed here, this data is 
simply described by the inclusion in SPI of <+(~,L> 
as well as <-~,L>. 
TONE SCALING 
Two-element phrases: When two minor 
phrases are combined, the accentedness of the first 
element provides the strongest constraints on the 
form of the second - if the first element is accented, 
the second element is downstepped. In addition, an 
accented element is higher than an unaccented one 
(this is true of previous L% tones as well as H tones). 
We associate with the prosodic rule +(~ a scaling 
equation as in (11): 
(ii) Mother -~ Left Right (+¢) 
<Right register> = 
f (<Left register>, 
<Right downstep>) 
If the values of these features are real, 
normalised to speaker range, and f is multiplication, 
this treatment is very similar to P&Bs. I assume the 
feature <Right downstep> takes the values d n (n > 
0), where n is the number of downstepping tones in 
Left and d is the speaker specific constant (<1) that 
determines the quantitative aspects of downstep. 
For each constituent Phrase labelled <minor 
+>, a set of equations as in (12) is added to the 
constraint pool: 
(12) <Phrase accent pitch> = 
<Phrase register> 
<Phrase phrasal high pitch> = 
g(<Phrase register>,u) 
This continues to follow P&B (with g = 
multiplication) and u (<1) a speaker constant 
representing the ratio of phrasal to accent high. 
Three-element phrases: Kubozono considers 
three element phrases and contrasts the intonation 
of those with right and left branching applicative 
structures. For instance, fig. 6 contrasts the two cases 
in (13), in which all elements are accented. The 
difference between the second peaks in the two 
structures is significant at < 1%, the difference 
between the third at <.1%. 
(13a) ao'i o'okina me'ron (right branching) 
blue big melon 
(13b) ao'i re'monno nio'i (left branching) 
blue melon smell 
Fig. 6 Three-element Phrases 
To describe this, I assign a metrical labelling to 
a derivation. I assume that contra English, the 
primary phonetic exponent of such labelling in 
Japanese is pitch, that is, the H tones in stronger 
constituents are higher. The labelling associated 
with the A (and C) rule is as follows: 
In a structure of the form: 
\[A X Y\] or \[C X Y\] 
Y is strong iff it branches 
This gives the following labellings for the trees in 
fig. 6. 
a) \[W IS S WI\] b) \[Is S W\] W\] 
Labelling rules may of course be overridden by 
discourse factors. Space precludes a detailed 
description of prominence projection, that is, the 
correlation of metrical labelling with discrete 
terminal grid values. Note that the standard 
Liberman and Prince convention equates the grid 
values of the last element in the two cases, in conflict 
with the data. One formulation would assume a 
feature, say prominence, which takes the values 1 
or p (>1) as a constituent is labelled W or S. 
Downstepping and prominence interact, with the 
formulation in (14) replacing that given in (11) above: 
(14) <Right register> = 
f(<Left register>, 
<Right downstep>, 
<Right prominence>) 
<Left register> = <Mother register> 
Note that the register of a constituent is that of 
its left daughter. If the entire phrase is given the 
register value 1, and f is multi-plication, the high 
tones in fig. 6 receive the following pitch values. 
Right-branching case 
H2 = HI * d * p = d * p 
H3 = H2 * d = d 2 * p 
Left-branching case 
H2 = HI * d * 1 = d 
H3 = HI * d 2 * 1 = d 2 
- 80 . 
These figures capture the fact that both second 
and third elements in the right-branching structure 
~re boosted with respect to their left-branching 
counterparts. 
S&T's data shows the same effect as that of 
Kubozono in fig. 6. Their analysis is schematised in 
fig. 7. The difference between the two cases follows 
from the binary opposition downstep/no downstep. 
However, this analysis is no longer supported by 
Selkirk (p.c.), following Kubozono's clear demon- 
stration that downstep does apply in right-branching 
phrases. If the first element of a right branching 
phrase is unaccented, the second element is even 
higher. 
V V 
~ = downstep ~= no downstep 
Fig. 7 Three-Element Phrases (S&T) 
Four-element phrases: When we turn to four- 
element phrases, we find further evidence for 
i~ecursively structured prosodic domains. Fig. 8 
summarises Kubozono's data. All trees represent 
applicative structures. In structures 1 and 2, the first 
two elements are a dependent and its head, 
indisputibly a constituent. In structures 3 and 4, the 
first two elements are dependents of the same head. 
This is a non-standard constituent built by the 
Merge rule. Syntactically, such a constituent 
appears in coordinate sentence constructions with 
"gapped' pre-final verbs. Finally, in structure 5, the 
first two elements do not form a syntactic constituent 
of any sort, being a head and the dependent of 
~iifferent head. 
These functional equivalence classes correlate 
closely with the relative heights of the two pitch 
peaks -- the tighter the connection between the two 
elements, the lower the second peak. This account 
compares favourably with other theories that only 
postulate one such relationship, such as Lambek 
grammar where every pair of phrases is a 
~:onstituent, or those with two, such as phrase- 
8~ructure grammar, or Barry and Pickering's (1990) 
ve~'sion of Lambek with dependency and non- 
~ependency constituents. 
However, in principle Barry and Pickering's 
model could generalise as follows. They characterise 
any string whose analysis involves abstraction over a 
function symbol as a non-dependency constituent. 
But as many further distinctions as the data warrants 
may be made by considering the number of functors 
abstracted over. Kubozono's data for four-element 
phrases supports the case for at least three 
distinctions (no functor abstraction, one, more than 
one). Whether further distinctions need to be 
supported is unclear, as the systematic phonetic 
exploration of five-element phrases has yet to be 
carried out. 
Fig. 8 Four-Element Phrases 
CONCLUSIONS 
A constraint-based model of syntax and 
prosodic phonetics has been introduced and 
analyses of Japanese phonological phenomena have 
been outlined. Space precludes detailed 
consideration of the model's application to other 
dialects and languages. However, a similar model 
has been argued for by Briscoe (pc) on the basis of 
English. 
The model has been implemented in a Prolog 
version of PATR-II augmented with a simultaneous 
equation solver. Most of the data given above have 
been described with varying degrees of accuracy. 
Formulating and testing the predictions of diverse 
hypotheses with the system is easy due to the basic 
generative approach. Further cycles of phonetic 
experiments and modelling of the results are 
needed to distinguish between alternative analyses 
and refine the accuracy of the model. 
-81 - 
If this early exploration turns out to be on the 
right track, and it is indeed possible to describe the 
prosodic properties of speech within an integrated 
declarative model of grammar, then future speech 
synthesis systems will be able to exploit diverse 
information on-line in the generation of natural 
intonation. 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
This work was carried out while I was a visiting 
fellow at the Centre for Cognitive Science, University 
of Edinburgh. I would like to thank Ewan Klein for 
making this possible. I am grateful to all the 
members of the Phonology workshop, especially Bob 
Ladd who read and commented on earlier drafts. Jo 
Calder and Mike Reape had me as an office mate, 
and helped me in all sorts of ways, so special thanks 
to them. 
REFERENCES 
Barry, Guy and Martin Pickering (1990) 
Dependency and Constituency in Categorial 
Grammar. in Edinburgh Working Papers in 
Cognitive Science, Voi. 5: Studies in Categorial 
Grammar, G. Barry and G. Morrill (eds.). Centre for 
Cognitive Science, Univ. of Edinburgh. 
Haraguchi, Shosuke (1977) The Tone Pattern 
of Japanese: An Autosegmental Theory of 
Tonology. Kaitakusha, Tokyo. 
Kaplan, Ronald and Joan Bresnan (1982) Lexical 
Functional Grammar: A Formal System for 
Grammatical Representation. in The Mental 
Representation of Grammatical Relations, J. 
Bresnan (ed.) MIT. 
Karttunen, Lauri (1989) Radical Lexicalism. in 
Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, 
M.R. Baltin and A.S. Kroch (eds.), Chicago. 
Kubozono, Haruo (1987) The Organization of 
Japanese Prosody PhD Thesis, Dept. of 
Linguistics, Univ. of Edinburgh. 
Ladd, D. Robert (1990) Compound Prosodic 
Domains, submitted to Language. 
Moortgat, Michael (1989) Categorial 
Investigations: Logical and Linguistic Aspects 
of the Lambek Calculus. Forts, Dordrecht. 
Pierrehumbert, Janet (1980) The Phonology 
and Phonetics of English Intonation. Doctoral 
diss. MIT. 
Pierrehumbert, Janet and Mary Beckman (1988) 
Japanese Tone Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge. 
Poser, William J. (1984) The Phonetics and 
Phonology of Tone and Intonation in Japanese. 
Doctoral diss. MIT. 
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1981) On Prosodic Structure 
and its Relation to Syntactic Structure, in Nordic 
Prosody vol. 2, ed. T. E. Fretheim, Tapir, 
Trondheim. 
Selkirk, Elisabeth and Koichi Tateishi, (1989) 
Constraints on Minor Phrase Formation in Japanese, 
in Proceedings of the CLS 24. 
Uszkoreit, Hans (1986) Categorial Unification 
Grammars. COLING 11, Bonn. 
Whitelock, Peter J. (1987) A feature-based 
categorial morpho-syntax of Japanese. in Natural 
Language Parsing and Linguistic Theories, U. 
Reyle and C. Rohrer (eds.) Reidel, Dordrecht. 
Whitelock, Peter J. (1991) Some Aspects of a 
Computational Grammar of Japanese, 
forthcoming PhD thesis, Dept. of Language and 
Linguistics, UMIST. 
- 82 - 
