Frontiers and Challenges in Articulatory Phonology

Browman and Goldstein have outlined an account of the cognitive representation of words in which phonological and phonetic specification is isomorphic [see e.g. 1, 2]. Their Articulatory Phonology framework examines the hypothesis that linguistically significant vocal tract constrictions, or gestures, are the atomic units of phonological representation. And, using Saltzman’s Task Dynamics model [3], these gestural units are quantitatively described as dynamical systems. These innovations have led to significant improvements in our understanding of how spoken language is produced and why it exhibits particular qualities and patterns. The success of this approach has ignited an interest in exploring the range of linguistic challenges to which Articulatory Phonology might rise. There are new frontiers to be explored within the approach and known questions to be considered in new ways.

[1]  C. Browman,et al.  Papers in Laboratory Phonology: Tiers in articulatory phonology, with some implications for casual speech , 1990 .

[2]  John Kingston,et al.  Between the grammar and physics of speech , 1994 .

[3]  J. Pierrehumbert,et al.  Japanese Tone Structure , 1988 .

[4]  Shrikanth S. Narayanan,et al.  Geometry, kinematics, and acoustics of Tamil liquid consonants. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  C. Browman,et al.  Articulatory Phonology: An Overview , 1992, Phonetica.

[6]  I. Mattingly.  Phonetic Representation and Speech Synthesis by Rule , 1981 .

[7]  Mary E. Beckman,et al.  Modeling the Articulatory Dynamics of Two Levels of Stress Contrast , 2000 .

[8]  M. Beckman,et al.  The articulatory kinematics of final lengthening. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  K. D. de Jong.  The supraglottal articulation of prominence in English: linguistic stress as localized hyperarticulation. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  Diamandis Gafos,et al.  Eliminating Long-Distance Consonantal Spreading , 1998 .

[11]  C. Browman,et al.  Competing constraints on intergestural coordination and self-organization of phonological structures , 2000 .

[12]  Dani Byrd,et al.  Task-dynamics of gestural timing: Phase windows and multifrequency rhythms , 2000 .

[13]  L Saltzman Elliot,et al.  A Dynamical Approach to Gestural Patterning in Speech Production , 1989 .

[14]  Daniel A. Silverman,et al.  Phasing and Recoverability , 1997 .

[15]  G. Docherty.  The Timing of Voicing in British English Obstruents , 1992 .

[16]  Dani Byrd,et al.  The elastic phrase: modeling the dynamics of boundary-adjacent lengthening , 2003, J. Phonetics.

[17]  Dani Byrd,et al.  A Phase Window Framework for Articulatory Timing , 1996, Phonology.

[18]  Dani Byrd,et al.  Influences on articulatory timing in consonant sequences , 1996 .

[19]  Louis Goldstein,et al.  Dynamics and articulatory phonology , 1996 .

[20]  Patricia A. Keating,et al.  Papers in Laboratory Phonology: The window model of coarticulation: articulatory evidence , 1990 .

[21]  Adamantios I. Gafos,et al.  A Grammar of Gestural Coordination , 2002 .

[22]  Elliot Saltzman,et al.  Incorporating aerodynamic and laryngealcomponents into task dynamics , 1995 .

[23]  R. Krakow.  Physiological organization of syllables: a review , 1999 .

[24]  Dani Byrd,et al.  The Elastic Phrase: Dynamics of Boundary-Adjacent Lengthening , 2003 .

[25]  M. Beckman,et al.  Manner and place conflicts in the articulation of accent in Australian English , 2001 .

[26]  Susanne Fuchs,et al.  Stress distinction in German: simulating kinematic parameters of tongue-tip gestures , 2002, J. Phonetics.