Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 59, No. 2-3, 2002
Issue release date: April–September 2002
Phonetica 2002;59:134–149
(DOI:10.1159/000066067)

Articulation of Extreme Formant Patterns for Emphasized Vowels

Erickson D.
Gifu City Women’s College, Gifu City, Gifu, Japan

Individual Users: Register with Karger Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information











I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Abstract

This study examined formant, jaw and tongue dorsum measurements from X-ray microbeam recordings of American English speakers producing emphasized vs. unemphasized words containing high-front, mid-front and low vowels. For emphasized vowels, the jaw position, regardless of vowel height, was lower, while the tongue dorsum had a more extreme articulation in the direction of the phonological specification of the vowel. For emphasized low vowels, the tongue dorsum position was lower with the acoustic consequence of F1 and F2 bunched closer together. For emphasized high and mid-front vowels, the tongue was more forward with the acoustic consequence of F1 and F2 spread more apart. These findings are interpreted within acoustic models of speech production. They also provide empirical data which have application to the C/D model hypothesis that both increased lowering of jaw and enhanced tongue gesture are consequences of a magnitude increase in the syllable pulse due to emphasis.



Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

References

  1. Beckman, M.E.; Edwards, J.: Articulatory evidence for differentiating stress categories; in Keating, Papers in Laboratory Phonology, pp. 7–33 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1994).
  2. Beckman, M.E.; Edwards, J.; Fletcher, J.: Prosodic structure and tempo in a sonority model of articulatory dynamics; in Docherty, Ladd, Papers in Laboratory Phonology. II: Segment, gesture, prosody, pp. 68–86 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1992).
  3. Dang, J.; Honda, K.: Speech production of vowel sequences using a physiological articulatory model. Int. Congr. Speech Lang. Proc. 5: 1767–1770 (1998).
  4. Dang, J.; Honda, K.: A physiological amodel of a dynamic vocal tract for speech production. Acoust. Sic. and Tech. 22, 6, 415–425 (2001).
  5. Dang, J.; Honda, K.: Estimation of vocal tract shape from sounds via a physiological articulatory model (in press).
  6. Edwards, J.; Beckman, M.E.; Fletcher, J.: Articulatory kinematics of final lengthening. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 89: 369–382 (1991).
  7. Erickson, D.: Effects of contrastive emphasis on jaw opening. Phonetica 55: 147–169 (1998).
  8. Erickson, D.; Fujimura, O.; Dang, J.: Emphasized vs. unemphasized /aJ/: Jaw, tongue and formants. Acustica 85: suppl 1, p. 1354 (1999a).
  9. Erickson, D.; Fujimura, O.; Dang, J.: Articulatory and acoustic characteristics of emphasized and unemphasized vowels. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 106: 2241 (1999b).
  10. Erickson, D.; Hashi, M.; Maekawa, K.: Articulatory and acoustic correlates of prosodic contrasts: a comparative study of vowels in Japanese and English, J. acoust. Soc. Japan 56: 265–266 (2000a).
  11. Erickson, D.; Maekawa, K.; Hashi, M.; Dang, J.: Some articulatory and acoustic changes associated with emphasis in spoken English. Int. Congr. Speech Lang. Proc. Vol. 3, 247–250 (2000b).
  12. Fant, G.: Acoustic theory of speech production (Mouton, The Hague 1970).
  13. Fant, G.: The voice source in connected speech. Speech Communi. 22: 125–139 (1997).
  14. Fant, G.: The source-filter frame of prosody. Phonetica 57: 113–127 (2000).
  15. Fujimura, O.: Phonology and phonetics: a syllable based model of articulatory organization. J. acoust. Soc. Japan 13: 39–48 (1992).
  16. Fujimura, O.: C/D model: a computational model of phonetic implementation; in Ristad, Language computations, pp. 1–20 (American Mathematical Society, Providence 1994).
  17. Fujimura, O.: Syllable structure constraints: a C/D model perspective; in Agbayani, Harada, Proc. SWOT-II, Working Papers in Linguistics, UC Irvine, pp. 59–74 (Department of Linguistics, UC Irvine 1996).
  18. Fujimura, O.: Neuromusculature simulation and linguistic control. Bull. Com. parlée 4: 59–63 (1998).
  19. Fujimura, O.: The C/D model and prosodic control of articulatory behavior. Phonetica 57: 128–138 (2000). Fujimura, O.; Ishida, H.; Kiritani, S.: Computer-controlled radiography for observation of movements of articulatory and other human organs. Comp. Biol. Med. 3: 371–384 (1973).
  20. Fujimura, O.; Kakita, Y.: Remarks on quantitative description of the lingual articulation; in Lindblom, Öhman, Frontiers of speech communication research, pp. 17–24 (Academic Press, London 1979).
  21. Fujimura, O.; Pardo, B.; Erickson, D.: Effect of emphasis and irritation on jaw opening. Proc. Eur. Speech Community Assoc. Conf. on Sound Patterns of Spontaneous Speech: Production and Perception (ESCA), Aix-en-Provence 1998, pp. 23–29.
  22. Fujimura, Q.; Williams, C.J.: Syllable concatenators in English, Japanese and Spanish; in Fujimura, Joseph, Pale, Item order: proceedings of LP’98, pp. 461–498 (Charles University Press, Prague 1999).
  23. Harrington, J.; Fletcher, J.; Beckman, M.: Manner and place conflicts in the articulation of accent in Australian English; in Broe, Pierrehumbert, Papers in Laboratory Phonology. V: Language acquisition and the lexicon, pp. 40–51 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2000).
  24. Honda, K.: Organization of tongue articulation for vowels. J. Phonet. 24: 39–52 (1996).
  25. Jong, K. de: The supraglottal articulation of prominence in English: linguistic stress as localized hyperarticulation. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 97: 491–504 (1995).
  26. Jong, K. de; Beckman, M.E.; Edwards, J.: The interplay between prosodic structure and coarticulation. Lang. Speech 36: 197–212 (1993).
  27. Kiritani, S.; Itoh, K.; Fujimura, O.: Tongue-pellet tracking by a computer-controlled X-ray microbeam system. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 57: 1516–1520 (1975).
  28. Laboissière, R.; Ostry, D.; Feldman, A.: The control of human jaw and hyoid movement. Biol. Cybernetics 74: 373–384 (1996).
  29. Ladefoged, P.: Some possibilities in speech synthesis. Lang. Speech 7: 205–214 (1964).
  30. Ladefoged, P.; DeClerk, J.; Harshman, R.: Control of the tongue in vowels. Proc. 7th Int. Congr. Phonet. Sci., 1972b, pp. 349–354.
  31. Ladefoged, P.; DeClerk, J.; Lindau, M.; Papçun, G.: An auditory-motor theory of speech production. Univ. Calif. Los Angeles Working Papers Phonet. 22: 48–75 (1972a).
  32. Lindblom, B.: Explaining phonetic variation: a sketch of the H and H theory; in Hardcastle, Marchal, Speech production and speech modelling, pp. 403–440 (Kluwer, Dordrecht 1990).
  33. Lindblom, B.; Sundberg, J.: Acoustical consequences of lip, tongue, jaw, and larynx movement. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 50: 1166–1179 (1971).
  34. Loevenbruck, H.: An investigation of articulatory correlates of the accentual phrase in French. Proc. 14th Int. Congr. Phonet. Sci., San Francisco, 1999, vol. 1, pp. 667–670.
  35. Macchi, M.: Labial articulation patterns associated with segmental features and syllable structure in English. Phonetica 45: 109–121 (1988).
  36. Maeda, S.: A digital simulation method of vocal-tract system. Speech Commun. 1: 199–299 (1982).
  37. Maeda, S.: Compensatory articulation during speech: evidence from the analysis and synthesis of vocal tract shapes using an articulatory model; in Hardcastle, Marchal, Speech production and speech modeling, pp. 131–149 (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht 1990).
  38. Maeda, S.: On articulatory and acoustic variabilities. J. Phonet. 19: 321–331 (1991).
  39. Maeda, S.; Honda, K.: From EMG to formant patterns of vowels: the implication of vowel systems spaces. Phonetica 51: 17–29 (1994).
  40. Maeda, S.; Honda, K.: Articulatory coordination and its neurobiological aspects; in van Heuven, Pols, Speech production in language. In honor of Osamu Fujimura, pp. 215–228 (Mouton de Gruyter, New York 1997).
  41. Maekawa, K.; Kiritoni, S.; Imagawa, H.; Honda, K.: Effects of focus on mandible movement. J. acoust. Soc. Japan 54: 259–260 (1998).
  42. Mitchell, C.J.; Menezes, C.; Williams, J.C.; Pardo, B.; Erickson, D.; Fujimura, O.: Changes in syllable and boundary strengths due to irritation. ISCA Workshop on Speech and Emotion, Belfast, 2000.
  43. Nadler, R.D.; Abbs, J.H.; Fujimura, O.: Speech movement research using the new X-ray microbeam system. Proc. 11th Int. Congr. Phonet. Sci., Tallinn 1987, vol. 1, pp. 221–224.
  44. Ohman, S.E.G.: Numerical model of coarticulation. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 39: 151–168 (1967).
  45. Perkell, J.: Physiology of speech production (MIT Press, Cambridge 1969).
  46. Perkell, J.: Articulatory processes; in Hardcastle, Laver, The handbook of phonetic sciences, pp. 333–370 (Blackwell, Cambridge 1997).
  47. Perrier, P.; Ostry, D.; Laboissière, R.: The equilibrium point hypothesis and its application to speech motor control. J. Speech Hear. Res. 39: 365–378 (1996).
  48. Schulman, R.: Articulatory dynamics of loud and normal speech. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 85: 295–312 (1989).
  49. Stevens, K.N.: Airflow and turbulence noise for fricative and stop consonants: static considerations. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 50: 1180–1192 (1971).
  50. Stevens, K.N.: The quantal nature of speech: evidence from articulatory-acoustic data; in David, Denes, Human communications: a unified view, pp. 51–66 (McGraw-Hill, New York 1972).
  51. Stevens, K.N.: Articulatory-acoustic-auditory relationships; in Hardcastle, Laver, The handbook of phonetic sciences, pp. 462–506 (Blackwell, Cambridge 1997).
  52. Stone, M.: Evidence for a rhythm pattern in speech production: observations of jaw movement. J. Phonet. 9: 109–120 (1981).
  53. Summers, W.V.: Effects of stress and final-consonant voicing on vowel production: articulatory and acoustic analyses. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 82: 847–863 (1987).
  54. Westbury, J.R.: The significance and measurement of head position during speech production experiments using the X-ray microbeam system. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 89: 1782–1791 (1991).
  55. Westbury, J.R.; Fujimura, O.: An articulatory characterization of contrastive emphasis. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 85: S98 (1989).


Pay-per-View Options
Direct payment This item at the regular price: USD 38.00
Payment from account With a Karger Pay-per-View account (down payment USD 150) you profit from a special rate for this and other single items.
This item at the discounted price: USD 26.50