Login to MyKarger

New to MyKarger? Click here to sign up.



Login with Facebook

Forgot your password?

Authors, Editors, Reviewers

For Manuscript Submission, Check or Review Login please go to Submission Websites List.

Submission Websites List

Institutional Login
(Shibboleth or Open Athens)

For the academic login, please select your country in the dropdown list. You will be redirected to verify your credentials.

Original Paper

Editor's Choice - Free Access

Gestural Control in the English Past-Tense Suffix: An Articulatory Study Using Real-Time MRI

Lammert A.a · Goldstein L.b · Ramanarayanan V.a · Narayanan S.a,b

Author affiliations

aSignal Analysis and Interpretation Laboratory and bDepartment of Linguistics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, Calif., USA

Corresponding Author

Adam Lammert

3740 McClintock Avenue, EBB 400

Los Angeles, CA 90089 (USA)

E-Mail lammert@usc.edu

Related Articles for ""

Phonetica 2014;71:229-248

Abstract

The English past tense allomorph following a coronal stop (e.g., /bɑndəd/) includes a vocoid that has traditionally been transcribed as a schwa or as a barred i. Previous evidence has suggested that this entity does not involve a specific articulatory gesture of any kind. Rather, its presence may simply result from temporal coordination of the two temporally adjacent coronal gestures, while the interval between those two gestures remains voiced and is acoustically reminiscent of a schwa. The acoustic and articulatory characteristics of this vocoid are reexamined in this work using real-time MRI with synchronized audio which affords complete midsagittal views of the vocal tract. A novel statistical analysis is developed to address the issue of articulatory targetlessness based on previous models that predict articulatory action from segmental context. Results reinforce the idea that this vocoid is different, both acoustically and articulatorily, than lexical schwa, but its targetless nature is not supported. Data suggest that an articulatory target does exist, especially in the pharynx where it is revealed by the new data acquisition methodology. Moreover, substantial articulatory differences are observed between subjects, which highlights both the difficulty in characterizing this entity previously, and the need for further study with additional subjects.

© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel



References

  1. Anderson S (19 82): The analysis of French schwa. Language 58:535-573.
    External Resources
  2. Bakovic E (2005): Antigemination, assimilation and the determination of identity. Phonology 22:279-315.
    External Resources
  3. Bennett CM, Baird AA, Miller MB, Wolford GL (2010): Neural correlates of interspecies perspective taking in the post-mortem Atlantic salmon: an argument for proper multiple comparisons correction. J Serendipitous Unexpected Results 1:1-5.
    External Resources
  4. Boersma P (2001): Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot Int 5:341-345.
  5. Bresch E, Katsamanis A, Narayanan S (2010): Coupled HMM; in Proc Interspeech.
  6. Bresch E, Narayanan S (2009): Region segmentation in the frequency domain applied to upper airway real-time magnetic resonance images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 28:323.
  7. Bresch E, Nielsen J, Nayak K, Narayanan S (2006): Synchronized and noise-robust audio recordings during realtime MRI scans. J Acoust Soc Am 120:1791-1794.
  8. Browman C, Goldstein L (1992): Targetless schwa: an articulatory analysis; in Docherty A, Ladd A (eds): Papers in Laboratory Phonology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, vol II: Gesture, Segment, Prosody, pp 26-56.
  9. Browman C, Goldstein L (2000): Competing constraints on intergestural coordination and self-organization of phonological structures. Bull Commun Parlé 5:25-34.
  10. Davidson L (2006): Phonotactics and articulatory coordination interact in phonology: evidence from nonnative production. Cogn Sci 30:837-862.
  11. Devijver PA, Kittler J (1982): Pattern Recognition: A Statistical Approach. London, Prentice Hall.
    External Resources
  12. Fant G (1950a): Transmission properties of the vocal tract. Part I. MIT Q Prog Rep, pp 20-23.
  13. Fant G (1950b): Transmission properties of the vocal tract. Part II. MIT Q Prog Rep, pp 14-19.
  14. Feise RJ (2002): Do multiple outcome measures require p-value adjustment? BMC Med Res Methodol 2:8.Flemming E (2007): The phonetics of schwa vowels; in Minkova D (ed): Phonological Weakness in English. Palgrave.
  15. Flemming E, Johnson S (2007): Rosa's roses: reduced vowels in American English. J Int Phonet Assoc 37:83-96.
  16. Forsyth D, Ponce J (2002): Computer Vision: A Modern Approach. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.
    External Resources
  17. Fromkin V (ed) (2000): Linguistics: An Introduction to Linguistic Theory. Oxford, Blackwell.
  18. Gafos A (2002): A grammar of gestural coordination. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 20:269.
  19. Geisser S (1993): Predictive Inference. New York, Chapman & Hall.
    External Resources
  20. Goldstein L (2011): Back to the past tense in English; in Representing Language: Essays in Honor of Judith Aissen. Santa Cruz, Linguistics Research Center, University of California Santa Cruz.
  21. Goldstein L, Byrd D, Saltzman E (2006): The role of vocal tract gestural action units in understanding the evolution of phonology; in Arbib M (ed): Action to Language via the Mirror Neuron System. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  22. Kiparsky P (1985): Some consequences of lexical phonology. Phonol Yearb 2:85-138.
    External Resources
  23. Kitamura T, Takemoto H, Honda K, Shimada Y, Fujimoto I, Syakudo Y, Masaki S, Kuroda K, Oku-uchi N, Senda M (2005): Difference in vocal tract shape between upright and supine postures: observations by an open-type MRI scanner. Acoust Sci Technol 26.
    External Resources
  24. Lammert A, Proctor M, Narayanan S (2010): Data-driven analysis of realtime vocal tract mri using correlated image regions; in Proc Interspeech.
    External Resources
  25. Magen H (1989): An Acoustic Study of Vowel-to-Vowel Coarticulation in English; PhD thesis Yale University.
  26. Nam H (2007): Articulatory modeling of consonant release gesture; in 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences.
  27. Narayanan S, Nayak K, Lee S, Sethy A, Byrd D (2004): An approach to real-time magnetic resonance imaging for speech production. J Acoust Soc Am 115:1771-1776.
  28. Perneger TV (1998): What's wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. BMJ 316:1236-1238.
  29. Pinker S, Prince A (1988): On language and connectionism: analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition; in Pinker S, Mehler J (eds): Connections and Symbols. Cambridge, MIT Press, pp 73-193.
  30. Pouradmadi M (2007): Construction of skew-normal random variables: are they linear combinations of normal and half-normal? J Stat Theory Application 3:314-328.
  31. Ramanarayanan V, Goldstein L, Byrd D, Narayanan S (2013): An investigation of articulatory setting using realtime magnetic resonance imaging. J Acoust Soc Am 134:510-519.
  32. Rothman KJ (1990): No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons. Epidemiology 1:43-46.
  33. Smorodinsky I (2002): Schwas with and without Active Gestural Control; PhD thesis Yale University.
  34. Stone M, Stock G, Bunin K, Kumar K, Epstein M, Kambhamettu C, Li M, Parthasarathy V, Prince J (2007): Comparison of speech production in upright and supine position. J Acoust Soc Am 122:532-541.
    External Resources
  35. Tiede M, Masaki S, Vatikiotis-Bateson E (2000): Contrasts in speech articulation observed in sitting and supine conditions; in Proc International Seminar on Speech Production, Bavaria, pp 25-28.
  36. Trager A, Smith A (1951): An Outline of English Structure. Studies in Linguistics Occasional Papers (No. 3). Norman, Battenberg Press.
  37. Wrench A, Cleland J, Scobbie J (2011): An ultrasound protocol for comparing tongue contours: upright vs. supine; in Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Hong Kong, pp 2161-2164.
  38. Zsiga E (2003): Articulatory timing in a second language. Stud Second Lang Acquisition 25:399-432.
  39. Zsiga E (2003): Articulatory timing in a second language. Stud Second Lang Acquisition 25:399-432.
    External Resources

Author Contacts

Adam Lammert

3740 McClintock Avenue, EBB 400

Los Angeles, CA 90089 (USA)

E-Mail lammert@usc.edu


Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: July 08, 2014
Accepted: December 31, 2014
Published online: April 01, 2015
Issue release date: July 2015

Number of Print Pages: 20
Number of Figures: 6
Number of Tables: 2

ISSN: 0031-8388 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0321 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/PHO


Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

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.
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 government 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. Anderson S (19 82): The analysis of French schwa. Language 58:535-573.
    External Resources
  2. Bakovic E (2005): Antigemination, assimilation and the determination of identity. Phonology 22:279-315.
    External Resources
  3. Bennett CM, Baird AA, Miller MB, Wolford GL (2010): Neural correlates of interspecies perspective taking in the post-mortem Atlantic salmon: an argument for proper multiple comparisons correction. J Serendipitous Unexpected Results 1:1-5.
    External Resources
  4. Boersma P (2001): Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot Int 5:341-345.
  5. Bresch E, Katsamanis A, Narayanan S (2010): Coupled HMM; in Proc Interspeech.
  6. Bresch E, Narayanan S (2009): Region segmentation in the frequency domain applied to upper airway real-time magnetic resonance images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 28:323.
  7. Bresch E, Nielsen J, Nayak K, Narayanan S (2006): Synchronized and noise-robust audio recordings during realtime MRI scans. J Acoust Soc Am 120:1791-1794.
  8. Browman C, Goldstein L (1992): Targetless schwa: an articulatory analysis; in Docherty A, Ladd A (eds): Papers in Laboratory Phonology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, vol II: Gesture, Segment, Prosody, pp 26-56.
  9. Browman C, Goldstein L (2000): Competing constraints on intergestural coordination and self-organization of phonological structures. Bull Commun Parlé 5:25-34.
  10. Davidson L (2006): Phonotactics and articulatory coordination interact in phonology: evidence from nonnative production. Cogn Sci 30:837-862.
  11. Devijver PA, Kittler J (1982): Pattern Recognition: A Statistical Approach. London, Prentice Hall.
    External Resources
  12. Fant G (1950a): Transmission properties of the vocal tract. Part I. MIT Q Prog Rep, pp 20-23.
  13. Fant G (1950b): Transmission properties of the vocal tract. Part II. MIT Q Prog Rep, pp 14-19.
  14. Feise RJ (2002): Do multiple outcome measures require p-value adjustment? BMC Med Res Methodol 2:8.Flemming E (2007): The phonetics of schwa vowels; in Minkova D (ed): Phonological Weakness in English. Palgrave.
  15. Flemming E, Johnson S (2007): Rosa's roses: reduced vowels in American English. J Int Phonet Assoc 37:83-96.
  16. Forsyth D, Ponce J (2002): Computer Vision: A Modern Approach. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.
    External Resources
  17. Fromkin V (ed) (2000): Linguistics: An Introduction to Linguistic Theory. Oxford, Blackwell.
  18. Gafos A (2002): A grammar of gestural coordination. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 20:269.
  19. Geisser S (1993): Predictive Inference. New York, Chapman & Hall.
    External Resources
  20. Goldstein L (2011): Back to the past tense in English; in Representing Language: Essays in Honor of Judith Aissen. Santa Cruz, Linguistics Research Center, University of California Santa Cruz.
  21. Goldstein L, Byrd D, Saltzman E (2006): The role of vocal tract gestural action units in understanding the evolution of phonology; in Arbib M (ed): Action to Language via the Mirror Neuron System. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  22. Kiparsky P (1985): Some consequences of lexical phonology. Phonol Yearb 2:85-138.
    External Resources
  23. Kitamura T, Takemoto H, Honda K, Shimada Y, Fujimoto I, Syakudo Y, Masaki S, Kuroda K, Oku-uchi N, Senda M (2005): Difference in vocal tract shape between upright and supine postures: observations by an open-type MRI scanner. Acoust Sci Technol 26.
    External Resources
  24. Lammert A, Proctor M, Narayanan S (2010): Data-driven analysis of realtime vocal tract mri using correlated image regions; in Proc Interspeech.
    External Resources
  25. Magen H (1989): An Acoustic Study of Vowel-to-Vowel Coarticulation in English; PhD thesis Yale University.
  26. Nam H (2007): Articulatory modeling of consonant release gesture; in 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences.
  27. Narayanan S, Nayak K, Lee S, Sethy A, Byrd D (2004): An approach to real-time magnetic resonance imaging for speech production. J Acoust Soc Am 115:1771-1776.
  28. Perneger TV (1998): What's wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. BMJ 316:1236-1238.
  29. Pinker S, Prince A (1988): On language and connectionism: analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition; in Pinker S, Mehler J (eds): Connections and Symbols. Cambridge, MIT Press, pp 73-193.
  30. Pouradmadi M (2007): Construction of skew-normal random variables: are they linear combinations of normal and half-normal? J Stat Theory Application 3:314-328.
  31. Ramanarayanan V, Goldstein L, Byrd D, Narayanan S (2013): An investigation of articulatory setting using realtime magnetic resonance imaging. J Acoust Soc Am 134:510-519.
  32. Rothman KJ (1990): No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons. Epidemiology 1:43-46.
  33. Smorodinsky I (2002): Schwas with and without Active Gestural Control; PhD thesis Yale University.
  34. Stone M, Stock G, Bunin K, Kumar K, Epstein M, Kambhamettu C, Li M, Parthasarathy V, Prince J (2007): Comparison of speech production in upright and supine position. J Acoust Soc Am 122:532-541.
    External Resources
  35. Tiede M, Masaki S, Vatikiotis-Bateson E (2000): Contrasts in speech articulation observed in sitting and supine conditions; in Proc International Seminar on Speech Production, Bavaria, pp 25-28.
  36. Trager A, Smith A (1951): An Outline of English Structure. Studies in Linguistics Occasional Papers (No. 3). Norman, Battenberg Press.
  37. Wrench A, Cleland J, Scobbie J (2011): An ultrasound protocol for comparing tongue contours: upright vs. supine; in Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Hong Kong, pp 2161-2164.
  38. Zsiga E (2003): Articulatory timing in a second language. Stud Second Lang Acquisition 25:399-432.
  39. Zsiga E (2003): Articulatory timing in a second language. Stud Second Lang Acquisition 25:399-432.
    External Resources
Figures

Tables