Phonetica was published by Karger Publishers up to and including 2020. If you or your institution subscribed to Phonetica during that period, you might still have access to the full text of this article on the Karger platform if you cannot access it here.
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.
verified
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).10.1017/CBO9780511659461.002Search in Google Scholar
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).10.1017/CBO9780511519918.004Search in Google Scholar
3 Dang, J.; Honda, K.: Speech production of vowel sequences using a physiological articulatory model. Int. Congr. Speech Lang. Proc. 5: 1767–1770 (1998).10.21437/ICSLP.1998-733Search in Google Scholar
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).Search in Google Scholar
5 Dang, J.; Honda, K.: Estimation of vocal tract shape from sounds via a physiological articulatory model (in press).Search in Google Scholar
6 Edwards, J.; Beckman, M.E.; Fletcher, J.: Articulatory kinematics of final lengthening. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 89: 369–382 (1991).10.1121/1.400674Search in Google Scholar
7 Erickson, D.: Effects of contrastive emphasis on jaw opening. Phonetica 55: 147–169 (1998).10.1159/000028429Search in Google Scholar
8 Erickson, D.; Fujimura, O.; Dang, J.: Emphasized vs. unemphasized /aJ/: Jaw, tongue and formants. Acustica 85: suppl 1, p. 1354 (1999a).10.1121/1.426417Search in Google Scholar
9 Erickson, D.; Fujimura, O.; Dang, J.: Articulatory and acoustic characteristics of emphasized and unemphasized vowels. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 106: 2241 (1999b).10.1121/1.427636Search in Google Scholar
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).Search in Google Scholar
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).10.21437/ICSLP.2000-524Search in Google Scholar
12 Fant, G.: Acoustic theory of speech production (Mouton, The Hague 1970).10.1515/9783110873429Search in Google Scholar
13 Fant, G.: The voice source in connected speech. Speech Communi. 22: 125–139 (1997).10.1016/S0167-6393(97)00017-4Search in Google Scholar
14 Fant, G.: The source-filter frame of prosody. Phonetica 57: 113–127 (2000).10.1159/000028466Search in Google Scholar
15 Fujimura, O.: Phonology and phonetics: a syllable based model of articulatory organization. J. acoust. Soc. Japan 13: 39–48 (1992).10.1250/ast.13.39Search in Google Scholar
16 Fujimura, O.: C/D model: a computational model of phonetic implementation; in Ristad, Language computations, pp. 1–20 (American Mathematical Society, Providence 1994).10.1090/dimacs/017/01Search in Google Scholar
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).Search in Google Scholar
18 Fujimura, O.: Neuromusculature simulation and linguistic control. Bull. Com. parlée 4: 59–63 (1998).Search in Google Scholar
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).Search in Google Scholar
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).Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
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).Search in Google Scholar
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).Search in Google Scholar
24 Honda, K.: Organization of tongue articulation for vowels. J. Phonet. 24: 39–52 (1996).10.1006/jpho.1996.0004Search in Google Scholar
25 Jong, K. de: The supraglottal articulation of prominence in English: linguistic stress as localized hyperarticulation. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 97: 491–504 (1995).10.1121/1.412275Search in Google Scholar
26 Jong, K. de; Beckman, M.E.; Edwards, J.: The interplay between prosodic structure and coarticulation. Lang. Speech 36: 197–212 (1993).10.1177/002383099303600305Search in Google Scholar
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).10.1121/1.380593Search in Google Scholar
28 Laboissière, R.; Ostry, D.; Feldman, A.: The control of human jaw and hyoid movement. Biol. Cybernetics 74: 373–384 (1996).10.1007/BF00194930Search in Google Scholar
29 Ladefoged, P.: Some possibilities in speech synthesis. Lang. Speech 7: 205–214 (1964).10.1177/002383096400700401Search in Google Scholar
30 Ladefoged, P.; DeClerk, J.; Harshman, R.: Control of the tongue in vowels. Proc. 7th Int. Congr. Phonet. Sci., 1972b, pp. 349–354.10.1515/9783110814750-027Search in Google Scholar
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).Search in Google Scholar
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).10.1007/978-94-009-2037-8_16Search in Google Scholar
33 Lindblom, B.; Sundberg, J.: Acoustical consequences of lip, tongue, jaw, and larynx movement. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 50: 1166–1179 (1971).Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
35 Macchi, M.: Labial articulation patterns associated with segmental features and syllable structure in English. Phonetica 45: 109–121 (1988).10.1159/000261821Search in Google Scholar
36 Maeda, S.: A digital simulation method of vocal-tract system. Speech Commun. 1: 199–299 (1982).10.1016/0167-6393(82)90017-6Search in Google Scholar
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).10.1007/978-94-009-2037-8_6Search in Google Scholar
38 Maeda, S.: On articulatory and acoustic variabilities. J. Phonet. 19: 321–331 (1991).10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30348-1Search in Google Scholar
39 Maeda, S.; Honda, K.: From EMG to formant patterns of vowels: the implication of vowel systems spaces. Phonetica 51: 17–29 (1994).10.1159/000261955Search in Google Scholar
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).Search in Google Scholar
41 Maekawa, K.; Kiritoni, S.; Imagawa, H.; Honda, K.: Effects of focus on mandible movement. J. acoust. Soc. Japan 54: 259–260 (1998).Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
44 Ohman, S.E.G.: Numerical model of coarticulation. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 39: 151–168 (1967).Search in Google Scholar
45 Perkell, J.: Physiology of speech production (MIT Press, Cambridge 1969).Search in Google Scholar
46 Perkell, J.: Articulatory processes; in Hardcastle, Laver, The handbook of phonetic sciences, pp. 333–370 (Blackwell, Cambridge 1997).Search in Google Scholar
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).10.1044/jshr.3902.365Search in Google Scholar
48 Schulman, R.: Articulatory dynamics of loud and normal speech. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 85: 295–312 (1989).10.1121/1.397737Search in Google Scholar
49 Stevens, K.N.: Airflow and turbulence noise for fricative and stop consonants: static considerations. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 50: 1180–1192 (1971).10.1121/1.1912751Search in Google Scholar
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).Search in Google Scholar
51 Stevens, K.N.: Articulatory-acoustic-auditory relationships; in Hardcastle, Laver, The handbook of phonetic sciences, pp. 462–506 (Blackwell, Cambridge 1997).Search in Google Scholar
52 Stone, M.: Evidence for a rhythm pattern in speech production: observations of jaw movement. J. Phonet. 9: 109–120 (1981).10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30922-2Search in Google Scholar
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).10.1121/1.395284Search in Google Scholar
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).10.1121/1.401012Search in Google Scholar
55 Westbury, J.R.; Fujimura, O.: An articulatory characterization of contrastive emphasis. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 85: S98 (1989).10.1121/1.2027241Search in Google Scholar
© 2002 S. Karger AG, Basel
