1932

Abstract

Articulatory Phonology advances an account of phonological structure in which dynamically defined vocal tract tasks—gestures—are simultaneously and isomorphically units of cognitive representation and units of physical action. This paradigm has fundamentally altered our understanding of the linguistic representation of words. This article reviews the relatively recent incorporation of prosody into Articulatory Phonology. A capsule review of the Articulatory Phonology theoretical framework is presented, and the notions of phrasal and prominence organization are introduced as the key aspects of linguistic prosodic structure under consideration. Parameter dynamics, activation dynamics, and prosodic modulation gestures, such as the π-gesture, are outlined. The review is extended to touch on rhythm, intonation, and pauses and to consider innovations for integrating multiple aspects of prosodic structure under this dynamical approach. Finally, a range of questions emerges, crystallizing outstanding issues ranging from the abstract and theoretical to the interactive and functional.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030920-050033
2021-01-04
2024-04-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/7/1/annurev-linguistics-030920-050033.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030920-050033&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Arvaniti A. 2012. The usefulness of metrics in the quantification of speech rhythm. J. Phon. 40:351–73
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Arvaniti A. 2020. The autosegmental metrical model of intonational phonology. Prosodic Theory and Practice S Shattuck-Hufnagel, J Barnes Cambridge, MA: MIT Press In press
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Barbosa PA. 2007. From syntax to acoustic duration: a dynamical model of speech rhythm production. Speech Commun 49:725–42
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Beckman ME, Edwards J. 1994. Articulatory evidence for differentiating stress categories. Phonological Structure and Phonetic Form: Papers in Laboratory Phonology III PA Keating 7–33 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Beckman ME, Edwards J, Fletcher J 1992. Prosodic structure and tempo in a sonority model of articulatory dynamics. Papers in Laboratory Phonology II: Segment, Gesture, Prosody GJ Docherty, DR Ladd 68–86 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Beňuš Š, Šimko J 2014. Emergence of prosodic boundary: continuous effects of temporal affordance on inter-gestural timing. J. Phon. 44:110–29
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bishop J. 2016a. Individual differences in top-down and bottom-up prominence perception. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Speech Prosody J Barnes, A Brugos, S Shattuck-Hufnagel, N Veilleux 668–72 Boston: ICSA
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bishop J. 2016b. Does working memory capacity predict individual differences in implicit and explicit prosodic phrasing? Poster presented at Framing Speech: Celebrating 40 Years of Inquiry with Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel, MIT/Boston Univ Boston, MA:
  9. Bombien L, Mooshammer C, Hoole P 2013. Articulatory coordination in word-initial clusters of German. J. Phon. 41:546–61
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bombien L, Mooshammer C, Hoole P, Kühnert B 2010. Prosodic and segmental effects on EPG contact patterns of word-initial German clusters. J. Phon. 38:388–403
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bombien L, Mooshammer C, Hoole P, Kühnert B, Schneeberg J 2006. An EPG study of initial /kl/ clusters in varying prosodic conditions in German. Proceedings of the 7th International Seminar on Speech Production HC Yehia, D Demolin, R Laboissière 35–42 Pampulha, Braz.: CEFALA
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bouchard KE, Mesgarani N, Johnson K, Chang EF 2013. Functional organization of human sensorimotor cortex for speech articulation. Nature 495:327–32
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Browman CP, Goldstein L. 1988. Some notes on syllable structure in articulatory phonology. Phonetica 45:2–4140–55
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Browman CP, Goldstein L. 1989. Articulatory gestures as phonological units. Phonology 6:201–51
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Browman CP, Goldstein L. 1990. Representation and reality: physical systems and phonological structure. J. Phon. 18:411–24
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Browman CP, Goldstein L. 1992. Articulatory phonology: an overview. Phonetica 49:3/4155–80
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Browman CP, Goldstein L. 1995. Dynamics and articulatory phonology. Mind as Motion: Dynamics, Behavior, and Cognition RF Port, T van Gelder 175–94 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Browman CP, Goldstein L. 2000. Competing constraints on intergestural coordination and self-organization of phonological structures. Bull. Commun. Parlée 5:25–34
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Byrd D. 1995. C-Centers revisited. Phonetica 52:285–306
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Byrd D. 1996. A phase window framework for articulatory timing. Phonology 13:2139–69
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Byrd D. 2000. Articulatory vowel lengthening and coordination at phrasal junctures. Phonetica 57:3–16
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Byrd D, Choi S. 2010. At the juncture of prosody, phonology, and phonetics—the interaction of phrasal and syllable structure in shaping the timing of consonant gestures. Laboratory Phonology 10 C Fougeron, B Kuehnert, M D'Imperio, N Vallee 31–60 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Byrd D, Kaun A, Narayanan S, Saltzman E 2000. Phrasal signatures in articulation. Papers in Laboratory Phonology V: Acquisition and the Lexicon MB Broe, JB Pierrehumbert 70–87 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Byrd D, Krivokapić J, Lee S 2006. How far, how long: on the temporal scope of phrase boundary effects. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120:1589–99
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Byrd D, Lee S, Riggs D, Adams J 2005. Interacting effects of syllable and phrase position on consonant articulation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 118:3860–73
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Byrd D, Riggs D. 2008. Locality interactions with prominence in determining the scope of phrasal lengthening. J. Int. Phon. Assoc. 38:187–202
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Byrd D, Saltzman E. 1998. Intragestural dynamics of multiple phrasal boundaries. J. Phon. 26:173–99
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Byrd D, Saltzman E. 2003. The elastic phrase: modeling the dynamics of boundary-adjacent lengthening. J. Phon. 31:149–80
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Byrd D, Tobin S, Bresch E, Narayanan S 2009. Timing effects of syllable structure and stress on nasals: a real-time MRI examination. J. Phon. 37:97–110
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Cangemi F, Krüger M, Grice M 2015. Listener-specific perception of speaker-specific production in intonation. Individual Differences in Speech Production and Perception S Fuchs, D Pape, C Petrone, P Perrier 123–45 Frankfurt, Ger: Lang
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Chartier J, Anumanchipalli GK, Johnson K, Chang EF 2018. Encoding of articulatory kinematic trajectories in human speech sensorimotor cortex. Neuron 98:1042–54.e4
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Chen W, Byrd D, Narayanan S, Nayak KS 2019. Intermittently tagged real-time MRI reveals internal tongue motion during speech production. Magn. Reson. Med. 82:2600–13
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Chitoran I, Goldstein L, Byrd D 2002. Gestural overlap and recoverability: articulatory evidence from Georgian. Laboratory Phonology 7 C Gussenhoven, N Warner 419–48 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Cho T. 2006. Manifestation of prosodic structure in articulation: evidence from lip movement kinematics in English. Laboratory Phonology 8 L Goldstein, DH Whalen, CT Best 519–48 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Cho T, Keating PA. 2001. Articulatory and acoustic studies on domain-initial strengthening in Korean. J. Phon. 29:155–90
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Cho T, Minjung S, Kim S 2016. Articulatory reflexes of the three-way contrast in labial stops and kinematic evidence for domain-initial strengthening in Korean. J. Int. Phon. Assoc. 46:129–55
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Cho T, Yeomin Y, Kim S 2014. Effects of prosodic boundary and syllable structure on the temporal realization of CV gestures in Korean. J. Phon. 44:96–109
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Cole J. 2015. Prosody in context: a review. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 30:1/21–31
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Danner SG. 2017. Effects of speech context on characteristics of manual gesture PhD Thesis, Univ. South. Calif Los Angeles:
  40. Danner SG, Krivokapić J, Byrd D 2019. Co-speech movement behavior in conversational turn-taking Poster presented at the 178th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America San Diego: Dec 2–6
  41. Dauer RM. 1983. Stress-timing and syllable-timing reanalyzed. J. Phon. 11:51–62
    [Google Scholar]
  42. de Jong KJ. 2001. Rate-induced resyllabification revisited. Lang. Speech 44:197–216
    [Google Scholar]
  43. de Jong KJ, Beckman ME, Edwards J 1993. The interplay between prosodic structure and coarticulation. Lang. Speech 36:197–212
    [Google Scholar]
  44. D'Imperio M, Espesser R, Loevenbruck H, Menezes C, Nguyen N, Welby P 2007. Are tones aligned with articulatory events? Evidence from Italian and French. Laboratory Phonology 9 J Cole, JI Hualde 577–608 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Edwards J, Beckman ME, Fletcher J 1991. The articulatory kinematics of final lengthening. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 89:369–82
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Ferreira F, Swets B. 2002. How incremental is language production? Evidence from the production of utterances requiring the computation of arithmetic sums. J. Mem. Lang. 46:57–84
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Fletcher J. 2010. The prosody of speech: timing and rhythm. The Handbook of Phonetic Sciences WJ Hardcastle, J Laver, FE Gibbon 521–602 New York: Wiley-Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Fougeron C. 2001. Articulatory properties of initial segments in several prosodic constituents in French. J. Phon. 29:109–35
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Fougeron C, Keating PA. 1997. Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101:3728–40
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Fowler CA. 1980. Coarticulation and theories of extrinsic timing. J. Phon. 8:113–33
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Fowler CA, Rubin PE, Remez RE, Turvey MT 1980. Implications for speech production of a general theory of action. Language Production, Vol. 1: Speech and Talk B Butterworth 373–420 New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Gafos A. 2002. A grammar of gestural coordination. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 20:2269–337
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Gafos A, Beňuš Š 2006. Dynamics of phonological cognition. Cogn. Sci. 30:5905–43
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Gafos A, Goldstein L. 2012. Articulatory representation and organization. The Oxford Handbook of Laboratory Phonology AC Cohn, C Fougeron, MK Huffman 220–31 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Gao M. 2008. Mandarin tones: an Articulatory Phonology account PhD Thesis, Yale Univ New Haven, CT:
  56. Georgeton L, Fougeron C. 2014. Domain-initial strengthening on French vowels and phonological contrasts: evidence from lip articulation and spectral variation. J. Phon. 44:83–95
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Georgeton L, Kocjančič AT, Fougeron C 2016. Effect of domain initial strengthening on vowel height and backness contrasts in French: acoustic and ultrasound data. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 59:6S1575–85
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Gick B, Wilson I, Kock K, Cook C 2004. Language-specific articulatory settings: evidence from inter-utterance rest position. Phonetica 61:220–33
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Goldstein L, Byrd D, Saltzman E 2006. The role of vocal tract gestural action units in understanding the evolution of phonology. From Action to Language: The Mirror Neuron System M Arbib 215–49 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Goldstein L, Chitoran I, Selkirk E 2007a. Syllable structure as coupled oscillator modes: evidence from Georgian versus Tashlhiyt Berber. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XVI) J Trouvain 241–44 Saarbrücken, Ger: Univ. Saarlandes
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Goldstein L, Nam H, Saltzman E, Chitoran I 2009. Coupled oscillator planning model of speech timing and syllable structure. Frontiers in Phonetics and Speech Science G Fant, H Fujisaki, J Shen 239–50 Beijing: Commercial
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Goldstein L, Pouplier M, Chen L, Saltzman E, Byrd D 2007b. Dynamic action units slip in speech production errors. Cognition 103:386–412
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Grice M, Ritter S, Niemann H, Roettger TB 2017. Integrating the discreteness and continuity of intonational categories. J. Phon. 64:90–107
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Hagedorn C, Sorensen T, Lammert A, Toutios A, Goldstein L et al. 2019. Engineering innovation in speech science: data and technologies. Perspect. ASHA Spec. Interest Groups 4:2411–20
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Hardcastle WJ. 1985. Some phonetic and syntactic constraints on lingual coarticulation during /kl/ sequences. Speech Commun 4:247–63
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Harrington J, Fletcher J, Roberts C 1995. An analysis of truncation and linear rescaling in the production of accented and unaccented vowels. J. Phon. 23:305–22
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Hermes A, Mücke D, Auris B 2017. The variability of syllable patterns in Tashlhiyt Berber and Polish. J. Phon. 64:127–44
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Hermes A, Mücke D, Grice M 2013. Gestural coordination of Italian word-initial clusters: the case of ‘impure s. .’ Phonology 30:1–25
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Holst T, Nolan F. 1995. The influence of syntactic structure on [s] and [∫] assimilation. Phonology and Phonetic Evidence: Papers in Laboratory Phonology IV B Connell, A Arvanti 315–33 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Honorof DN, Browman CP. 1995. The center or edge: How are consonant clusters organized with respect to the vowel?. Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS 95) 3 K Elenius, P Branderud 552–55 Stockholm: KTH/Stockholm Univ.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Hsieh FY. 2017. A gestural approach to the phonological representation of English diphthongs PhD Thesis, Univ. South. Calif Los Angeles:
  72. Hu F. 2016. Tones are not abstract autosegmentals. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Speech Prosody J Barnes, A Brugos, S Shattuck-Hufnagel, N Veilleux 302–6 Boston: ICSA
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Karlin R, Tilsen S. 2015. The articulatory tone-bearing unit: gestural coordination of lexical tone in Thai. Proc. Meet. Acoust. 22:060006
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Katsika A. 2012. Coordination of prosodic gestures at boundaries in Greek PhD Thesis, Yale Univ New Haven, CT:
  75. Katsika A. 2016. The role of prominence in determining the scope of boundary-related lengthening in Greek. J. Phon. 55:149–81
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Katsika A. 2018. The kinematic profile of prominence in Greek. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Speech Prosody K Klessa, J Bachan, A Wagner, M Karpiński, D Śledziński 764–68 Boston: ICSA
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Katsika A, Krivokapić J, Mooshammer C, Tiede M, Goldstein L 2014. The coordination of boundary tones and its interaction with prominence. J. Phon. 44:62–82
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Keating P, Cho T, Fougeron C, Hsu C 2004. Domain-initial articulatory strengthening in four languages. Phonetic Interpretation: Papers in Laboratory Phonology VI J Local, R Ogden, R Temple 143–61 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Keating P, Shattuck-Hufnagel S. 2002. A prosodic view of word form encoding for speech production. UCLA Work. Pap. Phon. 101:112–56
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Kelso S, Saltzman E, Tuller B 1986. The dynamical perspective on speech production: data and theory. J. Phon. 14:29–59
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Kim H, Cole J. 2005. The stress foot as a unit of planned timing: evidence from shortening in the prosodic phrase. Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (INTERSPEECH 2005)2365–68 Boston: ICSA
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Kim J. 2020. Individual differences in the production and perception of prosodic boundaries in American English PhD Thesis, Univ. Mich Ann Arbor:
  83. Kim S, Jang J, Cho T 2017. Articulatory characteristics of preboundary lengthening in interaction with prominence on tri-syllabic words in American English. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 142:EL362–68
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Klatt DH. 1973. Interaction between two factors that influence vowel duration. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 54:1102–4
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Kochetov A, So CK. 2007. Place assimilation and phonetic grounding: a cross-linguistic perceptual study. Phonology 24:397–432
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Krivokapić J. 2007a. Prosodic planning: effects of phrasal length and complexity on pause duration. J. Phon. 35:162–79
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Krivokapić J. 2007b. The planning, production, and perception of prosodic structure PhD Thesis, Univ. South. Calif. Los Angeles:
  88. Krivokapić J. 2012. Prosodic planning in speech production. Speech Planning and Dynamics S Fuchs, M Weirich, D Pape, P Perrier 157–90 Frankfurt, Ger: Lang
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Krivokapić J. 2013. Rhythm and convergence between speakers of American and Indian English. J. Lab. Phonol. 4:139–65
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Krivokapić J. 2020. Prosody in articulatory phonology. Prosodic Theory and Practice S Shattuck-Hufnagel, J Barnes Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Krivokapić J, Byrd D. 2012. Prosodic boundary strength: an articulatory and perceptual study. J. Phon. 40:3430–42
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Krivokapić J, Styler W, Parrell B 2020. Pause postures: the relationship between articulation and cognitive processes during pauses. J. Phon. 79:100953
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Krivokapić J, Tiede M, Tyrone M 2017. A kinematic study of prosodic structure in articulatory and manual gestures: results from a novel method of data collection. J. Lab. Phonol. 8:13
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Krivokapić J, Tiede M, Tyrone M, Goldenberg D 2016. Speech and manual gesture coordination in a pointing task. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Speech Prosody J Barnes, A Brugos, S Shattuck-Hufnagel, N Veilleux 1240–44 Boston: ICSA
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Kühnert B, Hoole P, Mooshammer C 2006. Gestural overlap and C-center in selected French consonant clusters. Proceedings of the 7th International Seminar on Speech Production HC Yehia, D Demolin, R Laboissière 327–34 Pampulha, Braz: CEFALA
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Ladd DR. 2006. Segmental anchoring of pitch movements: autosegmental association or gestural coordination. Ital. J. Linguist. 18:119–38
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Ladd DR, Faulkner D, Faulkner H, Schepman A 1999. Constant ‘segmental’ anchoring of f0 movements under changes in speech rate. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106:1543–54
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Large EW. 2008. Resonating to musical rhythm: theory and experiment. The Psychology of Time S Grondin 189–232 Bingley, UK: Emerald
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Large EW, Fink P, Kelso JAS 2002. Tracking simple and complex sequences. Psychol. Res. 66:3–17
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Lee S, Byrd D, Krivokapić J 2006. Functional data analysis of prosodic effects on articulatory timing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 119:1666–71
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Lee Y. 2018. The prosodic substrate of consonant and tone dynamics PhD Thesis, Univ. South. Calif Los Angeles:
  102. Lee Y, Danner SG, Parrell B, Lee S, Goldstein L, Byrd D 2018a. Articulatory, acoustic, and prosodic accommodation in a cooperative maze navigation task. PLOS ONE 13:8e0201444
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Lee Y, Goldstein L, Byrd D 2018b. Dynamical systems model of prosodic asymmetries in the co-expression of phrasal and segmental tone Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting New York, NY: Jan 3–6
  104. Lehiste I. 1972. The timing of utterances and linguistic boundaries. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 51:6, Part 22018–24
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Lim Y, Zhu Y, Lingala SG, Byrd D, Narayanan S, Nayak K 2019. 3D real-time MRI of the vocal tract during natural speech. Magn. Reson. Med. 81:31511–20
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Marin S, Pouplier M. 2010. Temporal organization of complex onsets and codas in American English: testing the predictions of a gestural coupling model. Motor Control 14:3380–407
    [Google Scholar]
  107. McClean M. 1973. Forward coarticulation of velar movement at marked junctural boundaries. J. Speech Hear. Res. 16:286–96
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Mücke D, Hermes A, Tilsen S 2019. Strength and structure: coupling tones with oral constriction gestures. Proceedings of the 20th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (INTERSPEECH 2019) G Kubin, Z Kačič 914–18 Boston: ICSA
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Mücke D, Nam H, Hermes A, Goldstein LM 2012. Coupling of tone and constriction gestures in pitch accents. Consonant Clusters and Structural Complexity P Hoole, L Bombien, M Pouplier, C Mooshammer, B Kühnert 205–30 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Nam H. 2007. A competitive, coupled oscillator model of moraic structure: split-gesture dynamics focusing on positional asymmetry. Laboratory Phonology 9 J Cole, JI Hualde 483–506 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Nam H, Goldstein L, Saltzman E 2009. Self-organization of syllable structure: a coupled oscillator model. Approaches to Phonological Complexity F Pellegrino, E Marisco, I Chitoran, C Coupé 299–328 Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Nam H, Saltzman E. 2003. A competitive, coupled oscillator of syllable structure. Proceedings of the 12th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XII) 3 P Romeas 2253–56 Aix-en-Provence, Fr: Inst. Phon.
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Nava E, Tepperman J. 2010. Modeling second language prosody acquisition: a dynamic systems theory approach Paper presented at the 35th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD 35) Boston, Novemb:5–7
  114. Niemann HH. 2016. The coordination of pitch accents with articulatory gestures: a dynamical approach PhD Thesis, Univ. Köln, Köln, Ger.
  115. Niemann HH, Mücke D, Nam H, Goldstein L, Grice M 2011. Tones as gestures: the case of Italian and German. Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XVII)1486–89 London: IPA
    [Google Scholar]
  116. O'Dell M, Nieminen T. 1999. Coupled oscillator model of speech rhythm. Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS 14) 2 J Ohala, Y Hasegawa, M Ohala, D Granville, A Bailey 1075–78 Berkeley: Univ. Calif.
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Oh M, Byrd D. 2019. Syllable-internal corrective focus in Korean. J. Phon. 77:100933
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Oh M, Lee Y. 2018. ACT: an Automatic Centroid Tracking tool for analyzing vocal tract actions in real-time magnetic resonance imaging speech production data. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 144:4EL290–96
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Parrell B. 2012. The role of gestural phasing in Western Andalusian Spanish aspiration. J. Phon. 40:37–45
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Parrell B, Goldstein L, Lee S, Byrd D 2014. Spatiotemporal coupling between speech and manual motor actions. J. Phon. 42:1–11
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Parrell B, Narayanan S. 2018. Explaining coronal reduction: prosodic structure and articulatory posture. Phonetica 75:2151–81
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Port R. 1981. Linguistics timing factors in combination. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 69:262–74
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Port R. 2003. Meter and speech. J. Phon. 31:599–611
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Port R, Cummins F, Gasser M 1995. A dynamic approach to rhythm in language: toward a temporal phonology. arXiv:cmp-lg/9508007
  125. Pouplier M. 2012. The gestural approach to syllable structure: universal, language- and cluster-specific aspects. Speech Planning and Dynamics S Fuchs, M Weirich, D Pape, P Perrier 63–96 Frankfurt, Ger: Lang
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Pouplier M, Beňuš Š 2011. On the phonetic status of syllabic consonants: evidence from Slovak. J. Lab. Phonol. 2:2243–73
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Prieto P, Torreira F. 2007. The segmental anchoring hypothesis revisited: syllable structure and speech rate effects on peak timing in Spanish. J. Phon. 35:473–500
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Rakerd B, Sennett W, Fowler CA 1987. Domain-final lengthening and foot level shortening in spoken English. Phonetica 44:147–55
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Ramanarayanan V, Bresch E, Byrd D, Goldstein L, Narayanan SS 2009. Analysis of pausing behavior in spontaneous speech using real-time magnetic resonance imaging of articulation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 126:5EL160–65
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Ramanarayanan V, Goldstein L, Byrd D, Narayanan SS 2013. An investigation of articulatory setting using real-time magnetic resonance imaging. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 134:510–19
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Rasskazova O, Mooshammer C, Fuchs S 2018. Articulatory settings during inter-speech pauses. Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Phonetics and Phonology in the German-Speaking Countries (P&P 13) M Belz, S Fuchs, S Jannedy, C Mooshammer, O Rasskazova, M Zygis 161–64 Berlin: ZAS/Humboldt Univ.
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Rasskazova O, Mooshammer C, Fuchs S 2019. Temporal coordination of articulatory and respiratory events prior to speech initiation. Proceedings of the 20th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (INTERSPEECH 2019) G Kubin, Z Kačič 884–88 Boston: ICSA
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Reichel U, Cole J. 2016. Entrainment analysis of categorical intonation representations. Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Phonetics and Phonology in the German-Speaking Countries (P&P 12) O Jokisch Munich, Ger: Univ. Munich
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Reichel U, Mady K, Cole J 2018. Prosodic entrainment in dialog acts. arXiv:1810.12646 [cs]
  135. Roessig S, Mücke D. 2019. Modeling dimensions of prosodic prominence. Front. Commun. 4:44
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Roessig S, Mücke D, Grice M 2019. The dynamics of intonation: categorical and continuous variation in an attractor-based model. PLOS ONE 14:5e216859
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Roy J, Cole J, Mahrt T 2017. Individual differences and patterns of convergence in prosody perception. J. Lab. Phonol. 8:122
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Saltzman E. 1995. Dynamics and coordinate systems in skilled sensorimotor activity. Mind as Motion: Dynamics, Behavior, and Cognition RF Port, T van Gelder 149–73 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Saltzman E, Löfqvist A, Mitra S 2000. “Glue” and “clocks”: intergestural cohesion and global timing. Papers in Laboratory Phonology V: Acquisition and the Lexicon MB Broe, JB Pierrehumbert 88–101 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Saltzman E, Munhall KG. 1989. A dynamical approach to gestural patterning in speech production. Ecol. Psychol. 1:333–82
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Saltzman E, Nam H, Krivokapić J, Goldstein L 2008. A task‐dynamic toolkit for modeling the effects of prosodic structure on articulation. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Speech Prosody PA Barbosa, S Madureira, C Reis 175–84 Boston: ICSA
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Shaw JA, Gafos AI. 2015. Stochastic time models of syllable structure. PLOS ONE 10:5e0124714
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Shaw JA, Gafos AI, Hoole P, Zeroual C 2009. Syllabification in Moroccan Arabic: evidence from patterns of temporal stability in articulation. Phonology 26:1187–215
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Shaw JA, Gafos AI, Hoole P, Zeroual C 2011. Dynamic invariance in the phonetic expression of syllable structure: a case study of Moroccan Arabic consonant clusters. Phonology 28:3455–90
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Shih S, Inkelas S. 2019. Autosegmental aims in surface optimizing phonology. Linguist. Inq. 50:1137–96
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Swets B, Desmet T, Hambrick DZ, Ferreira F 2007. The role of working memory in syntactic ambiguity resolution: a psychometric approach. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 136:64–81
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Swets B, Petrone C, Fuchs S, Krivokapić J 2017. Individual differences in planning strategies among French, German and English speakers Poster presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society Vancouver, Can: Novemb 9–12
  148. Tabain M. 2003. Effects of prosodic boundary on /aC/ sequences: articulatory results. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 113:2834–49
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Tang C, Hamilton LS, Chang EF 2017. Intonational speech prosody encoding in the human auditory cortex. Science 357:6353797–801
    [Google Scholar]
  150. Tiede M, Mooshammer C. 2013. Evidence for an articulatory component of phonetic convergence from dual electromagnetic articulometer observation of interacting talkers. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 19:060138
    [Google Scholar]
  151. Tilsen S. 2016. Selection and coordination: the articulatory basis for the emergence of phonological structure. J. Phon. 55:53–77
    [Google Scholar]
  152. Tilsen S. 2019. Space and time in models of speech rhythm. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1453:47–66
    [Google Scholar]
  153. Tilsen S, Arvaniti A. 2013. Speech rhythm analysis with decomposition of the amplitude envelope: characterizing rhythmic patterns within and across languages. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 134:628–39
    [Google Scholar]
  154. Tilsen S, Spincemaille P, Xu B, Doerschuk P, Luh W-M et al. 2016. Anticipatory posturing of the vocal tract reveals dissociation of speech movement plans from linguistic units. PLOS ONE 11:1e0146813
    [Google Scholar]
  155. Toutios A, Byrd D, Goldstein L, Narayanan S 2019. Advances in vocal tract imaging and analysis. Routledge Handbook of Phonetics WF Katz, PF Assmann, chapter 2 London: Routledge https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780429056253-3
    [Google Scholar]
  156. Toutios A, Lingala SG, Vaz C, Kim J, Esling J et al. 2016. Illustrating the production of the International Phonetic Alphabet sounds using fast real-time magnetic resonance imaging. Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (INTERSPEECH 2016) N Morgan 2428–32 Boston: ICSA
    [Google Scholar]
  157. Tuller B, Case P, Ding M, Kelso JAS 1994. The nonlinear dynamics of speech categorization. J. Exp. Psychol. 20:3–16
    [Google Scholar]
  158. Vatikiotis-Bateson E, Barbosa AV, Best CT 2014. Articulatory coordination of two vocal tracts. J. Phon. 44:167–81
    [Google Scholar]
  159. Wagner M. 2005. Prosody and recursion PhD Thesis, MIT Cambridge, MA:
  160. Wagner M, Watson DG. 2010. Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: a review. Lang. Cogn. Proc. 25:7–9905–45
    [Google Scholar]
  161. Wagner P, Malisz Z, Kopp S 2014. Gesture and speech in interaction: an overview. Speech Commun 57:209–32
    [Google Scholar]
  162. Zhang M, Geissler C, Shaw JA 2019. Gestural representations of tone in Mandarin: evidence from timing alternations. Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS 2019) S Calhoun, P Escudero, M Tabain, P Warren 1803–7 Canberra: Australas. Speech Sci. Technol. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  163. Zsiga EC. 2000. Phonetic alignment constraints: consonant overlap and palatalization in English and Russian. J. Phon. 28:69–102
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030920-050033
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030920-050033
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error