Systematic syllable-based variation has been observed in the relative spatial and temporal properties of supralaryngeal gestures in a number of complex segments. Generally, more anterior gestures tend to appear at syllable peripheries while less anterior gestures occur closer to syllable peaks. Because previous studies compared only two gestures, it is not clear how to characterize the gestures, nor whether timing offsets are categorical or gradient. North American English /r/ is an unusually complex segment, having three supralaryngeal constrictions, but technological limitations have hindered simultaneous study of all three. A novel combination of M-mode ultrasound and optical tracking was used to measure gestural relations in productions of /r/ by nine speakers of Canadian English.
Results show a front-to-back timing pattern in syllable-initial position: Lip then tongue blade (TB), then tongue root (TR). In syllable-final position TR and Lip are followed by TB. There was also a reduction in magnitude affecting Lip and TB gestures in syllable-final position and TR in syllable-initial position. These findings are not wholly consistent with any theory advanced thus far to explain syllable-based allophonic variation. It is proposed that the relative magnitude of gestures is a better predictor of timing than relative anteriority or an assigned phonological classification.
Alwan, A., Narayanan, S., & Haker, K. ( 1997). Toward articulatory-acoustic models for liquid approximants based on MRI and EPG data. Part ii. The rhotics. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101(2), 1078-1089.
2.
Browman, C.P., & Goldstein, L. ( 1992). Articulatory phonology: An overview. Phonetica, 49, 155-180.
3.
Browman, C.P., & Goldstein, L. ( 1995). Gestural syllable position effects in American English . In F. R. Bell-Berti & J. Lawrence (Eds.), Producing speech: Contemporary issues. For Katherine Safford Harris. Woodbury, NY: American Institute of Physics.
4.
Carter, P. ( 1999). Abstractness in phonology and extrinsic phonetic interpretation: The case of liquids in English. In J. J. Ohala, Y. Hasegawa, M. Ohala, D. Granville , & A. C. Bailey (Eds.), Proceedings of the XIVth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp.105-108). Berkeley: University of California Press .
5.
Carter, P. ( 2002). Structured variation in British English liquids: The role of resonance. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of York, UK.
6.
Chitoran, I., Goldstein, L., & Byrd, D. ( 2002). Gestural overlap and recoverability: Articulatory evidence from Georgian. In C. Gussenhoven & N. Warner (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology VII (pp.419-447). Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter .
7.
Delattre, P., & Freeman, D. ( 1968). A dialect study of American r’s by x-ray motion picture. Linguistics, 44, 29-68.
8.
Docherty, G., & Foulkes, P. ( 2001). Variability in (r) production - instrumental perspectives . Etudes & Travaux, 4(Dec), 173-184.
9.
Espy-Wilson, C. ( 2004). Articulatory strategies, speech acoustics and variability . In Proceedings of From Sound to Sense, 50+ years of discoveries in speech communication, Cambridge MA: MIT.
10.
Espy-Wilson, C.Y., Boyce, S., Jackson, M., Narayanan, S., & Alwan, A. ( 2000). Acoustic modeling ofAmerican English /r/. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 108, 343-356.
11.
Fougeron, C., & Keating, P. ( 1997). Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains . Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 3728-3740.
12.
Gick, B. ( 1999). A gesture-based account of intrusive consonants in English . Phonology, 16, 29-54.
13.
Gick, B. ( 2003). Articulatory correlates of ambisyllabicity in English glides and liquids. In J. Local , R. Ogden, & R. Temple (Eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology VI: Constraints on phonetic interpretation (pp.222-236). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.
Gick, B., Bird, S., & Wilson, I. ( 2005). Techniques for field application of lingual ultrasound imaging. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 19, 503-514.
15.
Gick, B., Campbell, F., Oh, S., & Tamburri-Watt, L. ( 2006). Toward universals in the gestural organization of syllables: A cross-linguistic study of liquids . Journal of Phonetics , 34, 49-72.
16.
Guenther, F., Espy-Wilson, C., Boyce, S., Matthies, M., Zandipour, M., & Perkell, J. ( 1999). Articulatory tradeoffs reduce acoustic variability during American English /r/ production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 105, 2854-2865.
17.
Hagiwara, R. ( 1995). Acoustic realizations of American /r/ as produced by women and men. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 90, 1-187.
18.
Hashi, M., Honda, K., & Westbury, J. ( 2003). Time-varying acoustic and articulatory characteristics of American English [r]: A cross-speaker study. Journal of Phonetics, 31, 3-22.
19.
Keating, P. ( 1983). Comments on the jaw and syllable structure. Journal of Phonetics, 11, 401-406.
20.
Kochetov, A. ( 2002). Production, perception, and emergent phonotactic patterns: A case of contrastive palatalization. New York and London : Routledge.
21.
Krakow, R.A. ( 1989). The articulatory organization of syllables: A kinematic analysis of labial and velar gestures. PhD dissertation, Yale University, USA.
22.
Krakow, R.A. ( 1999). Physiological organization of syllables: A review . Journal of Phonetics, 27, 23-54.
23.
Lindau, M. ( 1985). The story of /r/. In V. Fromkin (Ed.), Phonetic linguistics: Essays in honor of Peter Ladefoged (pp.157-168). London: Academic Press.
24.
Lindblom, B. ( 1983). Economy of speech gestures. In P. F. MacNeilage (Ed.), The production of speech (pp. 217-246). New York: Springer-Verlag .
25.
MacNeilage, P.F. ( 1998). The frame/content theory of evolution of speech production . Brain and Behavioral Science, 21, 499-546.
26.
Mattingly, I.G. ( 1981). Phonetic representation and speech synthesis by rule . In J. L. T. Myers & J. Anderson (Eds.), The cognitive representation of speech (pp.415-420). Amsterdam: North Holland.
27.
Silverman, D. ( 1997). Phasing and recoverability. Outstanding dissertations in Linguistics. New York: Garland .
28.
Sproat, R., & Fujimura, O. ( 1993). Allophonic variation in English /l/ and its implications for phonetic implementation. Journal of Phonetics, 21, 291-311.
29.
Stone, M. ( 1990). A three-dimensional model of tongue movement based on ultrasound and x-ray microbeam data. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 87, 2207-2217.
30.
Stone, M. ( 2005). A guide to analysing tongue motion from ultrasound images . Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 19, 455-502.
31.
Tiede, M., Boyce, S., Holland, C., & Choe, A. ( 2004). A new taxonomy of American English /r/ using MRI and ultrasound. Poster presented at the 147th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America. Retrieved 2 June, from http://scitation.aip.org/confst/ASA/data/1/5pSC37.pdf
32.
ULDALL, E. (1958). American ‘molar’ R and ‘flapped’ T. Revista do Laboratorio de Fonetica Experimental da Faculdade de Letras Da Universidad de Coimbra, 4, 10310-6. WESTBURY, J. R., HASHI, M., & LINDSTROM, M. J. (1998). Differences among speakers in articulation of American English /r/. Speech Communication, 26, 203-226.
33.
Wilson, I.L. ( 2006). Articulatory settings of French and English monolingual and bilingual speakers. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia, Canada.
34.
Zawadzki, P.A., & Kuehn, D.P. ( 1980). A cineradiographic study of static and dynamic aspects ofAmerican English /r/. Phonetica, 37, 253-266.
