Articulatory setting, the underlying tendency of the articulators to assume a certain overall configuration during speech, is language-specific and can be measured by observing the inter-speech posture (ISP) of the articulators during the brief pauses between utterances. To determine a given language’s ISP, observing bilingual speakers in each of their languages is ideal, so that questionable normalization across different vocal tracts does not have to be done. In this study, four English–Japanese bilinguals of various English proficiencies participated. To this end, we quantitatively tested for the existence of two settings in each bilingual, and the results showed no systematic differences between the tongue ISPs of Japanese and English. We also tried to shed light on the origin of articulatory setting, which is thought to emerge from the configurations of the most frequent phonemes of a language. We qualitatively compared the predicted ISP based on Japanese spoken frequency of occurrence data with the mean measured ISP in Japanese. Ultrasound movies of the tongue were recorded and analyzed, and the results showed that for three participants, the predicted ISP’s tongue tip and blade were substantially lower than for the mean measured ISP. The mean measured ISPs also displayed greater variability in English (L2) than in Japanese (L1), much more so in the lower proficiency English speakers.
BarryW. (1992). Comments on chapter 2 (Browman and Goldstein). In DochertyG. J.LaddD. R. (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology II: Gesture, segment, prosody (pp. 65–67). Cambridge University Press.
2.
BizziE.Mussa-IvaldiF. A.GiszterS. (1991). Computations underlying the execution of movement: A biological perspective. Science, 253(5017), 287–291. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1857964
3.
ColantoniL.KochetovA.SteeleJ. (2021). Articulatory settings and L2 English coronal consonants. Phonetica, 78(4), 273–316. https://doi.org/10.1515/phon-2021-2007
4.
CorettaS. (2019, August29). Assessing mid-sagittal tongue contours in polar coordinates using generalised additive (mixed) models [OSF pre-print]. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/q6vzb
DeterdingD. (2006). The North Wind versus a Wolf: Short texts for the description and measurement of English pronunciation. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 36(2), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100306002544
9.
D’OnofrioA.PrattT.Van HofwegenJ. (2019). Compression in the California Vowel Shift: Tracking generational sound change in California’s Central Valley. Language Variation and Change, 31(2), 193–217. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394519000085
10.
EslingJ. H.MoisikS. R.BennerA.Crevier-BuchmanL. (2019). Voice quality: The laryngeal articulator model. Cambridge University Press.
11.
FeldmanA. G. (1966). Functional tuning of the nervous system during control of movement or maintenance of a steady posture. III. Mechanographic analysis of the execution by man of the simplest motor tasks. Biofizika, 11, 667–675.
12.
GickB. (2002a). An X-ray investigation of pharyngeal constriction in American English schwa. Phonetica, 59(1), 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1159/000056204
13.
GickB. (2002b). The use of ultrasound for linguistic phonetic fieldwork. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 32(2), 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100302001007
14.
GickB.BernhardtB.BacsfalviP.WilsonI. (2008). Ultrasound imaging applications in second language acquisition. In Hansen EdwardsJ. G.ZampiniM. L. (Eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition (pp. 309–322). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
15.
GickB.BirdS.WilsonI. (2005). Techniques for field application of lingual ultrasound imaging. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 19(6–7), 503–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699200500113590
HonikmanB. (1964). Articulatory settings. In AbercrombieD.FryD. B.MacCarthyP.ScottN. C.TrimJ. L. M. (Eds.), In honour of Daniel Jones: Papers contributed on the occasion of his eightieth birthday, 12 September 1961 (pp. 73–84). Longman.
19.
IguroY. (2018). Praat script for automatic vowel labeling of new English and Japanese speech databases [Unpublished master’s thesis]. The University of Aizu.
20.
JingminL.MoisikS. R. (2019). The lingual voice quality settings of Standard Singapore English and Singapore Colloquial English. In CalhounS.EscuderoP.TabainM.WarrenP. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th international congress of phonetic sciences, Melbourne, Australia 2019 (pp. 157–161). Australasian Speech Science and Technology Association Inc.
21.
JohnsonC. E.WilsonI. L. (2002). Phonetic evidence for early language differentiation: Research issues and some preliminary data. International Journal of Bilingualism, 6(3), 271–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069020060030401
KelseyC. A.MinifieF. D.HixonT. J. (1969). Applications of ultrasound in speech research. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 12(3), 564–575. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.1203.564
24.
KoderaK.HiraishiM. (1998). Nihongo kaiwa ni okeru tan onsetsu no shutsugen hindo: Goonmeiryoudo kensa no go-hyou kousei no kentou [Incidence of monosyllables in Japanese conversation]. Audiology Japan, 41(1), 73–78. https://doi.org/10.4295/audiology.41.73
25.
KotsiomitiE.FarmakisN.KapariD. (2005). Factors related to the resting tongue position among partially and completely edentulous subjects. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, 32, 397–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01444.x
LaporteC.MénardL. (2018). Multi-hypothesis tracking of the tongue surface in ultrasound video recordings of normal and impaired speech. Medical Image Analysis, 44, 98–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2017.12.003
28.
LaverJ. (1978). The concept of articulatory settings: An historical survey. Historiographia Linguistica, 5(1–2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.5.1-2.02lav
29.
LaverJ. (2000). Phonetic evaluation of voice quality. In KentR. D.BallM. J. (Eds.), Voice quality measurement (pp. 37–48). Singular.
MakinoS.NiyadaK.MafuneY.KidoK. (1992). Tohoku University and Panasonic isolated spoken word database. Journal of the Acoustical Society of Japan, 48(12), 899–905.
32.
MinesM. A.HansonB. F.ShoupJ. E. (1978). Frequency of occurrence of phonemes in conversational English. Language and Speech, 21(3), 221–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383097802100302
33.
MinifieF. D.KelseyC. A.ZagzebskiJ. A.KingT. W. (1971). Ultrasonic scans of the dorsal surface of the tongue. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 49(6), 1857–1860. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1912591
34.
ÖhmanS. (1967). Peripheral motor commands in labial articulation. Speech Transmission Laboratory—Quarterly Progress and Status Report, 8(4), 30–63.
35.
PerkellJ. S. (1969). Physiology of speech production: Results and implications of a quantitative cineradiographic study. MIT Press.
36.
RamanarayananV.LammertA.GoldsteinL.NarayananS. (2014). Are articulatory settings mechanically advantageous for speech motor control?PLOS ONE, 9(8), Article e104168. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0104168
37.
R Core Team. (2024). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
38.
RoonK. D.ChenW.-R.IwasakiR.KangJ.KimB.ShejaeyaG.TiedeM. K.WhalenD. H. (2022). Comparison of auto-contouring and hand-contouring of ultrasound images of the tongue surface. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 36(12), 1112–1131. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699206.2021.1998633
39.
SchaefflerS.ScobbieJ. M.MennenI. (2008). An evaluation of inter-speech postures for the study of language-specific articulatory settings. In SockR.FuchsS.LaprieY. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th international seminar on speech production (pp. 121–124). Université Marc Bloch.
40.
ShameiA.SóskuthyM.StavnessI.GickB. (2023). Postural adaptation to microgravity underlies fine motor impairment in astronauts’ speech. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 8231. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34854-w
41.
SoniesB. C.ShawkerT. H.HallT. E.GerberL. H.LeightonS. B. (1981). Ultrasonic visualization of tongue motion during speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 70(3), 683–686. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.386930
42.
SóskuthyM. (2017). Generalised Additive Mixed Models for dynamic analysis in linguistics: A practical introduction. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1703.05339
43.
StoneM. (2005). A guide to analysing tongue motion from ultrasound images. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 19(6–7), 455–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699200500113558
44.
StoneM.ShawkerT. H.TiptonH. W. (1986). Increasing accuracy of coronal tongue imaging using ultrasound. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 80, S110. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2023555
45.
SweetH. (1890). A primer of phonetics. Clarendon Press.
46.
ŚwięcińskiR. (2013). An EMA study of articulatory settings in Polish speakers of English. In Waniek-KlimczakE.ShockeyL. (Eds.), Teaching and Researching English accents in native and non-native speakers: Second language learning and teaching (pp. 73–82). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24019-5_6
47.
TeinonenT.AslinR. N.AlkuP.CsibraG. (2008). Visual speech contributes to phonetic learning in 6-month-old infants. Cognition, 108(3), 850–855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.05.009
TraskR. L. (1996). A dictionary of phonetics and phonology. Routledge.
50.
van RijJ.WielingM.BaayenR.van RijnH. (2022). itsadug: Interpreting time series and autocorrelated data using GAMMs (version 2.4.1). R Package.
51.
WickhamH. (2011). The split-apply-combine strategy for data analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 40(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v040.i01
WilkinsJ. (1967). An essay towards a real character, and a philosophical language. J. Martyn. (Original work published 1668).
54.
WilsonI. (2014). Using ultrasound for teaching and researching articulation. Acoustical Science and Technology, 35(6), 285–289. https://doi.org/10.1250/ast.35.285
55.
WilsonI.GickB. (2014). Bilinguals use language-specific articulatory settings. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57(2), 361–373. https://doi.org/10.1044/2013_JSLHR-S-12-0345
56.
WilsonI.KanadaS. (2014). Pre-speech postures of second-language versus first-language speakers. Journal of the Phonetic Society of Japan, 18(2), 106–109. https://doi.org/10.24467/onseikenkyu.18.2_106
57.
WoodS. N. (2011). Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 73(1), 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9868.2010.00749.x
