Laboratory phonology tests the predictions of phonological analyses through experimental investigations of phonetic behavior. This paper describes how a laboratory phonologist might investigate three issues in the analysis of the prosody of signed languages : the internal structure,if any,of the signed syllable, the realization of lexical and phrasal prominence, and the marking of edges. The paper proposes to investigate the internal structure of the syllable by adapting a variety of psycholinguistic techniques that have been extensively used to study the phonetic packaging of phonological material in spoken languages. Phonological and phonetic arguments are presented in support of the hypothesis that signed languages will increase movement kinematics to convey phrasal and perhaps lexical prominence, and an experiment is sketched that would test this hypothesis. Finally, the paper suggests that the experimental study of the edges of sign articulations might allow a clearer choice between competing phonetic and phonological accounts of external sandhi in language in general.
Allen, G.D. (1972). The location of rhythmic stress beats in English speech. Parts I and II, Language and Speech, 15, 72-100, 179-195.
2.
Baker, C., & Padden, C.A. (1978). Focusing on the non manual components of American Sign Language. In P. Siple (Ed.), Understanding language through sign language research( pp.27-57). New York: Academic Press.
3.
Beckman,J. (1997). Positional faithfulness. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Beckman, M.E., & Kingston, J. (1990). Introduction. In J. Kingston & M. E. Beckman (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology I (pp.1-16). Cambridge , U.K. : Cambridge University Press.
6.
Beckman, M.E.,& Pierrehumbert,J.B.( 1986). Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook3, 255 - 310.
7.
Brentari,D. (1990).Licensing in ASL handshape change. In C. Lucas (Ed.), Sign language research: Theoretical issues(pp. 57 - 68). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
8.
Brentari, D. (1993). Establishing a sonority hierarchy in American Sign Language: The use of simultaneous structure in phonology. Phonology, 10, 281-306.
9.
Browman, C.A., & Goldstein, L.M. (1990).Tiers in articulatory phonology, with some implications for casual speech. In J.Kingston & M.E. Beckman (Eds.),Papers in laboratory phonology1 (pp.341 -376). Cambridge, U.K. : Cambridge University Press.
10.
Bruce, G.( 1982).Developing the Swedish intonation model. Working Papers 22,Phonetics Laboratory, Lund University,pp. 51-116.
11.
Byrd, D. (1994). Articulatory timing in English consonant sequences. Doctoral dissertation, UCLA, Los Angeles.
12.
Byrd, D. (1996). Influences on articulatory timing in consonant sequences. Journal of Phonetics ,24, 209 - 224.
13.
Choi,J.D.( 1995). An acoustic-phonetic under specification account of Marshallese vowel allophony. Journal of Phonetics, 23, 323-347.
14.
Clark, L., & Grosjean, F. (1982). Sign recognition processes in American Sign Language: The effect of context. Language and Speech, 25, 325-340.
15.
Clements, G.N.( 1990).The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification . In J. Kingston & M. E. Beckman (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonologyI ( pp. 283-333). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
16.
Cooper, A.M., Whalen, D.H., & Fowler, C.A. (1986). P-centers are unaffected by phonetic categorization .Perception and Psychophysics ,39,187-196.
17.
Corina,D.P.( 1990).Handshape assimilations in hierarchical phonological representation . In C. Lucas (Ed.), Sign language research: Theoretical issues (pp. 27-49). Washington, DC : Gallaudet University Press.
18.
Corina, D.P. (1993). To branch or not to branch: Underspecification in ASL handshape contours. In G. Coulter (Ed.), Current issues in ASL phonology (pp.63-95). San Diego: Academic Press.
19.
CutlerA.,MehlerJ.,NorrisD.,& SeguiJ.( 1986).The syllable's differing role in the segmentation of English and French. Journal of Memory and Language,25,385 - 400.
20.
Cutler, A., & Norris, D. (1988). The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 113-121.
21.
Dilley, L., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., & Ostendorf, M. (1996). Glottalization of wordinitial vowels as a function of prosodic structure. Journal of Phonetics, 24, 423-444.
22.
Edwards, J.R., Beckman, M.E., & Fletcher, J. (1991). The articulatory kinematics of final lengthening . Journal of Acoustical Society ofAmerica, 89, 369-382.
23.
ElertC.-C.( 1964).Phonological studies of quantity in Swedish. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell.
24.
Emmorey, K., & Corina, D. (1990). Lexical recognition in sign language: Effects of phonetic structure and morphology.Perceptual and Motor Skills,71,1227- 1252.
25.
Fougeron, C., & Keating,P.A.( 1997). Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains . Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 3728-3740.
26.
Fowler, C.A. (1979). "Perceptual centers" in speech production and perception. Perception and Psychophysics, 25, 375-388.
27.
Fowler,C.A., & Tassinary,L.G. (1981). Natural measurement criteria for speech:The anisochrony illusion. In J. Long & A. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and performance, Vol. 9 (pp. 521-535). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28.
Fujisaki, H. (1983). Dynamic characteristics of voice fundamental frequency in speech and singing. In P.F. MacNeilage (Ed.), The production of speech( pp. 39 -55). Heidelberg : Springer-Verlag.
29.
Gårding, E. (1973). The Scandinavian word accents. Working Papers 8, Phonetics Laboratory, Lund University.
30.
GrosjeanF.( 1980).Spoken word recognition and the gating paradigm. Perception and Psychophysics , 28, 267-283.
31.
Grosjean, F. (1981). Sign and word recognition: A first comparison . Sign Language Studies, 32, 195 - 219.
32.
HolstT., & NolanF.( 1995).The influence of syntactic structure on [s] to [ ] assimilation. In B. Connell & A. Arvaniti (Eds.),Papers in laboratory phonology IV (pp. 315 - 333). Cambridge,U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
33.
Howell,P.( 1984).An acoustic determinant of perceived and produced anisochrony . In M. P. R. van den Broecke & A. Cohen (Eds.),Proceedings of the Xth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences( pp. 429 - 433). Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
34.
Humphries,T.,Padden,C.,& O'Rourke,T.J. (1980). A basic course in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: T.J. Publishers.
35.
Huss, V.( 1978).English word stress in the postnuclear position. Phonetica,35,86 -105.
36.
JunJ.( 1996).Place assimilation is not the result of gestural overlap: Evidence from Korean and English. Phonology, 13, 377-407.
37.
JunS.-A.( 1993).The phonetics and phonology of Koreanprosody. Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.
38.
Kay, B.A., Kelso, J.A.S., Saltzman, E.L., & Schöner, G.( 1987). The space-time behavior of single and bimanual rhythmical units. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 178 -192.
39.
Kelso, J.A.S., Saltzman, E.L., & Tuller, B. (1986). The dynamical perspective on speech production: Data and theory. Journal of Phonetics, 14, 29-59.
40.
Kelso, J.A.S., Tuller, B., & Harris, K.S. (1983). The "dynamic pattern" perspective on the control and coordination of movement. In P.F. MacNeilage (Ed.),The production of speech( pp. 137-174), Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
41.
KingstonJ.( 1985).The phonetics and phonology of the timing of oral and glottal events. Doctoral dissertation, University of California , Berkeley.
Klatt,D.H. (1976). Linguistic uses of segmental duration in English: Acoustic and perceptual evidence. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 59, 1208-1221.
Lahiri, A., & Marslen-Wilson, W.(1992). Lexical processing and phonological representation. In G. R. Docherty & D. R. Ladd (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology II (pp. 229-254). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
46.
Lea, W.( 1973).Segmental and supra segmental influences on fundamental frequency contours. In L. M.Hyman (Ed.), Consonant types and tone. Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics (pp. 17-70). Los Angeles: University of Southern California.
47.
Liddell,S.K.( 1984).THINK and BELIEVE:Sequentiality in American Sign Language signs. Language, 60, 372-399.
48.
Liddell,S.K.( 1990).Structure for representing handshape and local movement at the phonemic level. In S. Fischer &P.Siple (Eds.),Theoretical issues in sign language research,Vol.1(pp. 37- 65). Chicago, IL : University of Chicago Press.
49.
Liddell, S.K., & Johnson, R. (1989). American Sign Language: The phonological base . Sign Language Studies, 64, 197-277.
50.
Lombardi, L. (1995). Laryngeal neutralization and syllable wellformedness . Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 13, 39-74.
51.
Marcus, S. (1981). Acoustic determinants of perceptual center (P-center) location. Perception and Psychophysics ,30,247-256.
52.
Mehler, J., Dommergues, J., Frauenfelder, U., & SeguiJ.( 1981).The syllable's role in speech segmentation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior ,20,298-305.
53.
Morais, J., Content, A., Cary, L., Mehler, J., & Segui, J. (1989). Syllabic segmentation and literacy. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 57-67.
Nakatani, L.H., & Aston, C.H.( 1978).Acoustic and linguistic factors in stress perception. AT&T Bell Laboratories, ms.
56.
Nespor, M., & Sandler, W.( 1999)(this issue).Prosody in Israeli Sign Language,Language and Speech, 42(2&3), 143-176.
57.
Nespor, M., & Vogel, I. (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht : Foris.
58.
NolanF.( 1992).The descriptive role of segments:Evidence from assimilation . In G.R. Docherty & D. R. Ladd (Eds.),Papers in laboratory phonology II( pp.261-280).Cambridge,U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
59.
NolanF.,HolstT.,& KuhnertB.( 1996).Modeling[s] to[ ] accommodation in English . Journal of Phonetics, 24, 113-137.
60.
Ohala,J.J.( 1981).The listener as a source of sound change.In C.S. Masek,R. A. Hendrick , & M. F.Miller (Eds.), Parasession on language and behavior( pp.178-203. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
61.
Ohala, J.J. (1992). The segment: Primitive or derived?. In G. R. Docherty & D. R. Ladd (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology II (pp. 166 -183). Cambridge,U.K.:Cambridge University Press.
62.
Ohala, J.J., & Ohala, M. (1995). Speech perception and lexical representation: The role of vowel nasalization in Hindi and English. In B. Connell & A. Arvaniti (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology IV (pp.41-60). Cambridge , U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
63.
Otake, T., Hatano, G., Cutler, A., & Mehler, J. (1993). Mora or syllable? Speech segmentation in Japanese . Journal of Memory and Language,32,258-278.
64.
Padden, C.A.( 1988).Interaction of morphology and syntax in ASL. New York: Garland Publishing.
65.
Padden, C.A. (1990). The relation between space and grammar in ASL verb morphology.In C. Lucas (Ed.), Sign language research: Theoretical issues (pp.118-132). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
66.
PallierC.,Sebastian-GallèsN.,FelgueraT.,ChristopheA.,& Mehler, J. (1993). Attentional allocation within the syllable structure of spoken words. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 373-389.
67.
Perlmutter, D.M. (1992). Sonority and syllable structure in American Sign Language. Linguistic Inquiry, 23, 407-442. [An earlier version appears in G. Coulter (Ed.) (1993), Current issues in ASL phonology (pp.227-261). San Diego: Academic Press.]
68.
Petronio, K., & Lillo-Martin, D. (1997). Wh-movement and the position of Spec-CP: Evidence from American Sign Language. Language , 73, 18-57.
69.
Pierrehumbert,J.B.( 1995).Prosodic effects on glottal allophones. In O.Fujimura & M. Hirano (Eds.),Vocal fold physiology( pp. 39- 60). San Diego: Singular Publishing Company.
70.
Pierre HumbertJ.B.,& Beckman, M.E.( 1988). Japanesetone structure. Cambridge ,MA:MIT Press.
71.
Pierrehumbert, J.B., & Talkin, D. (1992). Lenition of /h/ and glottal stop. In G. Docherty & D.R.Ladd (Eds.),Papers in laboratory phonology II (pp.90-117). Cambridge , U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
72.
Pitt, M.A., & Samuel, A.G. (1990). Attentional allocation during speech perception: How fine is the focus. Journal of Memory and Language,29,611-632.
73.
RappK.( 1971).A study of syllable timing.Papers in Linguistics. Stockholm:University of Stockholm.
74.
Saltzman, E.L., & Munhall, K.G. (1989). A dynamical to gestrural patterning in speech production.Ecological Psychology, 1, 333-382.
75.
Sandler, W.( 1989).Phonological representation of the sign: Linearity and non linearity in American Sign Language phonology. Dordrecht : Foris.
76.
Sandler, W.( 1993a).Linearization of phonologicaltiers in ASL. In G.Coulter (Ed.),Current issues in ASL phonology. Phonetics and phonology,Vol. 3 (pp. 103-129). New York: Academic Press.
77.
Sandler, W. (1993b). A sonority cycle in American Sign Language. Phonology, 10, 243-279.
78.
Sandler, W.( 1996). Representing handshapes. In W. H. Edmondson & R. B. Wilbur (Eds.), International review of sign linguistics,Vol.1 (pp. 115 -158). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
79.
Sebastian-Gallès, N., Dupoux, E., Segui, J., & Mehler, J. (1992). Contrasting syllabic effects in Catalan and Spanish . Journal of Memory and Language,31,18 -32.
80.
Selkirk, E.O. (1984). Phonology and syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
81.
Selkirk, E.O. (1986). On derived domains in sentence phonology, Phonology Yearbook, 3, 371- 405.
82.
Silva, D.J.( 1992).The phonetics and phonology of stop lenition in Korean. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.
83.
Silverman, K.E.A., &Pierrehumbert,J.B. (1990).The timing of prenuclear high accents in English. In J. Kingston & M.E.Beckman (Eds.),Papers in laboratory phonology I(pp. 72 - 106). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
84.
Sluijter, A.M.C., Van Heuven, V.J., & Pacilly, J.J.A. (1997). Spectral balance as a cue to the perception of lnguistic stress. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,101,503 -513.
85.
Smith, C.L.( 1995).Prosodic patterns in the coordination of vowel and consonant gestures.In B. Connell & A.Arvaniti (Eds.),Papers in laboratory phonology IV( pp.205-222). Cambridge,U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
86.
Steriade, D. (1993). Closure, release, and nasal contours. In. M. K. Huffman and R. A. Krakow (Eds.), Nasals, nasalization, and the velum: Phonetics and phonology, Vol. 5 (pp.401-470). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
87.
Steriade, D.( 1997).Laryngeal contrasts and neutralization. Ms. University of California, Los Angeles.
88.
Stevens, K.N. (1972). The quantal nature of speech: Evidence from articulatory-acousticdata . In E. E. David &P. B. Denes (Eds.), Human communication: A unified view (pp.51-66). New York: McGraw-Hill .
89.
Stevens, K.N. (1989). On the quantal nature of speech. Journal of Phonetics, 17, 3-45.
90.
Stokoe,W.C.,Jr.( 1960). Sign language structure. Studies in Linguistics, Occasional Papers,8. Buffalo, NY: University of Buffalo Press.
91.
Thorson, N. (1980). Intonation contours and stress group patterns in declarative sentences of varying length in ASC Danish. Annual Report of the Institute of Phonetics, University of Copenhagen, 14, 1-29.
92.
Thorson, N. (1985). Intonation and text in Standard Danish. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 77, 1205-1216.
93.
Tuller,B.,& Fowler,C.A.( 1980).Some articulatory correlates of perceptualisochrony. Perception and Psychophysics, 27, 277-283.
94.
Wilbur, R.B. (1993). Syllables and segments: Hold the movement and move the holds! In G. Coulter (Ed.), Current issues in ASL phonology,phonetics and phonology,Vol.3(pp. 135 -168). New York: Academic Press.
95.
Wilbur, R.B.( 1994).Foregrounding structures in ASL. Journal of Pragmatics,22,647- 672.
96.
Wilbur, R.B. (1996a). Prosodic structure of American Sign Language. Ms. Purdue University.
97.
Wilbur, R.B. (1996b).Evidence for the function and structure of wh-clefts in ASL. In W.H. Edmondson & R.B. Wilbur (Eds.), International Review of Sign Linguistics,Vol.1 (pp. 209 - 256). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
98.
Wilbur, R.B. (1999) (this issue). Stress in ASL: Empirical evidence and Linguistic issues. Language and Speech, 42(2&3), 229-250.
99.
WilburR.B.,& NolenS.( 1986).The duration of syllables in American Sign Language. Language and Speech, 29, 263-280.
100.
Wilbur, R.B., & Schick, B.S. (1987). The effect of linguistic stress on sign movement in ASL. Language and Speech, 30, 301-323.
101.
Wilbur,R.B.,& Zelaznik, H.N. (1997).Kinematics correlates of stress and position in ASL. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Chicago IL.
102.
Zsiga,E.C.( 1995).An acoustic and electropalatographic study of lexical and postlexical palatalization in English. In B.Connell & A. Arvaniti Eds.),Papers in laboratory phonology IV (pp. 282-302). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
103.
Zwitserlood, P., Schriefers, H., Lahiri, A., & Donselaar, W.van (1993).The role of syllables in the perception of Dutch. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 260-271.
