Hostname: page-component-55f67697df-4ks9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-10T02:39:29.402Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gestural representation and Lexical Phonology*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2008

April McMahon ,
Paul Foulkes  and
Laura Tollfree
April McMahon
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Paul Foulkes
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Laura Tollfree
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recent work on Articulatory Phonology (Browman & Goldstein 1986, 1989, 1991, 1992a, b) raises a number of questions, specifically involving the phonetics–phonology ‘interface’. One advantage of using Articulatory Phonology (henceforth ArtP), with its basic units of abstract gestures based on articulatory movements, is its ability to link phenomena previously seen as phonological to those which are conventionally described as allophonic, or even lower-level phonetic effects, since ‘gestures are... useful primitives for characterising phonological patterns as well as for analysing the activity of the vocal tract articulators’ (Browman & Goldstein 1991: 313). If both phonetics and phonology could ultimately be cast entirely in gestural terms, the phonetics–phonology interface might effectively cease to exist, at least in terms of units of analysis.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , August 1994 , pp. 277 - 316
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Archangeli, D. (1988). Aspects of underspecification theory. Phonology 5. 183–207.Google Scholar
Booij, G. & Rubach, J. (1987). Postcyclic versus postlexical rules in Lexical Phonology. LI 18. 1–44.Google Scholar
Broadbent, Judith (1991). Linking and intrusive r in English. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 3. 281–302.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. & Goldstein, L. (1986). Towards an articulatory phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3. 219–252.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. & Goldstein, L. (1989). Articulatory gestures as phonological units. Phonology 6. 201–251.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. & Goldstein, L. (1990). Tiers in Articulatory Phonology, with some implications for casual speech. In Kingston & Beckman (1990). 341–376.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. & Goldstein, L. (1991). Gestural structures: distinctiveness, phonological processes, and historical change. In Mattingly, I. G. & Studdertkennedy, M. (eds.) Modularity and the motor theory of speech perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 313–338.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. & Goldstein, L. (1992a). Articulatory Phonology: an overview. Phonetica 49. 155–180.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. & Goldstein, L. (1992b). ‘Targetless’ schwa: an articulatory analysis. In Docherty & Ladd (1992). 26–67.Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, Noel & Carr, Philip (1994). Phonetic events and phonological expressions: a representational view. Paper presented at the 2nd Phonology Workshop, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Carr, Philip (1991). Lexical properties of postlexical rules: postlexical derived environment and the Elsewhere Condition. Lingua 85. 41–54.Google Scholar
Carr, Philip (ms). Tongue root harmony, lowness harmony and privative theory. University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Delattre, P. & Freeman, D. C. (1968). A dialect study of American r's by x-ray motion picture. Linguistics 44. 29–68.Google Scholar
Docherty, Gerry J. (1993). ‘Phonological’ deficits in aphasia and recent developments at the junction of phonetics and phonology. Paper presented at the Workshop on Cognitive Phonology, Manchester.Google Scholar
Docherty, Gerry J. & Ladd, D. R. (eds.) (1992). Papers in laboratory phonology II: gesture, segment, prosody. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Donegan, Patricia (1993). On the phonetic basis of phonological change. In Jones (1993). 98–130.Google Scholar
Eimas, P. D., Siqueland, E. R., Jusczyk, P. & Vigorito, J. (1971). Speech perception in infants. Science 171. 303–306.Google Scholar
Foulkes, Paul (1993). Theoretical implications of the /P/>/f/>/h/ change. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge./f/>/h/+change.+PhD+dissertation,+University+of+Cambridge.>Google Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz (in preparation). On the phonology of [r] and related matters in RP English. University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Gimson, A. C. (1980). An introduction to the pronunciation of English. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Harris, John (1989). Towards a lexical analysis of sound change in progress. JL 25. 35–56.Google Scholar
Harris, John (1990). Segmental complexity and phonological government. Phonology 7. 255–300.Google Scholar
Harris, John (1992). Licensing inheritance. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 4. 1–44.Google Scholar
Harris, John (ms). Floating segments. UCL.Google Scholar
Harris, John & Kaye, J. (1990). A tale of two cities: London glottalling and New York tapping. The Linguistic Review 7. 251–274.Google Scholar
Harris, John & Lindsey, G. (1993). There is no level of systematic phonetic representation. Paper presented at the Workshop on Cognitive Phonology, Manchester.Google Scholar
Hawkins, Sarah (1992). An introduction to task dynamics. In Docherty & Ladd (1992). 9–25.Google Scholar
Johansson, Stig (1973). Linking and intrusive /r/ in English: a case for a more concrete phonology. Studia Linguistica 27. 53–68.Google Scholar
Jones, Charles (1989). A history of English phonology. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Jones, Charles (ed.) (1993). Historical linguistics: problems and perspectives. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Jonson, Ben (1640). The English grammar. (Part of Workesof 1640). Facsimile ed. Alston, R. C. (1972). English Linguistics 1500–1800. Vol. 349. Menston: The Scolar Press.Google Scholar
Kingston, J. & Beckman, M. (eds.) (1990). Papers in laboratory phonology I: between the grammar and physics of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1982). Lexical morphology and phonology. In Yang, I.-S. (ed.) Linguistics in the morning calm. Seoul: Hanshin. 3–91.Google Scholar
Kohler, K. J. (1992). Gestural reorganization in connected speech: a functional viewpoint on ‘Articulatory Phonology’. Phonetica 49. 205–211.Google Scholar
Kökeritz, Helga (1944). Mather Flint on early eighteenth century English pronunciation. Uppsala: Skrifter utgivna av Kungl.Google Scholar
Kuhl, Patricia K. (1987). The special mechanisms debate in speech research: categorization tests on animals and infants. In Harnad, S. (ed.) Speech perception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 355–386.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter (1972). Phonetic prerequisites for a distinctive feature theory. In Valdmann, A. (ed.) Papers in linguistics and phonetics to the memory of Pierre Delattre. The Hague: Mouton. 273–285.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter (1990). On dividing phonetics and phonology. In Kingston & Beckman (1990). 398–405.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger (1984). Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger (1987). The shape of English. London: Dent.Google Scholar
Leslie, David (1989). Consonant reduction in English. Paper presented at the London Phonology Seminar.Google Scholar
Liberman, A. & Mattingly, I. (1985). The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition 21. 1–36.Google Scholar
Lindau, Mona (1975). Features for vowels. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 30. 1–155.Google Scholar
Lindsey, Geoffrey & Harris, J. (1990). Phonetic interpretation in generative grammar. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2. 355–370.Google Scholar
Linell, Per (1979). Psychological reality in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John (forthcoming). Synchronic rule inversion. To appear in Proceedings of the Boston Linguistics Society 17.Google Scholar
McMahon, April M. S. (1991). Lexical Phonology and sound change: the case of the Scottish Vowel Length Rule. JL 27. 29–53.Google Scholar
McMahon, April M. S. (1992). Underspecification theory and the analysis of dialect differences in Lexical Phonology. Transactions of the Philological Society. 81–119.Google Scholar
McMahon, April M. S. (in preparation). English /r/: on the use of the past to explain the present.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian (1991). Articulatory phonology and Sukuma ‘aspirated nasals’. In Hubbard, Ken (ed.) Proceedings of the Annual Meeting, Berkeley Linguistics Society, Special African Session. 145–154.Google Scholar
Milroy, James (1992). Linguistic variation and change. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Milroy, James (1993). On the social origins of language change. In Jones (1993). 215–236.Google Scholar
Milroy, James & Milroy, L. (1985). Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation. JL 21. 339–384.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. (1986). The theory of Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Nolan, Francis J. (1992). The descriptive role of segments: evidence from assimilation. In Docherty & Ladd (1992). 261–280.Google Scholar
Nolan, Francis J. (1993). Phonetic and phonological assimilation. Paper presented at the Workshop on Cognitive Phonology, Manchester.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. & Lorenz, J. (1977). The story of [w]: an exercise in phonetic explanations for sound patterns. BLS 3. 577–599.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. (1981). The origin of sound patterns in vocal tract constraints. In MacNeilage, P. (ed.) The production of speech. New York: Springer. 189–216.Google Scholar
Pagliuca, William (1982). Prolegomena to a theory of articulatory evolution. PhD dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo.Google Scholar
Pandeli, Helen (1993). The articulation of lingual consonants: an EPG study. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey (1974). Sheltering environments and negative contexts: a case against making phonological rules state things that don't happen. Edinburgh Working Papers in Linguistics 4. 31–41.Google Scholar
Saltzman, E. (1986). Task dynamic coordination of the speech articulators: a preliminary model. In Heuer, H. & Fromm, C. (eds.) Generation and modulation of action patterns. New York: Springer. 129–144.Google Scholar
Saltzman, E. & Kelso, J. A. S. (1987). Skilled actions: a task dynamic approach. Psychological Review 94. 84–106.Google Scholar
Saltzman, E. & Munhall, K. G. (1989). A dynamical approach to gestural patterning in speech production. Ecological Psychology 1. 333–382.Google Scholar
Scobbie, James (1992). Against rule inversion: the development of English [r]-sandhi. Poster paper presented at the 7th International Phonology Meeting, Krems.Google Scholar
Sproat, R. & Fujimura, O. (1993). Allophonic variation in English /l/ and its implication for phonetic implementation. JPh 21. 291–311.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (1990). Gestures and autosegments: comments on Browman & Goldstein's paper. In Kingston & Beckman (1990). 383–397.Google Scholar
Strang, Barbara (1970). A history of English. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Tollfree, Laura F. (1994). Implications of l-vocalisation in British and Australian English. Paper presented at the 2nd Phonology Workshop, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Tollfree, Laura F. (in preparation). Modelling phonological variation and change: evidence from English consonants. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Tucker, Abraham (1773). Vocal sounds. Facsimile ed. Alston, R. C. (1969). English Linguistics 1500–1800. Vol. 165. Menston: The Scolar Press.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo (1972). Rule inversion. Lingua 29. 209–242.Google Scholar
Wells, John C. (1982). Accents of English. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zamora Munné, J. C. & Guitart, J. M. (1982). Dialectologia Hispanoamericana. Salamanca: Ediciones Almar.Google Scholar