scholarly journals Chunking of phonological units in speech sequencing

2019 ◽  
Vol 195 ◽  
pp. 104636 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Segawa ◽  
Matthew Masapollo ◽  
Mona Tong ◽  
Dante J. Smith ◽  
Frank H. Guenther
Keyword(s):  
Phonology ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 387-429 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy Hall

Vowel sounds may be inserted into a word by two mechanisms: insertion of a vocalic articulatory gesture (epenthesis), or retiming of existing gestures to produce a vowel-like transition between consonants (intrusion). I argue that epenthetic vowels are phonological units but intrusive vowels are not. A representation using abstract gestures as well as segments can capture facts about the typology of vowel intrusion.


Phonology ◽  
1990 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 193-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Kaye ◽  
Jean Lowenstamm ◽  
Jean-Roger Vergnaud

Our aim in this paper is to address certain empirical and conceptual issues in the theory of Universal Phonology. Specifically, we will formulate a number of proposals aimed at characterising the notion ‘possible syllable' and ‘possible word'. The principles we will lay out follow from what we see as a unified theory of phonological government.The introduction of the notion of multi-levelled representations, as well as the recognition of constituent structure organisation in phonology, has allowed for a shift from mainly segment-internal, paradigmatic considerations to the study of syntagmatic relations holding between phonological units. What is now required is nothing less than a syntax of phonological expressions.


Phonology ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 201-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine P. Browman ◽  
Louis Goldstein

We have argued that dynamically defined articulatory gestures are the appropriate units to serve as the atoms of phonological representation. Gestures are a natural unit, not only because they involve task-oriented movements of the articulators, but because they arguably emerge as prelinguistic discrete units of action in infants. The use of gestures, rather than constellations of gestures as in Root nodes, as basic units of description makes it possible to characterise a variety of language patterns in which gestural organisation varies. Such patterns range from the misorderings of disordered speech through phonological rules involving gestural overlap and deletion to historical changes in which the overlap of gestures provides a crucial explanatory element.Gestures can participate in language patterns involving overlap because they are spatiotemporal in nature and therefore have internal duration. In addition, gestures differ from current theories of feature geometry by including the constriction degree as an inherent part of the gesture. Since the gestural constrictions occur in the vocal tract, which can be charactensed in terms of tube geometry, all the levels of the vocal tract will be constricted, leading to a constriction degree hierarchy. The values of the constriction degree at each higher level node in the hierarchy can be predicted on the basis of the percolation principles and tube geometry. In this way, the use of gestures as atoms can be reconciled with the use of Constriction degree at various levels in the vocal tract (or feature geometry) hierarchy.The phonological notation developed for the gestural approach might usefully be incorporated, in whole or in part, into other phonologies. Five components of the notation were discussed, all derived from the basic premise that gestures are the primitive phonological unit, organised into gestural scores. These components include (1) constriction degree as a subordinate of the articulator node and (2) stiffness (duration) as a subordinate of the articulator node. That is, both CD and duration are inherent to the gesture. The gestures are arranged in gestural scores using (3) articulatory tiers, with (4) the relevant geometry (articulatory, tube or feature) indicated to the left of the score and (5) structural information above the score, if desired. Association lines can also be used to indicate how the gestures are combined into phonological units. Thus, gestures can serve both as characterisations of articulatory movement data and as the atoms of phonological representation.


2004 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 427-452 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos Álvarez ◽  
Manuel Carreiras ◽  
Manuel Perea

PLoS ONE ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (11) ◽  
pp. e48776 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andus Wing-Kuen Wong ◽  
Jian Huang ◽  
Hsuan-Chih Chen

1992 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 40-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dorothy W. Haskell ◽  
Barbara R. Foorman ◽  
Paul R. Swank

1981 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-230
Author(s):  
Kristján Árnson

I. Like so many linguistic terms, the term syllable has been used in many different senses, and theoretical distinctions have been made, aimed at avoiding confusion. There is hardly any need to remind the reader of Pike's distinction between PHONETIC and PHONEMIC syllables: ‘the phonetic syllables must be analyzed into the structural phonemic syllables’ (Pike, 1947: 90). Although obviously beneficial, this division still leaves considerable room for confusion, both on the phonetic and on the phonological side. On the phonological side the syllable can be thought of as a unit of organization of smaller phonological units (cf. e.g. Bell (1977), Bell & Hooper (1978)) or as a unit defining the scope or environment for phonological processes, or as accounting for regularities of quantity and tonality (cf. e.g. Pike (1947: 90), and Hooper (1972)). On the phonetic side there are at least two approaches to the syllable. It has been looked on as defining units in speech production (cf. Stetson (1951), Catford (1977: 89–90)) or as a means of describing sonority variation in the phonetic signal (cf. e.g. Jespersen (1949/1934: 118–121)). This latter aspect relates to the perception of the linguistic signal by speakers and to the acoustic buildup of the phonetic medium. Finally, there are those who deny the usefulness of the concept altogether.


2018 ◽  
Vol 88 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jörg Peters

This paper presents an outline of an autosegmental-metrical analysis of German intonation adopting Gussenhoven’s (1983, 2005) approach to Dutch intonation. A features-based interpretation of the phonological units is given, which is based on an analysis of tonal contrasts. This analysis suggests that tones of different tone classes bear semantic features that relate to the mutual belief space, information packaging, conversational structure, thematic structure, conceptual structure, and speaker attitudes.


2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 25-32
Author(s):  
Dmitrii Zelenskii

The question of what types of units and domains are needed in order to capture phonological change is a reasonable one to ask. To answer this question, however, we first need to properly define how we understand phonological change, and the definition that we adopt for that clearly depends on the phonological framework that is assumed. I consider several influential frameworks here and then come to the conclusion that the same condition holds for all of them: change can only be described in terms of the same units (and domains) as are used for synchronic description. This leads to the following conclusion: the set of units for phonological change is a subset of the set of units that are needed for synchronic phonological description. However, it is also unlikely that some units needed for synchronic description can be fully ignored for all descriptions of changes, which leads us to the conclusion that the set of units that are needed for phonological change is also a superset of that set. The sets are thus equal: the phonological units needed for synchronic description are the units needed to account for phonological change, and the question above is meaningless.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document