|
A model of the phonological potentials of the lower vocal tract: Implications of epilarynx activity in phonetics and phonology| old_uid | 12854 |
|---|
| title | A model of the phonological potentials of the lower vocal tract: Implications of epilarynx activity in phonetics and phonology |
|---|
| start_date | 2013/10/10 |
|---|
| schedule | 13h30 |
|---|
| online | no |
|---|
| location_info | Ampère |
|---|
| summary | A sizable body of phonetic data (e.g., Lindqvist 1969; Traill 1986; Esling 1996; Edmondson & Esling 2006; Heselwood 2007) provides strong justification for incorporating an understanding of the articulatory and phonatory capacities of the epilarynx into phonetic and phonological theory. Given its unique anatomical position as the set of structures interposed between the vocal folds and the tongue root, the epilarynx serves to mediate lingual-laryngeal interactions that occur in speech (and other types of human vocalization). Thus it is implicated in a wide array of speech sounds that are quasi-localizable to the “lower vocal tract”, such as “gutturals”, tone, vocal register, and retracted vowels. In this talk, I will examine how a phonological model strongly grounded in the potentials or biases of epilaryngeal control provides greater coverage of many phenomena that have been recalcitrant to or ignored entirely by traditional approaches to phonology which posit an overwhelmingly cognitive basis behind phonological patterning. Some of the phenomena addressed include the occurrence of epilaryngeal vibration in tone systems and as a distinctive voice quality, the low-vowel–glottal-stop relationship, and the so-called emphatic palatalization associated with Caucasian languages. Each of these examples is argued to stem from intrinsic functioning of the epilarynx in relation to neighbouring vocal tract structures and reflects normal potential behaviour of the lower vocal tract. The broader implication of this talk is that much of lower-level phonology is “embodied” and gradiently integrated with what is traditionally termed “phonetic”, contra strictly formalist models of phonology (e.g., Hale & Reiss 2008), which seek to insulate a field pure phonology independent of such reasoning. |
|---|
| responsibles | Loevenbruck, Welby |
|---|
| |
|