\chapter{Change title for chapter 3 in chapters/03.tex}


\section{ Summary}

DYNAMIC SYSTEM:

Dynamic systems describe the evolution of the complex behaviour of a system. In such a theory, phonological information (low-dimensional descriptions) can be mapped directly onto continuous phonetic cues (high-dimensional descriptions) without the need for an interface between phonological form and phonetic substance (Browman \& \citealt{Goldstein1992}, Gafos \& Beňuš 2006, Goldstein et al. 2006, Mücke et al. 2014). A dynamic system changes its behaviour in a lawful manner capturing rules of change in terms of mathematical laws. Articulatory Phonology (Browman \& \citealt{Goldstein1992}) is a dynamic theory that decomposes speech into a set of potentially overlapping units: the articulatory gestures. Articulatory Phonology integrates low-dimensional descriptions (the gesture as a discrete phonological unit) and high-dimensional descriptions (the gesture as a continuous physical articulatory action) in a unified system. Articulatory gestures define vocal tract constrictions such as the full closure of the tongue tip at the alveolar ridge to produce the speech sound /t/. Changing the value of a gesture’s parameter set changes the temporal and/or spatial properties of the physical articulatory action and therefore the acoustic outcome. 

The differential equation of a dynamic system specifies the continuous behaviour of the system over time. While the equation is invariant, the physical output is not (Browman \& \citealt{Goldstein1989}, 1992, \citealt{Kelso1995}, Gafos \& Beňuš 2006, \citealt{Spivey2007}, Gafos, Charlow, Shaw \& Hoole, 2014). Once a dynamic system is set into motion, it evolves towards a specific (linguistic) target (i.e., equilibrium position). This target is defined by an attractor, which defines values or regions of values in the possible phase space of the system. Attractors are often compared with a marble rolling to the bottom center of a bowl (Haken, Kelso \& \citealt{Bunz1985}, Nam, Goldstein \& \citealt{Saltzman2010}). In the rolling marble methaphor, a marble rolls into a bowl. The bowl defines all possible values of the phase space, and the attractor would be the bottom center of the bowl. Those dynamic systems always encode context-dependent variability. If the marble starts to roll next to the bottom center of the bowl, the path to the center is short. If it starts to roll from the bowl’s margin, the path to the center is long. However, in both cases the marble is likely to roll towards the bottom center of the bowl, where the system eventually stabilizes and the marble comes to rest. If there is competition between multiple target attractors, the system evolves to one of the attractors as a function of the different starting conditions and attractor strengths (Tuller \& Lancia, this issue). 

Many skilled movements by humans have been characterized as being controlled by such a dynamical (point-attractor) system (see Goldstein, et al., 2006 and the references therein). Speech production and perception can also be understood as dynamic systems using attractors that reflect linguistic structure. Let’s assume that the attractor is a linguistic goal such as the lip closure during the production of an intervocalic consonant in a sequence such as /ibi/ and /aba/. The goal for the lips in /b/ is invariant (full closure of the lips), but the way the lips travel differs in the two conditions. The way is shorter in /ibi/ than in /aba/, because due to the different starting conditions the jaw is already higher in the high vowel /i/ than in the low vowel /a/. A dynamic system in speech needs to be flexible, and redundancy plays an important role (Fowler, Rubin, Remez \& Turvey, 1980, Saltzman \& \citealt{Kelso1987}, Saltzman \& \citealt{Munhall1989}, Browman \& \citealt{Goldstein1992}, \citealt{Hawkins1992}, Goldstein \& \citealt{Pouplier2014}). A great amount of context-dependent variability is generated in such a system, reflecting functional synergies of the articulators moving towards different competing attractors. Thus, phenomena like partial assimilation in English /n\#g/ sequences (\citealt{Barry1991}, Ellis \& \citealt{Hardcastle2002}) or incomplete neutralisation in German voiceless and “devoiced” stops (Roettger, Winter, Grawunder, Kirby \& Grice, 2014) tell us more about the system’s behaviour rather than being subphonemic noise. 

ASSIMILATION.

PROCEEDING PAPER !!!

INTERPLAY PROSODY ARTICULATION

Thus, highlighting strategies resulting from \textit{sonority expansion} and \textit{localized hyperarticulation} can be modelled by modifying the systems’ parameter values. 

To modify the parameter specifications of a set of articulatory gestures in the temporal and/or spatial domain, Articulatory Phonology uses an approach involving abstract gestures modulating temporal and spatial properties of co-active consonantal and vocalic gestures in the domain where they are active, so-called \textit{clock-slowing gestures}. (Byrd \& \citealt{Saltzman2003}, Saltzman et al. 2008). Clock-slowing gestures are not directly related to any specific vocal tract actions typical of consonant and vowel production. While the \textit{prosodic gesture} ($\pi $-gesture) affects vocal tract gestures at prosodic boundaries (domain-final lengthening and domain-initial strengthening), the \textit{modulation gesture} (µ-gesture) modifies articulation under the influence of lexical stress. 

In autosegmental-metrical phonology, accentuation is conceived of in discrete terms, a word is either accented or not. For a word to bear a pitch accent, it has to have a particular structural prominence within the prosodic hierarchy. By definition, the nuclear pitch accent is both the structurally most prominent and the last in the phrase. Furthermore, this nuclear accent (also referred to variously as sentence accent, focal accent and tonic) is obligatory, whereas other accents tend to be regarded as optional. The syllable with the main word stress bears the pitch accent. What does it mean for a syllable to bear the pitch accent? For West Germanic languages, all classed as having \textit{stress accent} \citep{Beckman1986}, accentuation involves not only a pitch target or movement, but also an expansion of the syllable in a number of dimensions; accented syllables are longer, louder and have less vowel quality reduction than their unaccented counterparts (\citealt{Crystal1969}; \citealt{Beckman1986}; \citealt{Lehiste1996}). 

A number of kinematic studies have compared the supralaryngeal articulation of accented and unaccented syllables, finding that accented syllables show more distinctive articulation (overshoot) than unaccented ones (undershoot), leading to an increase in kinematic parameters when accented (for English: Beckman, Edwards \& \citealt{Fletcher1992}; de Jong, Beckman \& \citealt{Edwards1993}; de \citealt{Jong1995}; Harrington, Fletcher \& \citealt{Roberts1995}; Harrington, Fletcher \& \citealt{Beckman2000}; \citealt{Cho2005}, 2006; for Italian: Avesani, Vayra \& \citealt{Zmarich2007}). They conclude that accentuation, as a structural property assigned by the prosodic hierarchy to a word or its lexically stressed syllable, leads to an increase in supralaryngeal parameters (longer, larger and faster movements) which go hand in hand with an adjustment at the laryngeal level to modulate the pitch contour. That is, these studies confirm that accentuation (in the languages investigated) leads to supralaryngeal adjustments as well as laryngeal adjustments. 

Articulation is more distinct in prominent positions, resulting in temporal and/or spatial expansion of articulatory movements. This involves strategies such as sonority expansion and/or hyperarticulation (Beckman, Edwards \& \citealt{Fletcher1992}; de Jong, Beckman \& \citealt{Edwards1993}; de \citealt{Jong1995}; Harrington et al. 2000; \citealt{Cho2006}), and is referred to as prosodic strengthening \citep{Cho2006}. 

The Sonority Expansion Hypothesis claims that the intrinsic sonority of a vowel is enhanced to strengthen syntagmatic contrasts, i.e. the contrast between vowels and consonants. Under accent, the speaker intends to produce a louder vowel by opening the mouth wider over a longer time. A more open oral cavity allows for greater radiation from the lips, leading to an increase of the overall acoustic energy. However, there are some restrictions in enhancing the sonority of a high vowel, which generally requires a small constriction in the oral cavity rather than a low vowel (see comparisons of target syllables containing /a/ and /i/ in Harrington, Fletcher \& \citealt{Beckman2000}; \citealt{Cho2006}). Therefore, de Jong, Beckman \& \citet{Edwards1993} suggest that beside spatial modifications the temporal dimension (in terms of change of vowel duration) plays an important role in giving the impression of enhanced sonority. The speaker intends to produce a louder vowel by opening the oral cavity over a longer time: “Given that intensity is perceptually integrated over time at short durations of speech, sonority should be integrated over time. Maintaining an open oral cavity over a longer duration should augment the percept of increased radiation power at the lips.” (de Jong, Beckman \& \citet[205]{Edwards1993}. 

There are two prosodic strengthening strategies, that are reported to \textit{highlight} important information in the phonetic substance (Mücke \& \citealt{Grice2014}). First, the \textit{sonority expansion strategy} \citep{HarringtonEtAl2000} enhances the intrinsic sonority of a vowel to strengthen syntagmatic contrasts between consonants and vowels within a syllable but also across syllables. In order to express prosodic prominence, speakers produce a louder vowel over a longer period of time or, in contrast, produce tighter and longer closures for oral stops. Second, the \textit{localized hyperarticulation strategy} (H\& H Model, \citealt{Lindblom1990}, de \citealt{Jong2004}) involves the enhancement of the paradigmatic features. According to this strategy, a low vowel in an accented syllable is produced with a lower tongue position and a front vowel with a more fronted tongue position, while an aspirated stop consonant is produced with a longer voice onset time to make it perceptually more prominent in comparison to segments of unaccented neighbouring syllables. However, prosodic modifications of vocal tract actions are highly complex, affecting multiple cues to prosodic prominence. In addition, effects of speaker-specific behaviour and segmental context play an important role. Speakers use multiple cues in different combinations to express the same degree of prominence (e.g. contrastive focus), but the use of these cues is also dependent on the coarticulatory sensitivity of the segmental material (i.e. certain sounds are more resistant to coarticulation than others). Therefore, highlighting mechanisms are rather complex and require parameter adjustments in multiple dimensions. They are best understood within the framework of dynamic systems evolving over time.

PROMINENCE: Signatures of prominence can be found in the supralaryngeal articulation of linguistic constituents. Previous research has revealed a more distinct articulation of prosodic units such as syllables in prominent positions (e.g. under contrastive focus), involving larger, longer and faster movements of the vocal tract. These temporal and spatial expansions of articulatory movements are collectively referred to as \textit{prosodic strengthening} (Beckman et al. 1992, Harrington et al. 2000, de \citealt{Jong2004}, \citealt{Cho2006}, Mücke \& \citealt{Grice2014}). Under accent, for example, speakers produce louder and longer vowels by opening the mouth wider over a longer time. A more open oral cavity allows for greater radiation from the lips, leading to an increase in the overall acoustic energy. \figref{fig:key:1} shows kinematic trajectories for the lip movements during the production of the target word ‘Bahber’ in accented position (contrastive focus) and unaccented position (out of focus). High values indicate that the lips are apart during vowel production. The figure shows that the oral cavity is more open in contrastive focus. Both speakers produce changes in duration and displacement to enhance the strength of articulation in target words under contrastive focus, but speaker F1 show stronger modifications than speaker F2. Prosodic strengthening mainly affects the production of vowels in accented syllables, expressing e.g. contrastivity, and the production of consonants at prosodic edges (domain-initial and domain-final). However, these effects are not restricted to specific types of segments such as a single vowel or consonant. In the articulatory dimension, a syllable is composed of overlapping vocal tract actions that are co-active over different time windows (Mücke \& \citealt{Grice2014}; Hermes, Mücke \& \citealt{Grice2013}, Mücke \& Grice, accepted). 

SELF ORGANISATION - COUPLINGS

Within the framework of Articulatory Phonology, speech can be decomposed into invariant phonological units, articulatory gestures that are temporally coordinated with one another (Browman and \citealt{Goldstein1989}). A coupled oscillator planning model of speech timing has been developed that provides a possible way of modelling the coordination of gestures in time (Browman and \citealt{Goldstein2000}, Goldstein et al. 2009, Nam and \citealt{Saltzman2003}, Nam, Goldstein, and \citealt{Saltzman2009}). In the model, gestures are associated with nonlinear planning oscillators (or clocks) that are coupled with each other in a pattern specified by a \textit{coupling graph}, assumed to be part of an utterance’s phonological representation. In the present study, we model the control of pitch to achieve a target in F0 as a tonal gesture and investigate the temporal coordination of tonal gestures with oral constriction gestures in Catalan and Viennese German (also referred to as Standard Viennese Austrian) bitonal LH pitch accents.

In Articulatory Phonology, speech gestures are modelled as invariant functional units of vocal tract constricting action and speech can be decomposed into a constellation of \textit{gestures}:  articulatory events with extent in time that can temporally overlap with one another. The regularity and variability in intergestural timing have been described by many studies (\citealt{Byrd1994}, 1996a,b; \citealt{Cho2001}, Bombien et al. 2010). Such temporal patterns have been modelled using an intergestural timing model, where the intergestural temporal relationship (e.g. timing and connectivity) is specified in an inter-oscillator coupling network, or coupling graph (Browman and \citealt{Goldstein2000}, Saltzman and \citealt{Byrd2000}, Nam and \citealt{Saltzman2003}, \citealt{Nam2007}, Goldstein, Chitoran, and \citealt{Selkirk2007}, Goldstein et al. 2009). In the model each gesture is associated with an oscillator (or clock) and the oscillators are coupled to one another in a pairwise, potentially competing fashion, rather than being serially arranged. The model incorporates the two stable modes of coupling that have been shown to be spontaneously accessible (without learning) when performers are asked to oscillate multiple limbs: synchronous or in-phase and sequential or anti-phase modes \citep{Turvey1990}.

UNDERSHOOT: H\& HMODEL

\begin{styleconstantlineheight}
	The speech motor system tends to minimize the amount of articulatory effort for vocal tract movements during speech. This observation is based on the Hyperarticulation and Hypoarticulation (H\& H) model developed by \citet{Lindblom1990}. The model proposes that speakers constantly vary along a continuum of over- and under-articulated speech (hyper- and hypo-articulated speech) in order to adapt to the complex demands of the communication process (Liberman \& \citealt{Mattingly1985}, Farnetari \& \citealt{Recasens2010}). This leads to an increase in overlap between articulatory gestures and therefore to a higher degree of coarticulation, which is related to \textit{hypo-speech}. In contrast, \textit{hyper-speech} leads to a decrease in coarticulatory overlap and therefore to a more distinct articulation which enhances distances in the perceptual space. Hyper-speech adds more biomechanical power and performance accuracy to a syllable or word to increase or decrease perceptual distances between competing words or syllables and therefore increases the associated resource costs (de \citealt{Jong1995}, Harrington et al. 2000, \citealt{Cho2005}, Baese-Berk \& Goldrick, 2009, \citealt{Scarborough2013}, Mücke \& \citealt{Grice2014}, Nelson \& \citealt{Wedel2017}, Hall, Hume, Jaeger \& Wedel, under review). 
\end{styleconstantlineheight}

\begin{styleconstantlineheight}
	There are several constraints mediating between the low-cost behaviour of the physical control system (system-oriented behaviour) and the demands required by linguistic structure and prosodic functions (output-oriented behaviour). For example, the production of the stop consonant /t/ in <tea> requires a full closure of the tongue tip at the alveolar ridge in order to block the oral airflow leading to a silent gap on the acoustic surface. In case of an undershoot of the desired motor goal, i.e. in the case in which the articulatory closure is not fully achieved, air leaks out of the mouth during the closure phase. On the acoustic surface, frication will be generated (spirantization), shifting the phonetic cues to the stop consonant /t/ in <tea> towards a fricative /s/ as in <sea>. The phonetic specificity of the syllable onset is thus strongly reduced and speech intelligibility decreases \citep{KentEtAl1999}. 
\end{styleconstantlineheight}

\begin{styleconstantlineheight}
	Modifications of phonetic cues on a continuum of hypo- and hyper-articulated speech can be modelled in terms of parameter modifications within a dynamic mass-spring system used for the description of articulatory control (\citealt{Saltzman1986}, Saltzman \& \citealt{Kelso1987}, Saltzman \& \citealt{Munhall1989}, Browman \& \citealt{Goldstein1989}, 1992). Changing the value of a gesture’s parameter set changes the temporal and/or spatial properties of the physical, articulatory action and therefore the acoustic outcome. 
\end{styleconstantlineheight}

\begin{styleconstantlineheight}
	Within dynamic systems, striking changes of the speech motor system associated with dysarthria are also defined as dynamical disease \citep{Glass2015} and are triggered by the presence of illnesses of bodily functions. We assume that the changes in speech dynamics induced by DBS lead to changes on the acoustic surface. These changes can lead to problems of speech intelligibility by affecting paradigmatic relations in terms of linguistic contrasts. 
\end{styleconstantlineheight}

While a full closure /t/ in <tea> leads to a silent gap on the acoustic surface 

\begin{styleconstantlineheight}
	the production of the stop consonant /t/ in <tea> requires a full closure of the tongue tip at the alveolar ridge in order to block the oral airflow leading to a silent gap on the acoustic surface. In case of an undershoot of the desired motor goal, i.e. in the case in which the articulatory closure is not fully achieved, air leaks out of the mouth during the closure phase. On the acoustic surface, frication will be generated (spirantization), shifting the phonetic cues to the stop consonant /t/ in <tea> towards a fricative /s/ as in <sea>. The phonetic specificity of the syllable onset is thus strongly reduced and speech intelligibility decreases \citep{KentEtAl1999}. 
\end{styleconstantlineheight}

\begin{styleconstantlineheight}
	Modifications of phonetic cues on a continuum of hypo- and hyper-articulated speech can be modelled in terms of parameter modifications within a dynamic mass-spring system used for the description of articulatory control (\citealt{Saltzman1986}, Saltzman \& \citealt{Kelso1987}, Saltzman \& \citealt{Munhall1989}, Browman \& \citealt{Goldstein1989}, 1992). Changing the value of a gesture’s parameter set changes the temporal and/or spatial properties of the physical, articulatory action and therefore the acoustic outcome. 
\end{styleconstantlineheight}

JESSICA FEEDBACK:

\begin{styleconstantlineheight}
	Fast speech requires the speaker’s ability to adapt to principles of physical economy balanced with signal specificity to maintain lexical contrasts. Speakers have the choice to manipulate phonetic cues in a given utterance to increase or decrease perceptual distances between competing words or syllables, a process that can be understood as a constant “trade-off between biases supporting message transmission accuracy and resource costs” (Hall, Hume, Jaeger \& Wedel, under review). This observation is based on the H\& H model developed by \citet{Lindblom1990}. The model proposes that speakers constantly vary on %
	%Maybe “along” would be better?
	%
	a continuum of over- and under-articulated speech (hyper- and hypo-articulated speech) in order to adapt to the complex demands of the communication process (Farnetani \& \citealt{Recasens2010}). When unconstrained by perceptual demands the physical control system tends to minimize the amount of articulatory effort for vocal tract movements during speech (Liberman \& \citealt{Mattingly1985}). This leads to an increase in overlap between articulatory gestures and therefore to a higher degree of coarticulation, thus a low-cost strategy %
	%This doesn’t quite fit grammatically speaking. What is the low{}-cost strategy you refer to? Coarticulation? Rephrase this part.
	%
	which is related to \textit{hypo-speech}. In contrast, \textit{hyper-speech} leads to a decrease in coarticulatory overlap and therefore to a more distinct articulation which enhances distances in the perceptual space. Hyper-speech adds more phonetic substance to a syllable or word and therefore increases the associated costs (de \citealt{Jong1995}; Harrington et al. 2000; \citealt{Cho2005}; Baese-Berk \& Goldrick, 2009; \citealt{Scarborough2013}; Mücke \& \citealt{Grice2014}; Nelson \& \citealt{Wedel2017}). 
\end{styleconstantlineheight}

\begin{styleconstantlineheight}
	There are several constraints mediating between the low-cost behaviour of the physical control system (system-oriented behaviour) and the demands required by linguistic structure and prosodic functions (output-oriented behaviour). The production of the stop consonant /t/ in <tea>, e.g., requires a full closure of the tongue tip at the alveolar ridge to block the oral airflow leading to a silent gap on the acoustic surface. In case of an undershoot of the phonetic target, i.e. where the closure is not fully achieved, air leaks out of the mouth during the closure phase. On the acoustic surface, frication will be generated (spirantization), shifting the phonetic cues to the stop consonant /t/ in <tea> towards a fricative /s/ as in <sea>. The phonetic specificity of the syllable onset is thus strongly reduced and speech intelligibility decreases \citep{KentEtAl1999}. However, in terms of motor control, there are multiple solutions%
	%This sentence doesn’t fit clearly with the previous text. What do you mean to say here? Do you mean that you can still have hypo{}-speech but have a different way to achieve the motor goal? Connect this a little better to the surrounding text.
	%
	for achieving the desired motor goal leading to a wide range of variability within and across speakers (Patri, Diard \& \citealt{Perrier2015}).
\end{styleconstantlineheight}

\begin{styleconstantlineheight}
	Modifications of phonetic cues on a continuum of hypo- and hyper-articulated speech can be modelled in terms of parameter modifications within a dynamic mass-spring system used for the description of articulatory control (\citealt{Saltzman1986}, %
	%Here and throughout – I think you are sometimes using commas for multiple references (between references) and sometimes semi{}-colons. Choose one and be consistent (I haven’t marked these).
	%
	Saltzman \& \citealt{Kelso1987}, Saltzman \& \citealt{Munhall1989}). In Articulatory Phonology, speech can be decomposed into a set of potentially overlapping vocal tract actions that are co-active over different time windows, articulatory gestures%
	%This needs to be moved, but I’m not sure where… You could add “known as” or “called” before this, but it might be ambiguous what “articulatory gestures” refers to (time windows or set of vocal tract actions). 
	%
	(Browman \& \citealt{Goldstein1989}, 1992). Articulatory gestures integrate low and high-dimensional descriptions of%
	%Better to say “into”?
	%
	a single system without the need for an interface to translate phonological structure into the physical properties of the phonetic outcome. As cognitive units, they define discrete phonological units for linguistic contrast in terms of coordinative structures (low-dimensional description). With the same characteristic set of parameter values, they describe the continuous action of the speech system together with the various physiological and biomechanical consequences of motor control including context and the degree of articulatory cost%
	%I’m not sure what you mean here. How does describing the continuous action of the speech system relate to this?
	%
	(high-dimensional description). A consonantal gesture for /t/, e.g., %
	%It’s not immediately clear to me how this example relates to the low{}-dimensional, high{}-dimensional distinction. Could you make that more clear?
	%
	defines the full closure of the tongue tip in terms of vocal tract constrictions at the alveolar ridge. Changing the value of a gesture’s parameter set changes the temporal and/or spatial properties of the physical, articulatory action and therefore the acoustic outcome. For example, changing the degree of constriction from “closure alveolar” to “critical alveolar” leads to the spirantization of /t/. 
\end{styleconstantlineheight}

\begin{styleconstantlineheight}
	We assume that the changes in speech dynamics induced by DBS are gradient in nature, leading to gradient changes on the acoustic surface. These changes can vary from the impression of slurred speech %
	%This is not really a change. Also, is this not also a problem of speech intelligibility? Rephrase 
	%
	up to problems of speech intelligibility by affecting paradigmatic relations in terms of linguistic contrasts.
\end{styleconstantlineheight}

NATURAL VARIABILITY - REGULATION

One of the goals of linguisitic phonetics is the understanding of underlying principles and mechanisms that regulate variation in speech production. A complex interplay between linguistic structure and the physical system leads to a huge amount of naturally-induced variability. Speakers generate an overwhelming variety of gradient phenomena in their linguistic behaviour. A bundle of factors playing a role in the natural process of human communication trigger and constrain variation in speech, most of them reaching deeply into human physiology, cognition and grammar. There are regulation mechanisms behind these complex interactions of structural, contextual and phonetic cues mediating between naturally-induced variability (e.g., due to prosodic marking) and the need for gestural coherence in order to preserve the phonological form of a given pattern.

The last few decades, however, have witnessed development of theories of speech dynamics which aim at illuminating mechanisms of regulation in speech in a unfied way. In dynamic approaches, phonetic detail is seen as a direct window to linguistic structure rather than as the ‘curse’ of modern measuring techniques. Consequently, variability in the physical world is seen as a direct outcome of the system’s behaviour, a challenge between naturally-induced pattern variability in human communication and the need for pattern stability to preserve phonological forms, mostly language-driven.

LARYNGEAL AND SUPRALARYEAL: 

This project focuses on the dynamic modelling of prosodic prominence in terms of vocal tract actions using Electromagnetic Articulography and computer-based simulation of speech production in German. It seeks to gain a better understanding of prominence-lending properties in the acoustic and articulatory domains, and contributes to exploring the fabric of prosodic prominence (A-Q1), the relation of prosodic prominence to discourse prominence (A-Q3) and the degree of variation within and across speakers (A-Q4.1). Within the dynamic approach of Articulatory Phonology (Browman \& \citealt{Goldstein1992}) the project seeks to link complex phonological categories encoding different degrees of prosodic prominence (phonological form) to continuous cues in the acoustic and kinematic signals (phonetic substance). Prosodic highlighting involves dynamic changes not only in the vibration of the vocal folds to produce pitch contours in the tonal domain (laryngeal system), but also in the movements of the articulators above the glottis to produce consonants and vowels in the textual string (supralaryngeal system, i.e. lips, jaw and tongue). Observing their coordinated movement allows us to model the changes of the speech system’s essential properties in a unified dynamical system that captures the interplay between intonation and prosodic strengthening of segments. In dynamic approaches, discrete phonological information can be mapped directly onto continuous phonetic cues without the need for an interface between phonological symbols and phonetic substance (Gafos \& Beňuš 2006, Goldstein et al. 2006). This dynamic system is able to capture variation resulting from both the complex structure of prosodic categories and from specific characteristics within and across individual speakers in a lawful way. Moreover, is evidence that prominence itself can affect articulation and is not mediated by accentuation (Mücke \& \citealt{Grice2014}). Furthermore, we know that speakers use multiple cues, both intonation and supralaryngeal adjustments, in different combinations, to express the same degree of prominence (

VARIABILITY:

\textit{Speech variation is a naturally-induced phenomenon of human speech communication due to inevitably multifaceted interactions among various higher-order linguistic and lower-order physicological factors. Recent years have increasingly witnessed vigorous development of dynamical theories which attempt to capture mechanisms of regulation that underlie speech variation in a unified way.}

{}-{}-{}-{}-{}-{}-{}-{}-{}-{}-{}-{}-{}-{}-{}-{}-{}-{}-{}-{}-{}-{}-{}-{}-{}-{}-{}-

Die Artikulatorische Phonologie wurde als Alternative zu segmentalen Ansätzen entwickelt. So nimmt die segmentale Phonologie an, dass nur distinkte Information gespeichert wird, die dann mit Hilfe von Regeln und Rechenprinzipien von der kategorialen Welt der Symbole in die kontinuierliche Welt der physikalischen Repräsentation übersetzt wird (\citealt{Ohala1990}; Gafos \& Beňuš 2006:2; Mücke \& \citealt{Grice2016}). In segmentalen Ansätzen wird mittels einer Schnittstelle versucht, von der abstrakten symbolischen Repräsentation zum konkreten artikulatorischen und/oder akustischen Output eines Sprechers zu gelangen, d.h. es werden zwei unterschiedliche formalen Sprachen der Mathematik verwendet, von der jeweils eine der Phonologie und die andere der Phonetik zugeordnet wird. Dies führt jedoch zu Mehrdeutigkeiten in der Theoriebildung, vor allem was die Granularität der phonologischen Beschreibung angeht (\citealt{Trubetzkoy1939}; \citealt{Saussure1916}; \citealt{Rischel1990}; \citealt{Pierrehumbert1990}; \citealt{Keating1990a}:321). 

Die Artikulatorische Phonologie hingegen nimmt an, dass auch kontinuierliche Information wie beispielsweise sprecher- oder situationsbezogen Variationen als Teil des Sprachsystems gespeichert werden. Natürliche Variabilität wird hier als Teil des linguistischen Systems betrachtet, das konkret Aufschluss über zugrundeliegende Strukturen gibt. Im Modell der Artikulatorischen Phonologie wird Sprache als dynamisches System betrachtet und somit phonetische und phonologische Information integriert (u.a. Browman \& \citealt{Goldstein1986}, 1988, 1991, \citealt{Fowler1977}; Fowler et al. 1980; \citealt{Saltzman1986}, Browman \& \citealt{Goldstein1986}, 1988; Saltzman \& \citealt{Kelso1987}; Kugler \& \citealt{Turvey1987}; Saltzman \& \citealt{Munhall1989}; \citealt{Kelso1995}; Gafos \& Beňuš 2006). 

Die Grundeinheiten der Artikulatorischen Phonologie sind nicht Segmente oder Merkmale einer Sprache, sondern artikulatorische Gesten. Diese legen linguistische relevante Konstriktionen wie beispielsweise ein Vollverschluss der Zungenspitze an den Alveolen sowie eine glottale Öffnungsgeste für Stimmlosigkeit bei der Produktion von /t/ für ein definiertes Zeitintervall fest. Die Einbeziehung der zeitlichen Domäne ermöglicht im Gegensatz zu segmentalen Ansätzen die Abbildung natürlicher Variabilität. Sie kann beispielsweise im Falle von /t/ der Grad der Aspiration direkt aus der zeitlichen Anordnung der glottalen und oralen Geste abgeleitet werden: Ist die glottale Geste länger als die Zungenspitzengeste aktiviert, so entsteht auf akustischer Oberfläche Aspiration. Artikulatorische Gesten enkodieren darüber hinaus den kontextuellen Einfluss (Koartikulation in Form von Synergien zwischen Organgruppen) und können direkt den Einfluss höhere linguistischer Strukturen wie der prosodischen Hierarchie abbilden (Shaw, Gafos, Hoole \& \citealt{Zeroual2011}, Mücke, Hermes \& \citealt{Cho2017}). So fällt der Grad der Aspiration von Plosiven in Sprachen wie dem Deutschen in prosodisch starken Positionen stärker aus als in schwachen Positionen, um diesen Äußerungsteil neben der tonalen Markierung durch einen Tonakzent auch artikulatorisch Prominenz zu verleihen. Es handelt sich dabei um ein komplexes Wechselspiel zwischen Artikulation und Prosodie, ein neues Forschungsfeld, dem man am besten mit einer quantitativen Modellierung in Form von dynamischen Systemen gerecht wird. 

Das vorliegende Buch stellt eine Einführung in die Artikulatorische Phonologie dar. Es richtet sich an Leser und Leserinnen, die phonetische Grundkenntnisse besitzen und sich mit der Artikulatorischen Phonologie beschäftigen möchten. Darüber hinaus werden neben einer Einführung in das Model auch neure Arbeiten und aktuelle Weiterentwicklungen aufgezeigt, insbesondere die Implementierung prosodischer Aspekte in die Artikulatorische Phonologie betreffend. Somit eignet sich das Buch auch für Leser und Leserinnen, die bereits mit der Artikulatorischen Phonologie in Kontakt gekommen sind, aber ihr Wissen vertiefen möchten. Zur Veranschaulichung des Models werden Beispiele aus verschiedenen Sprachen gegeben, darunter Deutsch, Katalanisch, Italienisch, Polnisch, Mandarin und Tashlhiyt Berber.

Die ersten vier Kapitel vermitteln Grundlagen der Artikulatorischen Phonologie und der prosodischen Analyse. Es werden Artikulatorische Gesten auf der Basis des dynamischen Modells der Task Dynamics definiert (Kap. 1). Anhand von Gestenpartituren werden verschiedene Bildungsformen für lexikalische Kontraste in der Artikulatorischen Phonologie exemplifiziert, sowie die grundlegenden Ordnungsprinzipien für die gestische Organisation vorgestellt, um Prozesse wie Reduktion, Assimilation und Tilgung quantitativ abbilden zu können (Kap. 2). Des Weiteren werden gesturale Strukturen als Modell der Selbstorganisation vorgestellt. Mit Hilfe eines multiplen Netzwerks zeitlicher Triggern – dem Modell der nichtlinearen paarweise gekoppelten Oszillatoren – formieren sich Gesten als dynamisches System zu prosodischen Einheiten wie der Silbe (Kap. 3). Es folgt eine Einführung in die Modellierungsparameter, die in experimentellen Studien im Rahmen der Artikulatorischen Phonologie verwendet werden (Kap. 4). Diese werden anhand eines Beispiels eines Vergleichs von Artikulationsmustern mit ein- und ausgeschalteter Tiefenhirnstimulation in der klinischen Linguistik veranschaulicht (Kap. 5). Es schließt sich eine Einführung in die prosodische Analyse mit Schwerpunkt auf der Markierung von Prominenz in der phonetischen Substanz an (Kap. 6).

Es folgen zwei Anwendungsbereiche, die Artikulation und prosodische Struktur miteinander verbinden. Hier ist einmal die artikulatorische und tonale Markierung von Prominenz zu nennen (Kap. 7). Zum anderen wird im Bereich der tonalen Alignierungsforschung aufgezeigt, wie Tonakzente mit artikulatorischen Gesten koordiniert sind (Kap. 8). Das Buch schließt mit einer kritischen Diskussion des Models der Artikulatorischen Phonologie und dessen Verankerung in Forschung und Lehre (Kap. 9).


\begin{verbatim}%%move bib entries to  localbibliography.bib
\end{verbatim} 