The dynamical perspective on speech production: data and theory.
| Number | 541 |
|---|---|
| Year | 1986 |
| Drawer | 9 |
| Entry Date | 11/18/1999 |
| Authors | Kelso, J. A. S., Saltzman, E. L. & Tuller, B. |
| Contact | |
| Publication | Journal of Phonetics, 14, 29-59. |
| url | http://www.haskins.yale.edu/Reprints/HL0541.pdf |
| Abstract | Presented in preliminary form is a general theoretical framework that seeks to characterize the lawful regularities in articulatory patterns that occur when people speak. A fundamental construct of the framework is the "coordinative structure," an ensemble of articulators that functions cooperatively as a single task-specific unit. The space-time behavior of a given articulatory gesture is viewed as the outcome of the system's dynamic parametrization, & orchestration among gestures is captured as in terms of intergestural phase information. Both time & timing are intrinsic consequences of the system's dynamic organization. Also offered is an account of change in articulatory patterns based on the nonequilibrium phase transitions created by the field of synergetics. In Evaluating the Task Dynamics Model, Osamu Fujimura (AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ) restates Kelso's claims in more rigorous technical terms & questions the contributions that might be made by a task dynamics model. Sten Grillner (Karolinska Instit, Lidingovagen 1, Stockholm, Sweden) in The Transfer of Terminology from One Field to Another May Be Hazardous and Counterproductive for Interdisciplinary Interaction suggests that the direct transfer of neurological terminology to speech perception research may be counterproductive, & urges a clearer expression of findings. In Is a Paradigm Change Needed?, Ray D. Kent (U of Wisconsin, Madison) questions whether Kelso's account is superior to so-called extrinsic timing theories. Bjorn Lindblom & Peter MacNeilage (Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, 202 Junipero Serra Blvd, Stanford, Calif) in Action Theory: Problems and Alternative Approaches adopt a broad perspective on speech production processes with emphasis on so-called event perception & action theory. One major flaw in Kelso's account is its avoidance of the listener's role. James Lubker (U of Vermont, Burlington) in Articulatory Timing and the Concept of Phase discusses Kelso's experimental data & provides some additional data that conflict with the previous findings. Further research is urged before the validity of the theory of lip/jaw phase coupling is accepted. Anders Lofqvist (Lund U, Sweden) in Stability and Change discusses the definition of stability in motor acts.David J. Ostry (McGill U, Montreal, Quebec) in On Viewing Motor Behavior as a Physical System addresses issues of understanding motor behavior as a physical system, computational aspects of the task-dynamic model, & differences between dynamic & linguistic descriptions. Kelso, Saltzman, & Tuller reply in Intentional Contents, Communicative Context, and Task Dynamics: A Reply to the Commentators to the major themes raised in the commentaries & outline further mathematical details of the task-dynamic approach. |
| Notes |
Search Publications