ASHAWire
Advanced search
Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
No AccessJournal of Speech, Language, and Hearing ResearchResearch Article1 Mar 2017

Speaking Tongues Are Actively Braced

    https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_JSLHR-S-15-0141

    Abstract

    Purpose

    Bracing of the tongue against opposing vocal-tract surfaces such as the teeth or palate has long been discussed in the context of biomechanical, somatosensory, and aeroacoustic aspects of tongue movement. However, previous studies have tended to describe bracing only in terms of contact (rather than mechanical support), and only in limited phonetic contexts, supporting a widespread view of bracing as an occasional state, peculiar to specific sounds or sound combinations.

    Method

    The present study tests the pervasiveness and effortfulness of tongue bracing in continuous English speech passages using electropalatography and 3-D biomechanical simulations.

    Results

    The tongue remains in continuous contact with the upper molars during speech, with only rare exceptions. Use of the term bracing (rather than merely contact) is supported here by biomechanical simulations showing that lateral bracing is an active posture requiring dedicated muscle activation; further, loss of lateral contact for onset /l/ allophones is found to be consistently accompanied by contact of the tongue blade against the anterior palate. In the rare instances where direct evidence for contact is lacking (only in a minority of low vowel and postvocalic /l/ tokens), additional biomechanical simulations show that lateral contact is maintained against pharyngeal structures dorsal to the teeth.

    Conclusion

    Taken together, these results indicate that tongue bracing is both pervasive and active in running speech and essential in understanding tongue movement control.

    References

    • Adler-Bock, M., Bernhardt, B. M., Gick, B., & Bacsfalvi, P. (2007). The use of ultrasound in remediation of North American English /r/ in 2 adolescents.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 16, 128–139.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Buchaillard, S., Perrier, P., & Payan, Y. (2009). A biomechanical model of cardinal vowel production: Muscle activations and the impact of gravity on tongue positioning.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126, 2033–2051.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Cheng, H. Y., Murdoch, B. E., Goozée, J. V., & Scott, D. (2007). Electropalatographic assessment of tongue-to-palate contact patterns and variability in children, adolescents, and adults.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 375–392.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Dworkin, J. P., & Meleca, R. J. (1997). Vocal pathologies: Diagnosis, treatment, and case studies. San Diego, CA: Singular.
      Google Scholar
    • Erdemir, A., McLean, S., Herzog, W., & van den Bogert, A. J. (2007). Model-based estimation of muscle forces exerted during movements.Clinical Biomechanics, 22, 131–154.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Fairbanks, G. (1960). Voice and articulation drillbook (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.
      Google Scholar
    • Gérard, J.-M., Perrier, P., & Payan, Y. (2006) 3D biomechanical tongue modeling to study speech production.In J. Harrington & M. Tabain (Eds.), Speech production: Models, phonetic processes, and techniques (pp. 85–102). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Gibbon, F. E., Lee, A., & Yuen, I. (2010). Tongue-palate contact during selected vowels in normal speech.The Cleft Palate–Craniofacial Journal, 47, 405–412.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Gick, B. (2003). Articulatory correlates of ambisyllabicity in English glides and liquids.In J. Local, R. Ogden, & R. Temple (Eds.), Phonetic interpretation: Papers in laboratory phonology VI (pp. 222–236). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Gick, B., Anderson, P., Chen, H., Chiu, C., Kwon, H. B., Stavness, I., … Fels, S. (2014). Speech function of the oropharyngeal isthmus: A modelling study.Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering: Imaging & Visualization, 2, 217–222.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Gick, B., Campbell, F., Oh, S., & Tamburri-Watt, L. (2006). Toward universals in the gestural organization of syllables: A cross-linguistic study of liquids.Journal of Phonetics, 34, 49–72.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Gick, B., Francis, N., Klenin, A., Mizrahi, E., & Tom, D. (2013). The velic traverse: An independent oral articulator?.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133, EL208–EL213.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Gick, B., Kang, A. M., & Whalen, D. H. (2002). MRI evidence for commonality in the post-oral articulations of English vowels and liquids.Journal of Phonetics, 30, 357–371.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Gick, B., & Stavness, I. (2013). Modularizing speech.Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 977. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00977
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Giles, S. B., & Moll, K. L. (1975). Cinefluorographic study of selected allophones of English /l/.Phonetica, 31, 206–227.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Harandi, N. M., Stavness, I., Woo, J., Stone, M., Abugharbieh, R., & Fels, S. (2015). Subject-specific biomechanical modelling of the oropharynx: Towards speech production.Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering: Imaging & Visualization. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/21681163.2015.1033756
      Google Scholar
    • Honda, K., Murano, E. Z., Takano, S., Masaki, S., & Dang, J. (2013). Anatomical considerations on the extrinsic tongue muscles for articulatory modeling.Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, 19, 060270. doi:10.1121/1.4800262
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Honda, K., Takano, S., & Takemoto, H. (2010). Effects of side cavities and tongue stabilization: Possible extensions of the quantal theory.Journal of Phonetics, 38, 33–43.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Honda, K., Takemoto, H., Kitamura, T., Fujita, S., & Takano, S. (2004). Exploring human speech production mechanisms by MRI.IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, E87-D, 1050–1058.
      Google Scholar
    • International Phonetic Association. (1949). The principles of the International Phonetic Association: Being a description of the International Phonetic Alphabet and the manner of using it, illustrated by texts in 51 languages. London, United Kingdom: Author.
      Google Scholar
    • Lloyd, J. E., Stavness, I., & Fels, S. (2012). ArtiSynth: A fast interactive biomechanical modeling toolkit combining multibody and finite element simulation.In Y. Payan (Ed.), Soft tissue biomechanical modeling for computer assisted surgery (pp. 355–394). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
      Google Scholar
    • Maeda, S. (1990). Compensatory articulation during speech: Evidence from the analysis and synthesis of vocal-tract shapes using an articulatory model.In W. J. Hardcastle & A. Marchal (Eds.), Speech production and speech modeling (pp. 131–149). Boston, MA: Springer.
      Google Scholar
    • McAuliffe, M. J., Ward, E. C., & Murdoch, B. E. (2001). Tongue-to-palate contact patterns and variability of four English consonants in an /i/ vowel environment.Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology, 26, 165–178.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • McLeod, S. (2006). Australian adults' production of /n/: An EPG investigation.Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 20, 99–107.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • McLeod, S. (2011). Speech–language pathologists’ knowledge of tongue/palate contact for consonants.Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 25(11-12): 1004–1013.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • McLeod, S., Roberts, A., & Sita, J. (2006). Tongue/palate contact for the production of /s/ and /z/.Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 20, 51–66.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Munhall, K. G., Vatikiotis-Bateson, E., & Tohkura, Y. (1995). X-ray film database for speech research.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 98, 1222–1224.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Narayanan, S. S., Alwan, A. A., & Haker, K. (1997). Toward articulatory-acoustic models for liquid approximants based on MRI and EPG data. Part I. The laterals.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 1064–1077.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Perkell, J. S. (1979). On the nature of distinctive features: Implications of a preliminary vowel production study.In B. Lindblom & S. Öhman (Eds.), Frontiers of speech communication research (pp. 365–380). London, United Kingdom: Academic Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Pribram, K. H. (1977). Hemispheric specialization: Evolution or revolution.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 299, 18–22.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Reilly, J., & Fisher, J. L. (2012). Sherlock Holmes and the strange case of the missing attribution: A historical note on “the Grandfather Passage.”.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55, 84–88.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Rubin, P., Baer, T., & Mermelstein, P. (1981). An articulatory synthesizer for perceptual research.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 70, 321–328.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Sartori, M., Farina, D., & Lloyd, D. G. (2014). Hybrid neuromusculoskeletal modeling to best track joint moments using a balance between muscle excitations derived from electromyograms and optimization.Journal of Biomechanics, 47, 3613–3621.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Scobbie, J. M., & Pouplier, M. (2010). The role of syllable structure in external sandhi: An EPG study of vocalisation and retraction in word-final English /l/.Journal of Phonetics, 38, 240–259.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Sproat, R., & Fujimura, O. (1993). Allophonic variation in English /l/ and its implications for phonetic implementation.Journal of Phonetics, 21, 291–311.
      Google Scholar
    • Stavness, I., Gick, B., Derrick, D., & Fels, S. (2012). Biomechanical modeling of English /r/ variants.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 131, EL355–EL360.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Stavness, I., Lloyd, J. E., & Fels, S. (2012). Automatic prediction of tongue muscle activations using a finite element model.Journal of Biomechanics, 45, 2841–2848.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Stavness, I., Lloyd, J. E., Payan, Y., & Fels, S. (2011). Coupled hard–soft tissue simulation with contact and constraints applied to jaw–tongue–hyoid dynamics.International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering, 27, 367–390.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Stevens, K. N., & Perkell, J. S. (1977). Speech physiology and phonetic features.In M. Sawashima & F. S. Cooper (Eds.), Dynamic aspects of speech production: Current results, emerging problems, and new instrumentation (pp. 323–341). Tokyo, Japan: University of Tokyo Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Stone, M. (1990). A three-dimensional model of tongue movement based on ultrasound and x-ray microbeam data.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 87, 2207–2217.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Stone, M. (1991). Toward a model of three-dimensional tongue movement.Journal of Phonetics, 19, 309–320.
      Google Scholar
    • Stone, M., & Lundberg, A. (1996). Three-dimensional tongue surface shapes of English consonants and vowels.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99, 3728–3737.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Van Riper, C. (1963). Speech correction: Principles and methods (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
      Google Scholar
    • Zsiga, E. C. (1995). An acoustic and electropalatographic study of lexical and post-lexical palatalization in American English.In B. Connell & A. Arvaniti (Eds.), Phonology and phonetic evidence: Papers in laboratory phonology IV (pp. 282–302). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar

    Additional Resources