Response to Gussenhoven, Kenstowicz

The Gussenhoven and Kenstowicz articles each provide insight outlining the incredibly deep, comprehensive processes behind phonology, advocating that human speech involves far more than just our mouths and the letters of the alphabet.

Gussenhoven examines the anatomical components behind speech production, and also provides the foundation for the International Phonetic Alphabet, or IPA. He divides organs of speech into two categories: the lungs/larynx and the vocal tract. The key components of the former category are the vocal cords and glottis, which can be manipulated into producing voiced, devoiced and voiceless sounds, whispered, breathy and creaky voices, pitch manipulation and glottal stops. Meanwhile, the vocal tract is responsible for taking the lungs/larynx's foundation and manipulating it further with the pharynx, mouth and nasal cavity to create a wide variety of consonant and vowel sounds. These sounds are so diverse that a standard alphabet cannot distinguish all of their subtleties, so instead the much more expansive (and constantly updated) IPA is implemented.

As for Kenstowicsz, he builds off of the anatomical foundation outlined by Gussenhoven and introduces more nuanced aspects of IPA that come not from anatomy, but by a seemingly self-imposed system of rules. He elaborates that because conversation is so context dependent, the same underlying sounds (phonemes) can be divided into subsets of subtle variants called allophones. He introduces the example of the phoneme "t" which is divided into at least 8 separate, context-sensitive allophones. Perhaps most peculiar is that speakers do not actively consider the distinctions of allophones in regular conversation: one has to stop and think before they realize that the "t" they enunciate on "star" is completely separate from the "t" they practically neglect on "pants." He believes that this is perhaps a product of generalization, which would explain how it is possible for developing children to pick up complex languages so quickly and natively. Still, it seems a little peculiar that we restrict ourselves to only 26 letters (at least in English) when it is now evidently clear that speech is much more complex than what can be reflected in writing.

What fascinates me most in these articles is that Gussenhoven neglects to mention the respiratory importance of the diaphragm in the production of speech. As a classically trained singer, it is considered poor form to envision breathing from your lungs (as that leads to a shallow breath,) and instead one is advised to breathe from the diaphragm and centralize the breath lower, around the belly button. This is not just to promote better breathing, but is also employed to centralize onsets and pitch within an ensemble. However, Gussenhoven's neglecting this idea suggests that either:

• Such models are employed by choral directors only as a psychological device, and there is no physical anatomy behind it, or
• Singing is a process independent of normal speech, and therefore anatomical processes connected only to singing are irrelevant for phonology.