Coarticulation

doi:10.1017/9781108644198.005

4 - Coarticulation

from Section I - Segmental Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 November 2021

Khalil Iskarous and

Christine Mooshammer

Edited by

Rachael-Anne Knight and

Jane Setter

Show author details

Rachael-Anne Knight: Affiliation:
City, University of London
Jane Setter: Affiliation:
University of Reading

Book contents

Get access

Summary

When speech sounds are produced, articulatory movements for one sound overlap with those of the surrounding sounds, generating articulatory and acoustic signals that at any point in time are informative about two or more sounds, not just one. This process of intermingling of information about several speech sounds in the articulatory and acoustic signals is called coarticulation. This chapter synthesises theories and experimental findings of the last century on the nature of coarticulation, and shows how our modern understanding of this complex process is deeply rooted in theories that have evolved over decades due to novel experimental findings as well as critique from competing theories. After discussion of our current understanding of coarticulation, some suggestions for initiating students into the surprising effects of coarticulation are introduced.

Keywords

coarticulation dynamical systems speech production Task Dynamics Exemplar Theory Articulatory Phonology loops Acoustic Kinematics

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Phonetics , pp. 106 - 132

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108644198.005 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

4.6 References

Alfonso, P. J. & Baer, T. (1982). Dynamics of vowel articulation. Language and Speech, 25(2), 151–73.Google Scholar

Bell, A. (1867). Visible Speech: Universal Alphabetics or Self-Interpreting Physiological Letters for the Writing of all Languages in One Alphabet. London: Simpkin & Marschall.Google Scholar

Bell-Berti, F. & Harris, K. (1981). A temporal model of speech production. Phonetica, 38, 9–20.Google Scholar

Bell-Berti, F., Krakow, R. A., Gelfer, C. E. & Boyze, S. E. (1995). Anticipatory and carryover effects: Implications for models of speech production. In F. Bell-Berti & L. J. Raphael, eds., Producing Speech: Contemporary Issues (for Katherine Stafford Harris). College Park, MD: American Institute of Physics.Google Scholar

Benguerel, A. P. & Cowan, H. A. (1974). Coarticulation of upper lip protrusion in French. Phonetica, 30, 41–55.Google Scholar

Bird, S. & Klein, E. (1990). Phonological events. Journal of Linguistics, 26(1), 33–56.Google Scholar

Blevins, J. (1995). The syllable in phonological theory. In Goldsmith, J., ed., The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 206–44.Google Scholar

Bombien, L., Mooshammer, C., Hoole, P. & Kühnert, B. (2010). Prosodic and segmental effects on EPG contact patterns of word-initial German clusters. Journal of Phonetics, 38(3), 388–403.Google Scholar

Bombien, L., Mooshammer, C. & Hoole, P. (2013). Articulatory coordination in word-initial clusters of German. Journal of Phonetics, 41(6), 546–61.Google Scholar

Bradlow, A. R. (2002). Confluent talker-and listener-oriented forces in clear speech production. In Gussenhoven, C. & Warner, N., eds., Laboratory Phonology 7. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar

Broad, D. & Clermont, F. (1987). A methodology for modelling vowel formant contours in CVC context. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 81, 155–65.Google Scholar

Broad, D. & Clermont, F. (2010). Target-locus scaling methods for modelling families of formant transitions. Journal of Phonetics, 38, 337–59.Google Scholar

Broad, D. & Clermont, F. (2014). A method for analyzing the coarticulated CV & VC components of vowel-formant trajectories in CVC syllables. Journal of Phonetics, 47, 47–80.Google Scholar

Broad, D. & Clermont, F. (2017). Target-locus scaling for modeling formant transitions in vowel + consonant + vowel contexts. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 141, 192.CrossRef Google Scholar

Broad, D. & Fertig, R. (1970). Formant frequency trajectories in selected CVC syllable nuclei. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 47, 1572–82.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Browman, C. P. & Goldstein, L. (1988). Some notes on syllable structure in articulatory phonology. Phonetica, 45, 140–55.Google Scholar

Browman, C. P. & Goldstein, L. (1989). Articulatory gestures as phonological units. Phonology, 6(2), 201–51.Google Scholar

Browman, C. P. &. Goldstein, L. (1991). Tiers in articulatory phonology, with some implications for casual speech. In Kingston, J. & Beckman, M. E., eds., Papers in Laboratory Phonology I: Between the Grammar and the Physics of Speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 341–76.Google Scholar

Browman, C. P. & Goldstein, L. (2000). Competing constraints on intergestural coordination & self-organization of phonological structures. Les Cahiers de l’ICP, 5, 25–34.Google Scholar

Brücke, E. (1856). Grundzüge der Physiologie und Systematik der Sprachlaute für Linguisten und Taubstummenlehrer. Vienna: Gerold.Google Scholar

Brunner, J., Fuchs, S. & Perrier, P. (2011). Supralaryngeal control in Korean velar stops. Journal of Phonetics, 39(2), 178–95.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. (2012). Patterns of lexical diffusion and articulatory motivation for sound change. In Solé, M.-J. & Recasens, D., eds., The Initiation of Sound Change: Perception, Production and Social Factors. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 211–34.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. & Scheibman, J. (1999). The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics, 37(4), 575–96.CrossRef Google Scholar

Byrd, D. & Choi, S. (2010). At the juncture of prosody, phonology & phonetics: The interaction of phrasal & syllable structure in shaping the timing of consonant gestures. Laboratory Phonology, 10, 31–59.CrossRef Google Scholar

Byrd, D. & Saltzman, E. (1998). Intragestural dynamics of multiple prosodic boundaries. Journal of Phonetics, 26(2), 173–99.Google Scholar

Byrd, D. & Saltzman, E. (2003). The elastic phrase: Modeling the dynamics of boundary-adjacent lengthening. Journal of Phonetics, 31(2), 149–80.Google Scholar

Byrd, D., Kaun, A., Naranyanan, S. & Saltzman, E. (2000). Phrasal signatures in articulation. Laboratory Phonology, 5, 70–87.Google Scholar

Byrd, D., Krivokapić, J. & Lee, S. (2006). How far, how long: On the temporal scope of prosodic boundary effects. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 120(3), 1589–99.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Byrd, D., Tobin, S., Bresch, E. & Narayanan, S. (2009). Timing effects of syllable structure and stress on nasals: a real-time MRI examination. Journal of Phonetics, 37(1), 97–110.Google Scholar

Chen, W., Chang, Y. & Iskarous, K. (2015). Vowel coarticulation: Landmark statistics measure vowel aggression. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 134, 4167–89.Google Scholar

Cho, T. (2016). Prosodic boundary strengthening in the phonetics–prosody interface. Language & Linguistics Compass, 10(3), 120–41.CrossRef Google Scholar

Coker, C. H. (1976). A model of articulatory dynamics and control. Proceedings of the IEEE, 64, 452–60.Google Scholar

Ernestus, M., Lahey, M., Verhees, F. & Baayen, R. H. (2006). Lexical frequency and voice assimilation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 120(2), 1040–51.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Fougeron, C. (2001). Articulatory properties of initial segments in several prosodic constituents in French. Journal of Phonetics, 29(2), 109–35.CrossRef Google Scholar

Fowler, C. A. (1980). Coarticulation and theories of extrinsic timing control. Journal of Phonetics, 8, 113–33.CrossRef Google Scholar

Fowler, C. A. (1996). Listeners do hear sounds, not tongues. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99(3), 1730–41.CrossRef Google Scholar

Fowler, C. A. & Brown, J. M. (2000). Perceptual parsing of acoustic consequences of velum lowering from information for vowels. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 62(1), 21–32.Google Scholar

Fowler, C. A. & Housum, J. (1987). Talkers’ signaling of ‘new’ and ‘old’ words in speech and listeners’ perception and use of the distinction. Journal of Memory & Language, 26(5), 489–504.CrossRef Google Scholar

Fowler, C. A. & Saltzman, E. (1993). Coordination and coarticulation in speech production. Language and Speech, 36(2–3), 171–95.Google Scholar

Fowler, C. A. & Turvey, M. T. (1978). Skill acquisition: An event approach with special reference to searching for the optimum of a function of several variables. In Stelmach, G. E., ed., Information Processing in Motor Control and Learning. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Fowler, C. A., Rubin, P., Remez, R. & Turvey, M. (1980). Implications for speech production of a general theory of action. In Butterworth, B., ed., Language Production, Vol.1: Speech and Talk. London: Academic Press, pp. 373–420.Google Scholar

Fujimura, O. (1986). Relative invariance of articulatory movements: An iceberg model. In Perkell, J. S. & Klatt, D. H., eds., Invariance and Variability in Speech Processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 226–42.Google Scholar

Geng, C. (2010). A Cross-Linguistic Study on the Phonetics of Dorsal Obstruents. Doctoral dissertation, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Philosophische Fakultät II.Google Scholar

Goldinger, S. D. (1996). Words and voices: Episodic traces in spoken word identification and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1166–83.Google Scholar

Goldsmith, J. (1990). Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology. Maldon, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Goldstein, L., Chitoran, I. & Selkirk, E. (2007). Syllabic structure as coupled oscillator modes: Evidence from Georgian vs. Tashlhiyt Berber. In Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Germany: Saarbrücken, pp. 241–4.Google Scholar

Green, J. R., Moore, C. A. & Reilly, K. J. (2002). The sequential development of jaw and lip control for speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 66–79.Google Scholar

Harrington, J., Fletcher, J. & Roberts, C. (1995). Coarticulation and the accented/unaccented distinction: Evidence from jaw movement data. Journal of Phonetics, 23(3), 305–22.Google Scholar

Harrington, J., Kleber, F. & Reubold, U. (2008).Compensation for coarticulation, /u/-fronting, and sound change in standard southern British: An acoustic and perceptual study. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123(5), 25–2835.Google Scholar

Holt, L. L. & Kluender, K. R. (2000). General auditory processes contribute to perceptual accommodation of coarticulation. Phonetica, 57(2–4), 170–80.Google Scholar

Hombert, J. M., Ohala, J. J. & Ewan, W. G. (1979). Phonetic explanations for the development of tones. Language, 55, 37–58.Google Scholar

Hoole, P., Munhall, K. & Mooshammer, C. (1998). Do airstream mechanisms influence tongue movement paths? Phonetica, 55(3), 131–46.Google Scholar

Houde, R. (1968). A Study of Tongue Body Motion During Selected Speech Sounds. Speech Communications Research Laboratory, Santa Barbara, CA.Google Scholar

Iskarous, K. (2016). Compatible dynamical models of environmental, perceptual, and sensory systems. Ecological Psychology, 28, 295–311.Google Scholar

Iskarous, K. (2017). The relation between the continuous and the discrete: A note on the first principles of speech dynamics. Journal of Phonetics, 64, 8–20.CrossRef Google Scholar

Iskarous, K. & Kavitskaya, D. (2018). Sound change and the structure of synchronic variability: Phonetic and phonological factors in Slavic palatalization. Language, 94(1), 43–83.Google Scholar

Iskarous, K., Shadle, C. H. & Proctor, M. I. (2011). Articulatory–acoustic kinematics: The production of American English /s/. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 129(2), 944–54.Google Scholar

Iskarous, K., Mooshammer, C., Hoole, P., Recasens, D., Shadle, C. H., Saltzman, E. & Whalen, D. H. (2013). The Coarticulation/Invariance Scale: Mutual information as a measure of coarticulation resistance, motor synergy, and articulatory invariance. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 134, 1271–84.Google Scholar

Jakobson, R., Fant, G. & Halle, M. (1952). Preliminaries to Speech Analysis: The Distinctive Features and Their Correlates. Technical Report 13. Massachusetts, MA: Acoustics Laboratory, MIT.Google Scholar

Jones, D. (1932). Outline of English Phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Katsika, A., Whalen, D. H., Tiede, M. & King, H. (2015). Articulatory measures of planned and unplanned coarticulation. In Proceedings of the International Congress of the Phonetic Sciences, Glasgow.Google Scholar

Keating, P. A. (1990). The window model of coarticulation: articulatory evidence. Papers in Laboratory Phonology I, 26, 451–70.Google Scholar

Keating, P., Cho, T., Fougeron, C. & Hsu, C. S. (2004). Domain-initial articulatory strengthening in four languages. Phonetic Interpretation: Papers in Laboratory Phonology VI, 143–61.Google Scholar

Kim, J., Erickson, D., Lee, S. & Narayanan, S. (2014). A study of invariant properties and variation patterns in the Converter/Distributor model for emotional speech. In Proceedings of INTERSPEECH, 2014, ISCA, Singapore, pp. 413–17.Google Scholar

Kühnert, B. & Nolan, F. (1999). The origin of coarticulation. In Hardcastle, W. J. and Newlett, N., eds., Coarticulation: Theory, Data and Techniques. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 7–30.Google Scholar

Levelt, W. J. & Wheeldon, L. (1994). Do speakers have access to a mental syllabary?. Cognition, 50(1–3), 239–269.Google Scholar

Levelt, W. J., Roelofs, A. & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–38.Google Scholar

Lindblom, B. (1990). Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H&H theory. In Hardcastle, W. J. & Marchal, A., eds., Speech Production and Speech Modelling. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 402–39.Google Scholar

Löfqvist, A. (1999). Interarticulator phasing, locus equations, and degree of coarticulation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106(4), 2022–30.Google Scholar

Lotto, A. J. & Kluender, K. R. (1998). General contrast effects in speech perception: Effect of preceding liquid on stop consonant identification. Perception & Psychophysics, 60(4), 602–19.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Malécot, A. (1956). Acoustic cues for nasal consonants. Language, 32, 274–84.Google Scholar

Mattingly, I. G. (1981). Phonetic representation and speech synthesis by rule. In Myers, T., Laver, J. & Anderson, J., eds., The Cognitive Representation of Speech. Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 415–20.Google Scholar

Menzerath, P. & de Lacerda, A. (1933). Koartikulation, Steuerung und Lautabgrenzung. Berlin u. Bonn: Fred. Dümmlers.Google Scholar

Moll, K. L. & Daniloff, R. G. (1971). Investigation of the timing of velar movements during speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 50(2B), 678–84.Google Scholar

Mooshammer, C. & Fuchs, S. (2002). Stress distinction in German: Simulating kinematic parameters of tongue-tip gestures. Journal of Phonetics, 30(3), 337–55.Google Scholar

Mooshammer, C. & Geng, C. (2008). Acoustic and articulatory manifestations of vowel reduction in German. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 38(2), 117–36.Google Scholar

Mooshammer, C., Hoole, P. & Kühnert, B. (1995). On loops. Journal of Phonetics, 23(1–2), 3–21.Google Scholar

Mooshammer, C., Hoole, P. & Geumann, A. (2006). Interarticulator cohesion within coronal consonant production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 120(2), 1028–39.Google Scholar

Mooshammer, C., Hoole, P. & Geumann, A. (2007). Jaw and order. Language and Speech, 50(2), 145–76.Google Scholar

Munson, B. & Solomon, N. P. (2004). The effect of phonological neighborhood density on vowel articulation. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47(5), 1048–58.Google Scholar

Nam, H., Goldstein, L., Saltzman, E. & Byrd, D. (2004). TADA: An enhanced, portable Task Dynamics model in MATLAB. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115(5), 2430.Google Scholar

Nam, H., Goldstein, L. & Saltzman, E. (2009). Self-organization of syllable structure: A coupled oscillator model. In Pellegrino, F., ed., Approaches to Phonological Complexity. Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 299–328.Google Scholar

Nittrouer, S. & Whalen, D. (1989). The perceptual effects of child-adult differences in fricative-vowel coarticulation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 86(4), 1266–76.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Noiray, A., Ménard, L. & Iskarous, K. (2013). The development of motor synergies in children: Ultrasound and acoustic measurements. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133(1), 444–52.Google Scholar

Noiray, A., Abakarova, D., Rubertus, E., Krüger, S. & Tiede, M. (2018). How do children organize their speech in the first years of life? Insight from ultrasound imaging. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 61(6), 1355–68.Google Scholar

Ohala, J. J. (1983). The origin of sound patterns in vocal tract constraints. In MacNeilage, P. F., ed., The Production of Speech. New York: Springer, pp. 189–216.Google Scholar

Ohala, J. J. (1993). The phonetics of sound change. In Jones, C., ed., Historical Linguistics: Problems and Perspectives. London: Longman, pp. 237–78.Google Scholar

Öhman, S. E. G. (1966). Coarticulation in VCV utterances: Spectrographic measurements. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 39, 151–68.Google Scholar

Panconcelli-Calzia, G. (1924). Die experimentelle Phonetik in ihrer Anwendung auf die Sprachwissenschaft. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Paul, H. (1898). Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, 4th ed. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Pater, J. (2009). Weighted constraints in Generative Linguistics. Cognitive Science, 33, 999–1035.Google Scholar

Perrier, P., Payan, Y., Zandipour, M. & Perkell, J. (2003). Influences of tongue biomechanics on speech movements during the production of velar stop consonants: A modeling study. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114(3), 1582–99.Google Scholar

Recasens, D. (2014). Coarticulation and Sound Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Recasens, D. & Espinosa, A. (2009). An articulatory investigation of lingual coarticulatory resistance and aggressiveness for consonants and vowels in Catalan. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125(4), 2288–98.Google Scholar

Rousselot, P.-J. (1897–1901). Principes De Phonétique Experimentale, I-II. Paris: H. Welter.Google Scholar

Rubertus, E. & Noiray, A. (2018). On the development of gestural organization: A cross-sectional study of vowel-to-vowel anticipatory coarticulation. PLOS ONE, 13(9), e0203562.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Saltzman, E. & Munhall, K. (1989). A dynamical approach to gestural patterning in speech production. Ecological Psychology, 1, 333–82.Google Scholar

Scripture, E. (1902). The Elements of Experimental Phonetics. New York: Charles Scribners Sons.Google Scholar

Shadle, C. H. (1990). Articulatory–acoustic relationships in fricative consonants. In W. J. Hardcastle & A. Marchal, eds., Speech Production and Speech Modelling, vol. 55. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 187–209.CrossRef Google Scholar

Shadle, C., Proctor, M. I. & Iskarous, K. (2008). An MRI study of the effect of vowel context on English fricatives. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123(5), 3735.Google Scholar

Sievers, E. (1876). Grundzüge der Lautphysiologie zur Einführung in das Studium der Lautlehre der Indogermanischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.Google Scholar

Steriade, D. (1995). Underspecification and markedness. In Goldsmith, John A., ed., The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 114–74.Google Scholar

Stetson, R. (1951). Motor Phonetics: A Study of Speech Movements in Action. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar

Stevens, K. N. (1989). On the quantal nature of speech. Journal of Phonetics, 17, 3–46.CrossRef Google Scholar

Stevens, K. N. & Keyser, S. J. (1989). Primary features and their enhancement in consonants. Language, 65, 81–106.Google Scholar

Stevens, K. N. & Keyser, S. J. (2010). Quantal theory, enhancement and overlap. Journal of Phonetics, 38, 10–19.Google Scholar

Story, B. & Bunton, K. (2010). Relation of vocal tract shape, formant transitions, and stop consonant identification. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 1514–28.Google Scholar

Tillmann, H.-G. (1994). Phonetics, early modern, especially instrumental work. In Asher, R., ed., The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. 6. Oxford: Pergamon, pp. 3082–94.Google Scholar

Varley, R., Whiteside, S., Windsor, F. & Fisher, H. (2006). Moving up from the segment: A comment on Aichert & Ziegler’s syllable frequency and syllable structure in apraxia of speech, Brain & Language, 88, 148–159, 2004. Brain & Language, 96(2), 235–9.Google Scholar

Vennemann, T. (1974). Words and syllables in natural generative grammar. In Bruck, A., Fox, R. A. & La Galy, M. W., eds., Papers from the Parasession on Natural Phonology, April 18, 1974. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 346–74.Google Scholar

Walsh, M., Möbius, B., Wade, T. & Schütze, H. (2010). Multilevel exemplar theory. Cognitive Science, 34(4), 537–82.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Weinreich, U., Labov, W. & Herzog, M. I. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, W. P. & Malkiel, Y., eds., Directions for Historical Linguistics: A Symposium. Texas: University of Texas Press, pp. 95–188.Google Scholar

Whalen, D. H. 1990. Coarticulation is largely planned. Journal of Phonetics, 18, 3–35.Google Scholar