Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T15:20:31.846Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Coarticulation

from Section I - Segmental Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2021

By
Khalil Iskarous  and
Christine Mooshammer
Edited by
Rachael-Anne Knight  and
Jane Setter
Rachael-Anne Knight
Affiliation:
City, University of London
Jane Setter
Affiliation:
University of Reading
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

coarticulationdynamical systemsspeech productionTask DynamicsExemplar TheoryArticulatory PhonologyloopsAcoustic Kinematics
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Phonetics , pp. 106 - 132
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broad, D. & Fertig, R. (1970). Formant frequency trajectories in selected CVC syllable nuclei. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 47, 1572–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fougeron, C. (2001). Articulatory properties of initial segments in several prosodic constituents in French. Journal of Phonetics, 29(2), 109–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, C. A. (1980). Coarticulation and theories of extrinsic timing control. Journal of Phonetics, 8, 113–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, C. A. (1996). Listeners do hear sounds, not tongues. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99(3), 1730–41.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×