The transition model (i) of classical phonetics distinguished between inevitable transitions between momentary target configurations (called coarticulation by Menzerath and Lacerda in 1933) and assimilation extending over a larger domain than a transition, implying reorganization of the input. By the 1950s it was clear that coarticulation extended beyond target configurations and involved more than two phonemes, and sub-cortical tug-of-war models (ii) came to be preferred, based on competition between phonemes for muscles and articulator movement [e.g., Öhman, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 39, 151–168 (1966)] and seeing coarticulation and assimilation as synonymous. Finally (iii) gesture queuing models [e.g., Kozhevnikov and Chistovich, Speech Articulation and Perception (1965)] delay gestures that are antagonistic to on-going activity, implying a cortical scanning procedure to survey on-coming input. Examples of articulator timing, analyzed from x-ray motion films of speech, are presented that favor (iii) rather than (ii). It is argued that much current controversy over coarticulation can be avoided if a cortical level of motor control and the distinction between coarticulation and assimilation were accepted again. The procedures and some data are presented in Wood [J. Phon. 19, 281–292 (1991)]. Poster presentation.
|Enheter & grupper
- Jämförande språkvetenskap och lingvistik
|Titel på värdpublikation||Journal of the Acoustical Society of America|
|Förlag||Acoustical Society of America|
|Status||Published - 1994|
|Peer review utförd||Ja|