Anticipatory coarticulation and the minimal planning unit of speech.

Abstract

One of the most persistent arguments against the segment as the minimal planning unit is that the seemingly ubiquitous, thus, presumed obligatory, nature of anticipatory coarticulation (AC) effects favors the syllable or a larger unit. By contrast, we present the results of 3 experiments showing that AC is not ubiquitous, but graded and variable based on (a) phonological availability and (b) the specific criterion to initiate articulation adopted by a speaker. We further argue that phonological encoding is parallel. These results point to (a) the segment, and not the syllable, as the minimal planning unit and (b) a flexible planning scope. Implications with respect to the current formulation of AC regarding phonological availability and the minimal unit of speech articulation are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

Characterizing spoken responses in masked-onset priming of reading aloud using articulography

“…This is also consistent with a large body of work demonstrating that some aspects of coarticulation are pervasive and intrinsic to speech production and perception (Fowler & Saltzman, 1993;Goldstein & Fowler, 2003;Liberman, Cooper, Shankweiler & Studdert-Kennedy, 1967). However, Liu, Kawamoto, Payne, and Dorsey (2018) showed that some aspects of anticipatory coarticulation may be gradient in scope and degree, depending on the availability of information about an utterance, and speakers' approach to the task. Furthermore, in some circumstances, speech movements can be dissociated from higherlevel linguistic units: individual speech movements can be initiated before other movements involved in producing the same segment or syllable (Tilsen, Spincemaille, et al 2016), or halted before completion (Ladefoged, Silverstein, & Papçun, 1973;Tilsen & Goldstein, 2012).…”

“…Furthermore, in some circumstances, speech movements can be dissociated from higherlevel linguistic units: individual speech movements can be initiated before other movements involved in producing the same segment or syllable (Tilsen, Spincemaille, et al 2016), or halted before completion (Ladefoged, Silverstein, & Papçun, 1973;Tilsen & Goldstein, 2012). Speakers vary in how and how much they demonstrate preparatory articulation when information is available which facilitates anticipatory coarticulation (Liu et al, 2018;Tilsen et al, 2016), but these findings are inconsistent with models of speech production in which all aspects of speech timing and implementation are pre-organized entirely at the level of the segment or syllable.…”

On the timing and coordination of articulatory movements: Historical perspectives and current theoretical challenges

“…Of course, one could object that coarticulation might be optional between syllables but not within them. Liu, Kawamoto, Payne, and Dorsey (2018) conceptually replicated Whalen's (1990) findings within monosyllabic words. All words began with the sibilant /s/.…”

“…Speakers flexibly accommodate to changing circumstances by controlling the flow of articulation in real time. We see evidence for this not only in anticipatory posturing during delayed naming (Kawamoto et al, 2008; Tilsen et al, 2016), but in variable manifestation of coarticulation (Liu et al, 2018), and local warping of the articulatory and acoustic time course (e.g., Kawamoto et al, 2014).…”

Dissimilar Phonemes Create a Contextual Interference Effect During a Nonword Repetition Task

“…Linguistic and speech production models have postulated syllables as a programming unit (e.g., Levelt et al, 1999;Cholin et al, 2006). However, there is also significant evidence to suggest smaller programming units, e.g., phonemes, may influence speech production more overtly (e.g., Meigh, 2017;Liu et al, 2018;Meigh et al, 2018). These different interpretations influence the construction of stimuli and the variables controlled across stimuli sets in experimental studies of speech motor learning.…”