Elsevier

Journal of Phonetics

Volume 38, Issue 4, October 2010, Pages 625-639
Journal of Phonetics

The interaction between contrast, prosody, and coarticulation in structuring phonetic variability

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2010.09.004Get rights and content

Abstract

Russian maintains a contrast between non-palatalized and palatalized trills that has been lost in most Slavic languages. This research investigates the phonetic expression of this contrast in an attempt to understand how the contrast is maintained. One hypothesis is that the contrast is stabilized through resistance to coarticulation between the trill and surrounding vowels and prosodic positional weakening effects—factors expected to weaken the contrast. In order to test this hypothesis, we investigate intrasegmental and intersegmental coarticulation and the effect of domain boundaries on Russian trills. Since trills are highly demanding articulatorily and aerodynamically, and since Russian trills are in contrast, there is an expectation that they will be highly resistant to coarticulation and to prosodic influence. This study shows, however, that phonetic variability due to domain boundaries and coarticulation is systematically present in Russian trills. Implications of the relation between prosodic position and lingual coarticulation for the Degree of Articulatory Constraint (DAC) model, Articulatory Phonology, and the literature on prosodic strength are discussed. Based on the quantitative analysis of phonetic variability in Russian trills, we conjecture a hypothesis on why the contrast in trills is maintained in Russian, but lost in other Slavic languages. Specifically, phonological strategies used by several Slavic languages to deal with the instability of Proto-Slavic palatalized trills are present phonetically in Russian. These phonetic tendencies structure the variability of Russian trills, and could be the source of contrast stabilization.

Research Highlights

► Coarticulatory and prosodic variability are systematically present in the expression of Russian rhotics, but the palatalization contrast is maintained, and perhaps stabilized throughout the variabilities. ► Palatalization reduces the chance for multiple-pulse trilling. ► Multiple-pulse trilling is more probable at the domain edges than inside the domain. ► Phonological developments of the rhotics in other Slavic languages are phonetically expressed in Russian. ► It is conjectured that these phonetic tendencies act to stabilize the contrast in Russian.

Introduction

Two of the main constraints on the phonetic variability of segment realization are segmental contrast and degree of coarticulation resistance. The first constraint is phonological, and depends on the structure and density of the segmental inventory in a language, while the second constraint is based on physical and motor constraints on articulation. Specifically, dense segmental systems limit the amount of phonetic variability in segment realization (Manuel (1990), Manuel (1999)), and segments with a high degree of physical-motor constraint on their production (high resistance) exhibit less segmental variability (Recasens & Espinosa, 2009). We focus on Russian trills, which are part of a dense coronal system, with a primary and a secondary contrast, and are expected to have a high degree of coarticulation resistance, based on research on trills in other languages (Recasens (1991), Recasens (2006), Recasens & Pallarès (1999), Solé (2002a)). Due to the density of the contrastive system and the high degree of coarticulation resistance, these trills are expected to exhibit a small amount of phonetic variability, if the contrasts involved are not neutralized. The goal of this work is to investigate how two well-known sources of phonetic variability, coarticulation and prosodic boundary strengthening/weakening effects, interact with the two constraints on phonetic variability mentioned above. There is an extensive literature on both of these sources of phonetic variability and how various segments exhibit variability (Edwards, Beckman, & Fletcher (1991), Hardcastle & Hewlett (1999), Keating (2006), Shattuck-Hufnagel & Turk (1996)), however, there is little work on the interaction between coarticulation and prosody, as sources of variability, and their relation to both contrast and coarticulation resistance as limits on variability. Since the Russian segments investigated here are constrained simultaneously by linguistic contrast and high coarticulation resistance, they allow us to investigate the lower limit of variability due to coarticulation and prosodic boundaries. If the contrasts involved are not neutralized, can this variability be eliminated or minimized to an insignificant level due to the high physical-motor and linguistic constraints? This question assumes that the sources of variability and the limits on variability are in a zero-sum game, which can be won either by variability or by contrast. Is it possible, on the other hand, that the interaction between the sources and limits on variability is not zero-sum, but that marked variability and contrast can coexist? Investigation of the interaction between different sources and limits of phonetic variability allows us to begin to address these questions, which are important for a deeper understanding of the limits and structure of phonetic variability, the interaction between phonetics and phonology, and the interaction between physical-motor and linguistic constraints in phonetics.

The Russian trills /r/ and /rj/ are specified for apical and tongue dorsum gestures. As trills they are in contrast with other coronal segments that have a different manner of articulation, and additionally, there is a secondary place of articulation contrast between palatalized and non-palatalized trills. They also require complex conditioning of the tongue tissue to adjust tension and inertia of the part of the tongue that vibrates and the pressure and flow conditions required for the tissue-flow coupling that is necessary for vibration (Barry (1997), McGowan (1992), Solé (2002a), Solé (2002b)). Due to the involvement of Russian trills in a primary and secondary contrast, and to the articulatory and aerodynamic complexity of trills, two independent factors, it may be expected that these trills should exhibit little phonetic variability, since such variability could lead to phonetic similarity between the trills and coronal segments they contrast with. If the contrast is not neutralized contiguous to particular vowels or in specific positions, Russian trills should therefore be highly resistant to factors that would weaken the contrast, such as coarticulation between the trill and contiguous vowels and prosodic weakening due to domain boundaries. The expected resistance of trills to coarticulatory influence has indeed been documented in other languages. In comparing Catalan trills and taps, Recasens and Pallarès (1999) found that trills are more resistant to coarticulation than taps, and Recasens (2006) and Solé (2002a) found that even fricatives, which are usually highly resistant to coarticulation, will assimilate to a contiguous trill—an indication of their strength. The force of system-based contrasts in limiting phonetic variability has been documented previously for vowels and consonants (Manuel (1990), Manuel (1999)). Indeed Öhman's (1966) landmark study on coarticulation compared VCV coarticulation in American English, Swedish, and Russian and found that that coarticulatory patterns were different in Russian than in the other two languages. Öhman attributed this difference to the palatalization contrast. Even though this work is on palatalization blocking V-to-V coarticulation, not on the variability of the palatal gesture itself, this very blocking makes it likely that the palatal gesture is not affected by the surrounding vowels, since they are not affecting each other. Cho and Keating (2001) showed statistically significant but very small and “most likely imperceptible” effects of vowel-to-vowel coarticulation in Russian and Bulgarian (less so in Polish) in comparison to English, supporting Öhman's results. In addition, Barry (1991) and Zsiga (2002) compared heterosyllabic overlap in clusters in English and Russian and both found a great deal more overlap in English than in Russian, while Kochetov, Pouplier, and Son (2007) compared Russian to Korean and found more overlap in Korean consonant clusters than in Russian. Even earlier, Trubetzkoy (1939/1969) related the density and complexity of a contrastive system to the extent of phonetic variability for trills. He compared German trills, which are in contrast only with the laterals, to trills of Czech (Slavic) and Gilyak (PaleoSiberian), languages that contrast trills with several more segments, and noted that the phonetic reflexes of the trill in German are more varied than in the other languages (Dresher, 2009). Indeed, empirical work on trills in some dialects of Spanish, Catalan, Arop-Lokep (Austronesian), and other languages without the secondary place contrast (Díaz-Campos (2008), Lindau (1985), Raymond & Parker (2005), Recasens & Espinosa (2007)) have shown a relatively high level of variability. It is possible that different parts of the tongue have variable resistance to coarticulation aggression from surrounding segments, or that the presence of the secondary articulation is the main controlling factor. The goal of the present study is to investigate the contrast between /r/ and /rj/ in various vocalic and boundary contexts to examine how the two trills are systematically differentiated phonetically under these sources of variability.

One aim of the quantification of the interaction between the sources and limits on variability in Russian trills is to develop an understanding of why palatalization is often lost. Contrastive palatalization is pervasive in Slavic languages and in some other languages throughout the world. However, languages that use this contrast often lose it for trills (Hall (2000), Hock (1986), Kochetov (2002), Zygis (2004)). This has been attributed to a physiological difficulty in articulating palatalized trills: coronal trills require the tongue dorsum to be low and somewhat back, while palatalization requires it to be high and front (Hall (2000), Kavitskaya, Iskarous, Noiray, & Proctor (2009), Kochetov (2002), Recasens & Pallarès (1999), Zygis (2004)). The Proto-Slavic palatalized trill is unstable enough to have disappeared in most modern Slavic languages, through de-palatalization (Serbian), fricativization (Polish), or sequencing of the coronal and palatal portions (Slovenian). But Russian and a few other Slavic languages maintain this contrast. The phonetic study to be presented in this work shows that the pattern of contrast-structured phonetic variability in Russian trill is similar to the phonological variability in the reflexes of palatalized trills in Slavic languages. This allows us to propose the following conjecture: the contrast is maintained through several simultaneous phonetic tendencies that mimic the phonological strategies. That is, it is possible that the stability of the contrast in Russian is due to a very particular structuring of phonetic variability influenced by both linguistic and physical-motor limits on such variability.

The contrastive system of coronals is presented in Table 1a. Most consonants in Russian come in pairs with respect to the contrastive palatalization of the consonant, e.g., non-palatalized [t], as in [tomnɨj] ‘languid’, vs. palatalized [tj], as in [tjomnɨj] ‘dark’ (Timberlake, 2004). Exceptions include the glide [j], the voiceless affricates [ts] and [tʃ], and the fricative [ʒ]. Palatalization in Russian is contrastive in most environments.1 It is generally accepted that Russian non-palatalized consonants show some amount of velarization (Halle (1959), Kochetov (2002), Öhman (1966), Padgett (2001), Reformatskii (1967), Trubetzkoy (1939/1969) among many others). A magnetic resonance imaging investigation of palatalized vs. non-palatalized stops and spirants shows considerable backing of the tongue in the non-palatalized segments (Kedrova, Anisimov, Zaharov, & Pirogov, 2008).

Slavic languages provide a rich test case for the study of the de-palatalization of the trill. The palatalization of the Proto-Slavic trilled /rj/ is affected to different degrees in almost all Slavic languages. Table 1b shows the reflexes of the plain trill and the palatalized trill in modern Slavic (see also Kavitskaya, 1997).

While /r/ is preserved in all Slavic languages, /rj/ is retained in only a few of them. Table 1b demonstrates that the palatalized trill is completely lost in Belarusian (East Slavic), Polish, Czech, and Slovak (West Slavic), and Serbian, Croatian and Macedonian (South Slavic), partially lost in Ukrainian (East Slavic), Upper Sorbian (West Slavic), and Bulgarian (South Slavic), and fully preserved in Russian (East Slavic) and Lower Sorbian (West Slavic). Given that the de-palatalization of the trill occurred in all subgroups of Slavic to different extents and did not affect all Slavic languages, we can hypothesize that it is not a proto-Slavic sound change, but that it happened independently in different Slavic languages. We identify three strategies for the resolution of the conflict between trilling and palatalization in Slavic: De-palatalization of the trill (e.g., Serbian), fricativization (e.g., Polish), and sequential realization of coronal and palatal gestures (e.g., Slovenian).

The goal of this study is to investigate how coarticulation and prosodic boundaries affect the phonetic realization of the /r/–/rj/ contrast in Russian. In this subsection we discuss these sources of variability, and in the next subsection, we pose specific hypotheses that will be tested through the study. Regarding prosodic effects, we investigate whether utterance boundaries induce lengthening and strengthening effects seen in other languages (e.g., Byrd, Lee, Riggs, & Adams (2005), Byrd & Saltzman (2003), Cho & Keating (2001), Fujimura (2000), Gaitenby (1965); Keating, 2006; Keating, Cho, Fougeron, & Hsu (2003), Lehiste (1964), Oller (1973), Pierrehumbert & Talkin (1992), Wightman, Shattuck-Hufnagel, Ostendorf, & Price (1992)). These studies have shown that consonants near a domain boundary are lengthened, and there is evidence also of consonantal strengthening near boundaries. The association between lengthening and strengthening is predicted by several theories (Byrd & Saltzman (2003), Fujimura (2000), Lindblom (1963)): lengthening allows greater time to achieve the target, and hence leads to segments that meet their targets (stronger). For trills, strengthening would probably consist of having more vibrations per trill (Lavoie, 2001), and weakening would lead to a single vibration (tap) or approximation.

We also investigate consequences of gestural timing effects that are predicted to happen in onset vs. coda positions (Browman & Goldstein (1988), Gick, Campbell, Oh, & Tamburri-Watt (2006), Goldstein, Chitoran, & Selkirk (2007), Krakow (1999), Sproat & Fujimura (1993)). Specifically, Sproat and Fujimura predict that the more open gesture of a complex segment would be attracted towards the vowel. In this case, the palatal gesture, i.e., the secondary gesture, would be predicted to be closer to the vowel than the primary, the more constricted, apical gesture. Browman and Goldstein's theory would predict that if Russian behaves like English, onset gestures would be in 0-phase with the vowel, i.e., are synchronous with the vowel (termed the C-Center pattern), whereas coda gestures would be sequential with respect to the vowel. However, the theory also posits that onset gestures are in 180-phase relation, so there should be sequentiality within the onset. Kochetov (2006) examined the inter-gestural timing of the two coordinated oral gestures, Lips (responsible for labialization) and Tongue Body (responsible for palatalization) in the palatalized voiceless stop /pj/ in different syllable positions, and compared it to the timing of the same gestures in the combination of consonants /p/ and /j/. Kochetov (2006) found differences between different consonants in the onset and coda. With respect to timing, he showed that the gestures in the palatalized stop are more sequential in the onset position and more synchronous in the coda position. Specifically, he showed that the lag for the onset /pj/ is always positive, meaning that the Tongue Body gesture is always delayed with respect to the Lips, but in the coda /pj/ the lag is either positive or negative. This finding is in contrast to many studies of the C-Center phenomenon that show consonantal gestures in the onset to be less sequential than those in the coda (Goldstein et al., 2007), which suggests that perhaps Russian does not show the C-Center effect. In this work, we investigate the timing of the apical and palatal gestures and its possible variability due to context.

Moreover, we investigate whether predictions of Recasens's Degree of Articulatory Constraint (DAC) model regarding the possible blending of primary and secondary gestures within the trill and the coarticulatory influence from contiguous vowels hold for Russian trills (Recasens, Pallarès, & Fontdevila (1997), Recasens & Espinosa (2009)). DAC holds that segments with a highly constrained dorsum are subject to less effect from their context but induce greater effects on their context (high coarticulation resistance and high DAC value), while segments with less constraint on the dorsum experience more effects from their context and induce lesser effect (low coarticulation resistance and low DAC value). This model is based on a comparison of the amount of coarticulation that different Catalan consonants induce and undergo, but has been used to account for coarticulation in other languages (Geng & Mooshammer, 2004). In later research on Catalan taps and trills in intervocalic context using electropalatographic and acoustic techniques, Recasens and Pallarès (1999) showed that taps have low coarticulation resistance, while trills have high resistance. Several works by Recasens show that among vowels, /i/, with a palatal gesture, is the strongest vocalic gesture (e.g., Recasens & Espinosa, 2009), and that trills have a highly constrained tongue body gesture (Recasens & Pallarès, 1999) and a high DAC value. However, since the palatal gesture is more open (more vocalic), it still has a lower DAC than a consonantal gesture (Recasens & Espinosa, 2009). Recasens and Pallarès (2001) have shown in the particular case of Catalan that front alveolars and alveopalatals can assimilate to coronals with a retracted tongue body, including the trill, but not vice versa. There is therefore a prediction that the palatal gesture in /rj/, which is weaker and less constrained, could be weakened due to the high resistance of the apical trill aspect of the segment, neutralizing the contrast. However, an investigation of X-ray images of Russian palatalized coronals, excluding trills, by Keating (1993), has shown that for /t/, but not /s/, there is a retraction effect of the palatalization gesture on the apical gesture. But, trills have a higher resistance than /t/ and would probably not be as affected by palatalization.

DAC also makes predictions about intersegmental coarticulation between the trill and contiguous vowels. Due to the high level of constraint on the tongue dorsum for contrastive, aerodynamic, and physiological reasons, we expect Russian trills to be highly resistant to coarticulation.

/r/ and /rj/ share the apical gesture, which contrasts them with the other coronals, and they contrast in the presence or absence of a palatal gesture. The first hypothesis we investigate is that due to the dense contrastive system and the high resistance of the trills (two independent factors), there would be very little variability in their implementation. There are two predictions from this hypothesis: (1) the apical gesture, which is shared by /r/ and /rj/ would be implemented in the same way, as a full trill, to phonetically differentiate these two trills from non-trill coronals, and would therefore not be affected by coarticulatory or prosodic effects which could weaken the similarity between the trills; (2) the palatal gesture would be implemented in the same way in /rj/ regardless of the contiguous vowel, domain boundaries, and syllabic affiliation, so that the contrast between the two trills could be maximal in all positions. The second hypothesis we investigate is that domain boundaries would have strengthening effects on trills (initial and final), enhancing the palatal contrast between them, while domain-internal trills would be weakened, potentially neutralizing the contrast, and that coarticulation would have an effect on the production of both types of trills. The positional effect is predicted by the positional neutralization hypothesis (Steriade, 1994) and the phonological augmentation hypothesis (Smith, 2005), which predict that contrasts are enhanced in environments that strengthen segments and are neutralized in environments that weaken the segments. The predictions of this hypothesis are: (1) the apical gesture would be strengthened near the domain boundaries, i.e., realized as a full trill, while domain-internal trills would be weakened to taps or approximants word internally; (2) the palatal gesture would be strong and easily detectable near the domain boundaries, and weaker domain-internally, potentially neutralizing the phonetic differentiation due to the palatalization contrast. We therefore examine the predictions of two opposing hypotheses, the first expecting restriction of variability, and the other predicting significant variability.

Section snippets

Methods

Before presenting the technical details of data collection and analysis, we provide the rationale for using acoustic data, rather than direct articulatory measurements, to study the effect of prosodic position and contiguous vowel on the interaction between palatalization and trilling. In a previous study, ultrasound imaging was used to investigate tongue motion during Russian alveolar stops, non-palatalized trills, and palatalized trills (Kavitskaya et al., 2009). The goal was to determine the

Results

The goal of this section is to show how secondary articulation, coarticulation and prosodic boundaries affect the number of contacts, duration, and F2–F1 difference in Russian trills. Measurements will be presented separately for the number of contacts, the duration, and the tongue fronting. Figures will present averages across subjects and the tables present the statistical analysis.

Discussion

The most basic finding in this study is that the contrastive, aerodynamic, and physiological constraints on palatalized rhotics do not prohibit coarticulatory or prosodic variability. In this section, we summarize the various generalizations that have emerged in the last section. There are four types of effects on variability that have emerged—effects of boundaries (position), coarticulation, palatalization contrast, and syllable structure. Table 10 presents each of the generalizations,

Conclusion

The phonetic variability seen in this study is quite reminiscent of the phonological strategies used by the different Slavic languages to resolve the conflict between coronal and palatal gestures. There are several such strategies used. Some Slavic languages de-palatalize the trill, a phenomenon that we see no evidence for in Russian. Other Slavic languages de-trill /rj/. Russian appears not to de-trill, however, the generalizations related to the number of contacts show that /rj/ is far less

Acknowledgments

We thank D.H. Whalen, Tine Mooshammer, and Carol Fowler for many helpful comments regarding this study. All shortcomings of this work are due only to the authors. This work was supported by NIH NIDCD Grant 02717.

References (71)

  • Barry, M. C. (1991). Temporal modeling of gestures in articulatory assimilation. In Proceedings of the XIIth...
  • W. Barry

    Another r-ticle

    Journal of the International Phonetic Association

    (1997)
  • Blacklock, O. (2004). Characteristics of variation in production of normal and disordered fricatives, using...
  • C. Browman et al.

    Some notes on syllable structure in articulatory phonology

    Phonetica

    (1988)
  • D. Byrd et al.

    Interacting effects of syllable and phrase position on consonant articulation

    Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

    (2005)
  • T.R. Carlton

    Introduction to the phonological history of the Slavic languages

    (1991)
  • T. Cho

    Effects of prosody on articulation in English

    (2002)
  • J. Cohen

    A power primer

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1992)
  • M. Díaz-Campos

    Variable production of the trill in spontaneous speech: Sociolinguistic implications

  • B. Elan. Dresher

    The contrastive hierarchy in phonology

    (2009)
  • J. Edwards et al.

    The articulatory kinematics of final lengthening

    Journal of the Acoustical Society

    (1991)
  • G. Fant

    Acoustic theory of speech production

    (1960)
  • O. Fujimura

    The C/D model and prosodic control of articulatory activity

    Phonetica

    (2000)
  • Gaitenby, J. H. (1965). The elastic word. Haskins laboratories status report on speech research,...
  • C. Geng et al.

    The Hungarian palatal stop: Phonological considerations and phonetic data

    ZAS Papers in Linguistics

    (2004)
  • Goldstein, L., Chitoran, I., & Selkirk, E. (2007). Syllable structure as coupled oscillator modes: Evidence from...
  • M. Halle

    The sound pattern of Russian

    (1959)
  • W. Hardcastle et al.

    Coarticulation

    (1999)
  • H.H. Hock

    Principles of historical linguistics

    (1986)
  • R. Jakobson et al.

    Preliminaries to speech analysis: The distinctive features and their correlates. Technical Report 13

    (1952)
  • D. Kavitskaya

    Aerodynamic constraints on the production of palatalized trills: The case of the Slavic trilled [r]

  • D. Kavitskaya et al.

    Trills and palatalization: Consequences for sound change

  • P. Keating

    Phonetic representation of palatalization vs. fronting

    UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics

    (1993)
  • P. Keating

    Phonetic encoding of prosodic structure

  • P. Keating et al.

    Domain-initial articulatory strengthening in four languages

  • Cited by (28)

    • Diachronic phonological asymmetries and the variable stability of synchronic contrast

      2022, Journal of Phonetics
      Citation Excerpt :

      Previous research shows that some secondary palatalisation contrasts in consonants are more unstable than others (Kochetov, 2005; Iskarous & Kavitskaya, 2018). Palatalised rhotics, in particular, are cross-linguistically rare and prone to merger with non-palatalised rhotics (Hall, 2000), but laterals seem more robust to sound change (Iskarous & Kavitskaya, 2010). Word-final palatalisation contrasts are also more unstable than word-initial contrasts (Padgett & Ní Chiosáin, 2018).

    • Phonotactic restrictions condition the realization of vowel nasality and nasal coarticulation: Duration and airflow measurements in Québécois French and Brazilian Portuguese

      2018, Journal of Phonetics
      Citation Excerpt :

      For example, Manuel and Krakow (1984) compared English, Shona and Swahili, and claimed that vowel-to-vowel coarticulation is stronger in languages that have small inventories, since confusion could occur more easily when the vowel space is more crowded (Manuel, 1990; Manuel & Krakow, 1984). The claim that the size of inventories has a direct influence on coarticulation has since been revisited, and it is now uncontroversial that many other factors influence coarticulation (Beddor, 2009; Beddor, Harnsberger, & Lindemann, 2002; Iskarous & Kavitskaya, 2010; Mok, 2010, 2011, 2012; Recasens, Pallarès, & Fontdevila, 1997). For example, Mok (2011) investigated the effects of vowel duration and vowel quality on vowel-to-vowel coarticulation and found that although the phonological duration of Thai vowels did not impact coarticulation, /a/ was more susceptible to it than /i/ and /u/, a pattern that cannot be accounted for by the size of the inventory.

    • Differences in coda voicing trigger changes in gestural timing: A test case from the American English diphthong /aI/

      2016, Journal of Phonetics
      Citation Excerpt :

      Nevertheless, if a given gestural score does help to encode contrast, we would expect it to be relatively stable, even when other sources of variation are present. This expectation is consistent with previous findings demonstrating that segments generally resist the effects of co-articulation (Manuel, 1990; Öhman, 1966), and the effects of other sources of variability like phrase position (Iskarous & Kavitskaya, 2010), just in those instances when these effects would neutralize a contrast. Given this, we predict that changes in gestural timing should consistently occur for coda voicing contexts, even when other factors, such as phrase-final lengthening or changes in speech rate, have their own influence on articulatory dynamics.

    • Examination of the grooving patterns of the Czech trill-fricative

      2015, Journal of Phonetics
      Citation Excerpt :

      Furthermore, nonsense words have been successfully used by researchers before to examine different phonetic features (e.g. Pouplier & Beňuš, 2011) when it was crucial to control the surrounding environments. Corpuses of words in isolation have also been used succesfully by researchers (e.g. Iskarous & Kavitskaya, 2010) to research phonetic variation in consonants. It should also be noted that the EMA sensors did not detect a difference in the voicing contrast (i.e. no difference in degree of grooving for /s/ and /z/ or /ʃ/ and /ʒ/) despite a large body of literature which suggests a strong difference in the groove width (c.f. Liker & Gibbon, 2013 and the references within).

    • The effect of focus marking on supralaryngeal articulation - Is it mediated by accentuation?

      2014, Journal of Phonetics
      Citation Excerpt :

      The duration is shorter than predicted by stiffness in the Munhall et al. (1985) sense (peak velocity to maximum displacement), but the same in Cho's (2002, 2006) time-to-peak velocity measure of stiffness. This strategy of coarticulatory overlap is proposed by Beckman et al. (1992) for jaw kinematics, when comparing English accented and unaccented syllables, and it is also referred to in the literature as the degree of coarticulatory resistance when investigating the stabilisation or destabilization of paradigmatic contrasts between two sounds (Iskarous & Kavitskaya, 2010). There is a discussion in the literature whether target modifications (2a), rescaling (2c) or gestural overlap (2d) are the dominant strategies in producing kinematic changes under accent (Beckman et al., 1992; Cho 2005, 2006; de Jong et al., 1993; Harrington et al., 1995; Harrington et al., 2000), while so far pure stiffness variations have not been reported for accentuation (pure stiffness variation implies no change in displacement).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text