MODELS OF

COARTICULATION
FEATURE BASED, SYLLABLE,
ALLOPHONE BASED MODEL
Presenter:
Faculty:
Ms. Anupama Jayan
Dr. Priya M.B
CONTENTS

1 MODELS OF COARTICULATION - OVERVIEW

2 FEATURE BASED MODEL
3 SYLLABLE BASED MODEL
4 ALLOPHONE BASED MODEL
 COARTICULATION MODELS
Aim of coarticulation
theories:
To explain coarticulation & A
account for its origin, nature
and function.
Predict the process bridging
the invariant and discrete units
of representation to
articulation and acoustics.
Aim of
coarticulation
models
Explain how listeners
overcome coarticulatory
variability and recover the
underlying message.
 01

FEATURE BASED MODEL

 1. Each segmental input (phonemes,
Proponent: Henke (1966) phonetic segments, extrinsic
allophones) comprises set of features.
Assumptions
2. Features (or generative attributes) change
discreetly in time, provide information about
position & manner of articulatory targets.

3. Features are invariant with respect to phonetic environment.

4. All context-dependent variations of speech are produced

at a lower level.
 An input unit is conceptualized as a matrix of component features, which indeed are
more directly related to motor implementation than the input unit themselves.

Articulatory apparatus are

continuously seeking goals,
which change abruptly in time.
These individual goals
constitute overall configurative
goal of speech mechanism.
Model proposes a look-ahead
operator that scans the forthcoming
units to determine the next specified
feature.
 Though the articulators move towards the goals
specified by features, they seldom reach targets due
to temporal constraints (undershoot).

Carryover effects (L to R) of coarticulation are

influence of consonants on vowel as mechano-
inertial undershoot & is not programmed at input
level.
Anticipatory effects (R to L) comes about as the
result of an active forward scanning mechanism
based on a compatibility criterion for feature sets.
Mechano-inertial undershoot Active forward scanning

Passive mechanism Active mechanism

Carryover coarticulation Anticipatory coarticulation

SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION
 An articulatory feature for one segment can be PRINCIPLE OF
assumed earlier than the other feature for that COMPATIBILITY
segment if the feature does not contradict that of
preceding segment(s).

The information required for compatibility

adjustments, presumably comes from muscle
feedback or neural copies of motor commands
related to preceding sound which would help modify
motor commands for succeeding sounds.
 GAMMA LOOP
Planning of phonological
SYSTEM OF
information
MOTOR
CONTROL

Translating information into

series of spatial targets

Series of motor commands

Articulators
 GAMMA LOOP
Muscles have two sources of motor innervation: (a) alpha SYSTEM OF
system of large diameter motoneurons which activate MOTOR
extrafusal muscle fibers (b) gamma system of smaller CONTROL
diameter motoneurons which activate intrafusal muscle
fibers in muscle spindles.

Gamma loop appears to be a mechanism whereby a muscle can attain the

same position regardless of its length preceding the gamma command.

Closed-loop control of speech: a muscle can attain an invariant length by

action of a feedback loop controlled by the gamma motor system.
 GAMMA LOOP
Gamma motor loop SYSTEM OF
(a) provides positional commands to the muscles MOTOR
(b) gives information about moment-to-moment CONTROL
information about muscle state which may be
necessary in a mechanism achieving motor
equivalence
(c) provides predictive information about the behavior of
the muscle.

Gamma control of running speech would probably require different

sets of commands being issued by the gamma motor system about
every 70 milliseconds. Its role has been most evident in tonic or
postural control (Tokizane & Shimazu, 1964)
 Features
KEY
COMPONENTS
Scanning mechanism OF MODEL
Mechano-inertial
undershoot

Principle of
compatibility
Gamma loop system
of motor control
Study by Benqueral & Cowan (1974)
Benqueral & Cowan (1974) used the feature based model to explain their data on
forward coarticulation of lip protrusion in French.

I s t r s t r y Phonetic sequence

+ o o o o o o + Phonemic level - vowel (+) consonant (o)

- + + + + + + + Feature specification at articulatory goal level

SCANNING
MECHANISM
● Unrounded vowel /I/ is articulated
● Look-ahead operator scans forward until it
reaches the next specified value of lip
protrusion feature which occurs for the
rounded vowel /y/
● Articulation of 6 non-labial consonants is
compatible with lip rounding
● Protrusion may begin with first
consonant /s/ in sequence.
● Thus, F-B model predicts that the
protrusion gesture will begin with the
articulatory movements of the first /s/.
 ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

Can be complex and challenging to

Detailed analysis of articulatory gestures
implement

Predict how speech sounds are influenced Difficult to develop precise computational
by their phonetic context. models

Provide a framework for understanding

May not generalize well to all linguistic
coarticulatory phenomena in different
contexts or all speakers.
linguistic contexts.
SYLLABLE & ALLOPHONE
BASED MODEL
These models differ in the nature of their input units but are
similar in that coarticulatory effects are an inherent part of
their programming.
 02
SYLLABLE BASED
MODEL
CV Model (Kozhevnikov & Chistovich, 1965)

This model focuses on the organization and timing of articulatory gestures within
syllables, which are fundamental units of speech production.

According to this model, motor programming of speech is discontinuous at certain

intervals, namely, following the production of any given vowel.

After a vowel is encountered, a

new programming unit begins.
CV Model (Kozhevnikov & Chistovich, 1965)

From recordings of speech movements in Russian

subjects, they observed that gestures of lip protrusion for
consonant clusters preceding rounded vowels began
simultaneously with the first consonant in the sequence.

Kozhevnikov & Chistovich (1965) assumed that range of

t u
forward coarticulation mirrors in direct fashion the size of
the programming unit of articulation. s t u
s k R u
VCV Model (Ohman, 1966)
Speech production involves the slow,
Vowel and consonant articulations are
steady diphthongal movements of the
considered to be largely independent of
tongue body from vowel to vowel with
each other at the level of neural
superimposed articulatory gestures for the
instructions.
consonants.

Consonant gestures co-articulate with the

vowels, depending on the degree of tongue
involvement in their production while the
V C V C V C
vowels co-articulate with each other across
medial consonants.
 VCV Model (Ohman, 1966)

Input for VCV syllable model for the utterance ‘a

stew’ this would presumably be organized into one
V C C V
unit, /astu/.

Since a number of consonants can occur between

vowels in one articulatory sequence, co-articulation
could be programmed for a number of sounds in
both directions.
a s t u
 Ohman (1966) Spectrographic study

Ohman's (1966) spectrographic study of V 1CV2 utterances

revealed that the acoustic characteristics of the first vowel V 1 were
influenced by the trans-consonantal vowel V 2 .

Thus, articulatory configuration for V 1 was dependent to some

degree on the articulatory requirements for V 2.
 ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

Defining syllable boundaries can be

Explains anticipatory and carryover
ambiguous, especially in languages with
coarticulation, syllable boundaries, timing
complex phonological structures or variable
more effectively
syllable patterns.

Primarily focuses on coarticulation within

Applicable across a wide range of individual syllables and may not fully
languages and speech contexts account for coarticulatory effects that
extend across syllable boundaries.
 03

ALLOPHONE BASED
MODEL
Proponent: Wickelgren (1969)
Hit Tip Little
Allophones - basic unit of coarticulation.

Same phoneme can be different in Coarticulation is inextricably woven

different phonemic contexts at all levels - into the neural fabric of speech and is
acoustic, vocal tract, motor neuron the most central level of the speech
levels. production process.

Wickelgren explains that coarticulation Wickelgren attributes all

is presumably learned and stored in coarticulatory effects to central
the brain as an exhaustive listing of nervous control and ignores
contextual possibilities. mechanical inertial factors
completely.
 ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

Model can be complex as identifying and

Can capture the fine-grained phonetic detail
analyzing allophones requires careful
of coarticulation effects
consideration of phonetic detail

Variations in phonetic structure,

Helps researchers understand the
phonological processes, language-specific
underlying phonological rules
articulatory strategies can limit the
applicability

Applicable across a wide range of May not always generalize across

languages and speech contexts. languages or speech contexts
REFERENCES:
1. Bernthal & Bankson (1981). Articulation disorders. San Diego, Singular Publishing Group.
2. Hardcastle, W.J. & Hewlett, N. (1999). Coarticulation – Theory, Data and Techniques. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
3. Hardcastle, W.J. & Laver, J. (1999). The Handbook of Phonetic Sciences. Massachusetts: Blackwell
Publishers.
4. Kent, R. D., & Minifie, F. D. (1977). Coarticulation in recent speech production models. Journal of
Phonetics, 5(2), 115–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0095-4470(19)31123-4
5. Kühnert, B., & Nolan, F. (1999). The origin of coarticulation. In Cambridge University Press eBooks
(pp. 7–30). https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511486395.002