On redefining coarticulation

Abstract: The notion of a process of coarticulation depends on the notion of segment. If segments are mentalistic in nature, then, perforce, so is coarticulation. But in that case coarticulation is not distinguishable from assimilation, and the need for ‘coarticulation’ as a separate process ceases to exist. Objecting to the demise of coarticulation, Schouten & Pols (1979) and Fowler (1980) have attempted to redefine coarticulation. Both fail, however. Fowler’s notion of ‘coproduction’ is internally incoherent, in that the articulation of her basic premisses leads to contradictions. Both accounts are externally incoherent, in that their attempts to equate segments with physical events entail a category mistake. The concept of coarticulation is analyzed in light of three archetypical models of the phoneme–allophone relationship, the presuppositions underlying them, the type-token distinction, and the concept of segment.