Coronal Place Contrasts in Argentine and Cuban Spanish. an Electropalatographic Study

Coronal place contrasts in Argentine and CubanSpanish: An electropalatographic study

Alexei Kochetov & Laura ColantoniUniversity of Toronto, Canada

[email protected]@utoronto.ca

Theoretical and descriptive work on Spanish phonetics and phonology has been largelybased on Peninsular varieties. This study uses electropalatography (EPG) to investigatearticulatory characteristics of coronal consonant contrasts in Argentine and Cuban Spanish.Simultaneous EPG and acoustic data were collected from five speakers from Buenos Aires(Argentina) and three speakers fromHavana (Cuba) reading sentenceswith various syllable-initial coronal consonants corresponding to the orthographic t, ch, n, n, s, z, ll, y, l, r. Asa control, the same data were collected from a single speaker of Peninsular Spanish fromMadrid. As expected, the main distinction in both varieties was made between anteriorand posterior coronal consonants ((denti-)alveolars vs. (alveolo-)palatals) and reflectedthe historical merger of the sounds represented by sz and lly. At the same time,the results revealed some consistent differences between the two varieties in the locationof the constriction and the amount of linguopalatal contact for most coronal consonants.First, the coronal consonants produced by the Argentine speakers were overall considerablymore fronted and more constricted than the corresponding consonants produced by theCuban speakers. Second, ll, y were produced as a fronted alveolo-palatal fricative by theArgentine speakers, and as an approximant by the Cuban speakers. Inter-speaker variationwas observed within the varieties in the articulation of some consonants, namely in theArgentine alveolo-palatal fricative and nasal (ll, y and n), and the Cuban alveolo-palatalaffricate ch.

1 IntroductionMany previous phonetic and phonological studies of Spanish consonants have been basedprimarily on auditory transcriptions and acoustic analysis (Navarro Tom as 1918, AlarcosLlorach 1965, Quilis 1993). There have been very few articulatory investigations of Spanish,and most of these works have been designed either to test specific hypotheses (Romero1995, Honorof 1999, Lavoie 2001), or studied exclusively a single variety, Peninsular Spanish(Fern andez Planas 2007,Mart nez Celdr an& Fern andez Planas 2007). The precise realizationof Spanish consonant contrasts, the extent of phonetic variation across other varieties ofSpanish, and differences between these varieties and Peninsular Spanish are still relativelypoorly understood. Given this, there is a strong need for cross-dialectal phonetic studiesto support or reject previous generalizations. This study uses electropalatography (EPG)to investigate articulatory characteristics of coronal consonant contrasts in two relatively

Journal of the International Phonetic Association (2011) 41/3 C International Phonetic Associationdoi:10.1017/S0025100311000338

314 Alexei Kochetov & Laura Colantoni

understudied varieties of Spanish Argentine Spanish from Buenos Aires and Cuban Spanishfrom Havana. The focus of the study is on place and manner of articulation, and specificallyon similarities and differences between Argentine and Cuban Spanish, as well as betweenthese two varieties and Peninsular Spanish.

1.1 Coronal contrasts in Spanish

1.1.1 Inventory and realizationsThe consonant inventory of Standard Peninsular Spanish is presented in Table 1 (based onMart nez Celdr an, Fern andez Planas & Carrera Sabat e 2003; see also Navarro Tom as 1918,Quilis 1993). This variety has 12 coronal consonants (highlighted in the table) that fall intothree general place classes (dental, alveolar, and palatal) and seven manner classes (plosive,affricate, nasal, tap, trill, fricative, and lateral approximant). These consonants are illustratedin the list just below Table 1 (also from Mart nez Celdr an et al. 2003: 255). There are someadditional, non-contrastive differences in place and tongue shape: // is interdental, /t d/ arelaminal denti-alveolars (i.e. [t5 5d]), while /n s l R r/ are apical alveolars. In certain contexts,/d/ is realized as an interdental approximant [4]. The voiced palatal phoneme // (or / /depending on the analysis) is realized as an affricate after a pause, a nasal, or [l] ([elj "at5e]el yate the yacht), and as a palatal approximant [ ] in all other contexts ([mi " ate] mi yatemy yacht (Mart nez Celdr an et al. 2003: 258). Although works on phonology and phoneticsstill include the palatal lateral // as part of the consonantal inventory of Peninsular Spanish,in most varieties this phoneme has merged with // and is being realized as a palatal affricateor approximant, depending on the characteristics of the preceding context, as in the case of// (Mart nez Celdr an et al. 2003; Hualde 2005: 180).

Table 1 Consonant inventory of Standard Peninsular Spanish and words illustrating coronal contrasts.

Bilabial Labiodental

Dental(interdental& denti-alveolar)

Alveolar(apical)

Palatal(alveolo-palatal &palatal) Velar

Plosive p b t d k gAffricate Nasal m n Tap RTrill rFricative f s xLateralapproximant

l ()

/t/ ["t5opo] topo mole // ["koe] coche car/d/ [d5aR] dar to give // ["at5e] yate yacht

/n/ ["nuka] nuca nape // ["kaa] cana cane// ["ona] zona zone /s/ ["sola] sola alone

/R/ ["peRo] pero but/r/ ["pero] perro dog/l/ [lu] luz light // [a"ia" i] all there

The classification of Standard Peninsular Spanish consonants shown in Table 1 is largelyuncontroversial and goes back to the early descriptive phoneticwork byNavarroTom as (1918),

Coronal place contrasts in Argentine and Cuban Spanish 315

whose observations were in part based on static palatography.1 Much of the subsequentphonetic (mainly acoustic) and phonological work on Spanish has maintained its focusprimarily on the Peninsular variety, while other varieties, and particularly Latin AmericanSpanish, have received considerably less attention. One of the main well-known differencesbetween Standard Peninsular Spanish and Latin American varieties of Spanish, such asArgentine and Cuban, is the absence of the dental/alveolar contrast in fricatives, // vs./s/ (represented in orthography by za, zo, zu, ce, ci and s). While in the northern andcentral parts of Spain the original Medieval Spanish affricates /ts dz/ and fricatives /s z/have evolved into // vs. /s/, respectively, in southern Spain, the Canary Islands, and LatinAmerica all four consonants have merged into a single fricative phoneme, generally /s/ (e.g.Lloyd 1994). As a result of this merger, for example, the initial consonants in zona zone andsola alone are pronounced with [s]: [sona] and [sola] (see examples immediately belowTable 1 above). The realization of /s/ in the merging varieties is usually laminal rather thanapical (Mart nez Celdr an et al. 2003: 258). The interdental realization of both za, zo, zu, ce,ci and s is also attested in some varieties, including those spoken in parts of Cuba (e.g.[ona] and [ola]). This phenomenon is referred to as ceceo (the use of [], as opposedto seseo the use of [s]; Quilis 1993: 283286; Navarro Tom as 1918: Section 106). MostLatin American varieties are also characterized by a consistent merger of the lateral andnon-lateral palatals / / (orthographically represented as ll, y), the phenomenon knownas yesmo (Quilis 1993: 314321; Navarro Tom as 1918: Section 106).2 As a result, bothoriginal consonants are realized as [] or [ ] depending on the context, as in innovativevarieties of Peninsular Spanish (see above). In Argentine Spanish, however, the consonantis an alveolo-palatal fricative /Z/ or /S/, with the voicing or voicelessness of the consonantbeing sociolinguistically conditioned (e.g. [Zate] or [Sate], [a"Zi] or [a"Si]; Wolf & Jim enez1979, Wolf 1984). Among other differences in coronals is the variable realization of thepalatal affricate (the orthographic ch) as an affricate [] or a fricative [S]. The latter variantis attested intervocalically in Caribbean Spanish (Cuban, Dominican Republic, and PuertoRican), as well as in some South American varieties, such as Chilean (Quilis 1993: 302304).Some additional differences have been observed in the realization of rhotics, including theassibilated realization of trills in several Latin American varieties (Bradley 1999, Colantoni2001) and the neutralization of the lateralrhotic contrast in codas, in particular in CaribbeanSpanish (see Quilis 1993, Hualde 2005). Overall, however, there is little information oncross-dialectal differences involving coronal consonants. In fact, many of these consonants(the coronal stops /t d/, the fricative /s/, the nasals /n /, and the liquids /l R/) in varieties suchas Argentine and Cuban are traditionally described as similar to Peninsular Spanish (Quilis1993).

1.1.2 Instrumental articulatory studiesWhile there have been a number of instrumental articulatory studies involving Spanish(Romero 1995, Honorof 1999, Lavoie 2001), there seems to be only one systematic

1 There has been some debate on the classification of /t d/ and the realization of the orthographic y.Whereas some authors have described the former as apico-dental (see Men endez Pidal 1918, Hualde2005), Fern andez Planas & Mart nez Celdr an (1997) and Mart nez Celdr an (2008: 4344) provide EPGdata showing that these sounds are laminal denti-alveolars. Although the intervocalic variant of y hasbeen traditionally described as a fricative (Navarro Tom as 1918: Section 120; Quilis 1993: 252253),others have argued that it is more appropriate to classify this allophone of // as an approximant dueto the lack of noise in the acoustic signal (Hualde 2005: 165; Mart nez Celdr an 2008: 36). Researchersalso disagree on whether the affricate variant is a true palatal [] (Mart nez Celdr an et al. 2003) oralveolo-palatal [] (Quilis 1993).

2 Note that the contrast is still maintained in some areas, although with somewhat different phoneticrealizations. For example, in Paraguay and Northeastern Argentine Spanish, the contrast is between apalatal lateral and a palatal affricate. In areas in contact with Quechua, instead, the contrast is between apost-alveolar sibilant /Z/ and a palatal fricative // (see Lipski 1994).


Figure 1 Linguopalatal profiles for Peninsular Spanish coronal consonants based on data from a representative speaker fromFernandez Planas (2007: 51, 61).

investigation of Spanish coronal contrasts to date the work by Ana Mar a Fern andez Planas(her Ph.D. dissertation and related publications, Fern andez Planas 2000, 2007, 2008;Mart nezCeldr an & Fern andez Planas 2007). In this work, the author employed electropalatography(EPG) to examine the production of coronal consonants by four speakers of PeninsularSpanish (who were from a variety of locations in Spain). The EPG method captures thecontact between the tongue and the palate (from the alveolar ridge to the pre-velar region)thus allowing a fairly fine-grained characterization of most coronal constrictions. Figure 1shows linguopalatal contact profiles for coronals produced by a representative speaker fromFern andez Planas (2007) in the context ["a_a] (see Figures 8 and 14, pages 51 and 61 inthe work cited here). These profiles represent averages over several repetitions and weretaken at the point of maximum contact during the constriction. The rows of the palate canbe assigned to specific articulatory regions: front alveolar (rows 12), post-alveolar (rows34), and palatal (more specifically, prepalatal/mediopalatal and postpalatal: rows 57 and 8)(following Fontdevila, Pallar es & Recasens 1994). It can be seen that for /t/ the constrictionis in the first two rows showing an extensive side contact, thus representing a laminal front


alveolar or denti-alveolar articulation. The constrictions for /s n l R r/ are somewhat furtherback, taking up a single row or two (specifically, rows 2 and 3 or 3 and 4). This showsthat these consonants are apical alveolars or post-alveolars. Unlike the other consonants,/s/ is characterized by wide central opening. The consonants that are usually categorized aspalatal (see Table 1) vary in the precise location of the constriction, which is at rows 15for //, at rows 26 for //, at rows 14 for //, and at rows 67 for [ ] (an allophone of //).However, all of these consonants are characterized by a high degree of contact particularlyin the palatal region, in stark contrast with more anterior consonants such as [t s n l R r].They, therefore, represent alveolo-palatal (/ /) or palatal articulations ([ ]) (Fern andezPlanas 2007: 5971), thus supporting the traditional general classification of these consonantsshown in Table 1 and the initial observations of Navarro Tom as (1918) based on staticpalatography.3

Similar coronal contrasts in other Romance varieties have been investigated usingEPG in anumber of works. Among these are the palatal nasal and lateral, and their alveolar counterpartsin Catalan and Italian (Recasens, Farnetani, Fontdevila & Pallar es 1993), the trill and the tap inCatalan (Recasens&Pallar es 1999), and other coronal contrasts of Catalan, Italian, and French(Recasens, Pallar es& Fontdevila 1997, Corneau 2000, Payne 2006). For Catalan, for example,data from five speakers revealed that /n/ was most commonly articulated at rows 2 or 3 (apicalalveolar/post-alveolar), / / most commonly showed occlusion at rows 35 (alveolo-palatal),and /j/ at rows 68 (palatal). The Catalan tap and trill tended to show a narrow and oftenincomplete closure at rows 3 or 4 (apical post-alveolar); the fricative /s/ was articulated in thesame region, having a relatively wide central channel (apical alveolar/post-alveolar), whilethe affricate // had a closure extending through rows 35 and a considerable lateral palatalcontact (alveolo-palatal) (Recasens et al. 1993, 1997; Recasens & Pallar es 1999, 2001).4

These results point to considerable similarity between Catalan and Peninsular Spanish in thearticulatory realization of similar coronal contrasts (Fern andez Planas 2007). At the sametime, EPG investigations have revealed some systematic articulatory differences betweenclose varieties of the same language, such as Majorcan and Valencian Catalan (Recasens& Espinosa 2006a, 2007). Specifically, it was found that posterior sibilant affricates andfricatives / S Z/ in Valencian were consistently more anterior and had less dorsopalatalcontact than their counterparts in Majorcan. As a result, the articulatory contrast between thealveolar and post-alveolar sibilants ([ts dz s z] vs. [ S Z]) was considerably reduced inValencian, showing some signs of neutralization in the case of the affricates. These resultsare interesting, as they demonstrate that dialects of a language sharing the same phonemiccategories may differ significantly in the phonetic realization of these categories, and suchdifferences are important for understanding the historic development and the synchronicsystem of phonological contrasts in the language.

In the current study we use the same method, EPG, to examine coronal consonants fromtwo relatively phonetically unexplored varieties of Spanish Argentine and Cuban. Basedon previous descriptions of dialectal variation in Spanish consonants, we would expect thatspeakers of Argentine and Cuban Spanish would differ from Peninsular Spanish speakers inthe absence of the inderdental/dental fricative contrast (za, zo, zu, ce, ci and s) and thelateral/non-lateral palatal contrast (ll and y). At the same time, the two groups are expectedto differ in the details of realization of at least the latter: the consonant corresponding to ll, yshould be realized as a palato-alveolar fricative (with variable voicing) by Argentine speakersand as a palatal affricate or approximant by the Cuban speakers. The affricate ch is alsoexpected to show some variable fricative realization in Cuban productions. In other respects,

3 See Navarro Tom as (1918) for drawings of the tonguepalate contact for the corresponding consonantsobtained using static palatography: Sections 98, 105, 110, 111, 115123.

4 Incomplete closures for taps and trills have also been reported in acoustic studies on several Spanishvarieties (Hammond 1999, Blecua 2001, Colantoni 2006).


there are no particular reasons to expect the results for both groups to differ significantly fromeach other, or from those from Peninsular Spanish reported in Fern andez Planas (2007). Tomake the comparison between the two Latin American varieties and Peninsular Spanish moreexplicit, we also collected comparable data from a single speaker from Madrid, Spain.

2 Method

2.1 ParticipantsFive speakers of Argentine Spanish (four female: A1, A2, A3, A4; one male: A5), threespeakers of Cuban Spanish (all female: C1, C2, C3), and one Peninsular Spanish speaker(female: P1) were recruited for the study. The participants age ranged between 23 and 49years (average 39 years). To minimize sociolinguistic variation, care was taken to ensure thatthe speakers of each variety were from the same location and similar socio-economic status.All the Argentine speakers were born and raised in Buenos Aires, while the Cuban speakers inHavana; the Peninsular Spanish speaker was from Madrid. All the participants had universityeducation and at the time of the experiment were residing in Toronto, Canada. All of themhave lived outside their native countries from two to six years (average four years), exceptfor A3 and P1 who have been residing in English-speaking countries for 10 and 15 years,respectively. All the participants reported to use Spanish extensively on a daily basis, andhave been regularly visiting their home countries. None of the participants reported having ahistory of hearing or speech difficulties.

An artificial EPG palate with 62 electrodes was custom-made for each of the participants.In order to check for individual differences, the height and length of all palates weremeasured.(These measurements will be referred to in the presentation of the results where appropriate.)Prior to the recording, the speakers underwent a desensitization period during which theywere asked to read a text and to have an extended conversation with the second author. Therecording began when the participants were judged by this author, a native speaker of Spanish,to have normal undistorted speech.

2.2 Speech materialThe stimuli consisted of words with coronal consonants shown in Table 2, grouped by fourgeneral manner categories: stop/affricate, nasals, continuants, and liquids. Here and belowwe will use orthographic labels to refer to the consonants whose realization is expected tobe different in the examined varieties of Spanish (see the examples and discussion in the lastparagraph of Section 1.1.1). Recall that s, z, ll, y refer to two phonemes in the investigatedvarieties, but to four phonemes in the conservative Central and Northern Peninsular Spanish.All target consonants in the stimuli were word-initial, except for //, which rarely occursin this position, and /R/, which never occurs there. All the consonants were followed by thestressed vowel /a/. The stimuli were randomized and produced in a carrier phrase Diga __otra vez Say ___ again. The reading list also included other stimuli elicited for a separatestudy. The participants were instructed to read the sentences at a normal, casual speaking rate.

2.3 Instrumentation and procedureSimultaneous articulatory and acoustic data were collected using a WinEPG system byArticulate Instruments (Wrench, Gibbon, McNeill & Wood 2002). Articulatory data weresampled at 100 Hz, while acoustic data were sampled at 22,050 Hz. Recording took place atthe Linguistics Phonetics Lab at the University of Toronto. The recordings were done in twoseparate sessions, with six repetitions of each sentence elicited per session. For C2 and C3


Table 2 Target consonants and words examined in the study.

Expected realization

Target consonant Word Gloss Argentine Cuban

Stop/affricate /t/ tajo cut 5t 5tch chata flat S

Nasals /n/ nada nothing n n// pestanar to blink

Continuants s saga saga s sz zanja ditch s sll llave key SZ 4jy yale brand of keys SZ 4j

Liquids /l/ laca shellac l l/R/ arar to plow R R/r/ rato while r r

Although this word is frequently spelled this way in Latin America (Collins Spanish Dictionary, 2011), the standard spelling given by the Diccionario de la lengua espanola (RealAcademia espanola 2001) is pestanear. None of the participants have commented on the non-standard spelling and appeared to produce n in this word the same way as in otherwords with the same consonant (e.g. pestana and canon). However, the details of pronunciation of both // and the sequence /n/ + /ea/ ([nja]) in Argentine Spanish require amore systematic investigation, as the contrast is reported to be neutralized (e.g. Malmberg 1950). An approximant rather than an affricate realization for ll and y was expected since the consonant occurs intervocalically (see Section 1.1.1).

only one session was held. This has resulted in 1,056 tokens for analysis (11 stimuli 12repetitions 7 participants + 11 stimuli 6 repetitions 2 participant).

2.4 Data analysisThe Articulate Assistant software (http://www.articulateinstruments.com/) was used for datacollection, segmentation, annotation, and analysis. For all target consonants the onset andoffset of the constriction was determined based on the following articulatory and acousticcriteria: the first and the last frames of a complete articulatory closure (a full row of electrodes)for stops, nasals, /l/, and the rhotics (if appropriate), and the onset and offset of fricative noisefor fricatives.5 For affricates, the closure was taken to be an interval between the first frameof a complete articulatory closure and the onset of fricative noise; the frication was basedon the onset and offset of fricative noise. For each constriction we further identified themidpoint and the point of maximum contact (PMC) the frame with the highest numberof on electrodes. If more than one such frame occurred, we selected the one closer tothe midpoint. Measurements of the tonguepalate contact were made at PMC for all theconsonants, except affricate releases, which were measured at the frication midpoint (seeRecasens & Espinosa 2006a).6 Extracted PMC data were converted to several articulatoryindices described below (following Fontdevila et al. 1994). Note that R1R8 and C1C8 referto numbers of on-electrodes in the respective row or column of the EPG palate. The rowsof the palate are conventionally assigned to different places of articulation front alveolar,post-alveolar, and palatal (see Section 1.2 above for discussion).

5 In cases where [r] or [R] did not show a complete closure, the onset and offset was considered to bethe first or last frame showing one or more on electrodes in the four central columns of the anteriorregion (the first four rows). In a few cases where no such contact was observed (e.g. for speaker A3),segmentation was based on the waveform and spectrogram, with the constriction corresponding to aperiod of lower intensity and spectral discontinuity.

6 The midpoint was found to be more representative of the frication, as its PMC tended to correspond tothe first, highly constricted palate after the closure.


Contact Anteriority in the alveolar region (CAa): the frontmost position of the constrictionin the first five rows, with higher values corresponding to a more anterior constriction.

CAa5 =(log((1(R5/8)+9(R4/8)+81(R3/8)+729(R2/8)+4921(R1/6))+1))/(log(5741+1))

Contact Posteriority for the alveolar region (CPa): the backmost position of theconstriction in the first five rows, with higher values corresponding to a more posteriorconstriction.

CPa5 =(log((1(R1/6)+9(R2/8)+81(R3/8)+729(R4/8)+6561(R5/8))+1))/(log(7381+1))

Contact Centrality for the alveolar region (CCa): the degree of central occlusion in the5 central columns of the first five rows, with higher values corresponding to a greatercentral occlusion.

CCa5 =(log((1((C1+C8)/8)+11((C2+C7)/10)+121((C3+C6)/10)+1331((C4+C5)/10))+1))/(log(1464+1))

Quotient of activation for the palatal region (Qp): the amount of contact in the last threerows, with higher values corresponding to sounds with greater palatal constriction.

Qp3 = ((R6 + R7 + R8)/24)

Articulatory analysis of target consonants was supplemented by their informal acousticinspection. Statistical analyses based on articulatory indices were performed using repeatedmeasuresANOVAswithin relevantmanner classes of consonants (see Table 2).Within-subjectfactors were Consonant with two (/t/ and ch or /n/ and //), three (/l R r/), or four levels(s, z, ll, y); the between-subject factor was Dialect with two levels (Argentine and Cuban).Data from the Peninsular Spanish speaker were not statistically analyzed, but were referredto informally.

3 Results

3.1 General observationsWewill beginwith a general presentation of the results here, followed by detailed examinationsof the four manner groups of consonants, i.e. stops and affricates (Section 3.2), nasals (Section3.3), continuants (Section 3.4), and liquids (Section 3.5).

Figure 2 plots mean values for the CAa, CPa, CCa, and Qp indices for each of thetarget consonants produced by Argentine and Cuban speakers (i.e. the means for speakersA1A5 and C1C3). Individual values are given in the four tables in the appendix. It canbe seen from the figure that Contact Anteriority (alveolar) values tended to be greaterfor consonants /t l/, s, z, which are expected to have anterior coronal (denti-alveolar oralveolar) constrictions. Contact Posteriority (alveolar) values were higher for the consonantscorresponding to ch, ll, y and //, which are expected to have posterior (palato-alveolar,alveolo-palatal or palatal) constrictions. Contact Centrality (alveolar) distinguished betweenthe consonants with constrictions having a full central occlusion (e.g. the stops, nasals,and laterals /t n l/) and those with a partial central occlusion (e.g. the rhotics /R r/, andparticularly the continuants s, z, ll, y). The palatal quotient was greater for themore posterior


Figure 2 CAa, CPa, CCa, and Qp values for target consonants corresponding to 11 consonants/graphemes averaged for Argentineand Cuban speakers.


Figure 3 Individual linguopalatal contact profiles for /t/ and ch, with shading indicating how frequently a given electrode wasactivated over multiple repetitions (black = 100%, white = 0%).

consonants, and particularly for those conventionally described as palatals (//, ch, ll, y).Of particular interest, however, are the overall differences between the Argentine and Cubangroups in Contact Anteriority and Contact Centrality values. The higher CAa values for theArgentine speakers indicate that all consonants, with the exception of /t/, had more anteriorconstrictions than for the Cubans. The lower CCa values for ch and the continuants producedby the Cubans show that these consonants had a reduced central contact, being realized asfricatives or approximants. All these differences among target consonants and between thetwo speaker groups are evaluated below.

3.2 Stops and affricates /t/ and chRepeated measures ANOVAs for the target consonants in tajo and chata (with the factorsConsonant, andDialect; see Section 2.4 above) were performed for each of the index variables.The Consonant effect was significant for all consonant indices (CAa: F(1,29) = 291.898,p < .001; CPa: F(1,29) = 50.505, p < .001; CCa: F(1,29) = 13.285, p < .02; Qp: F(1,29) =113.098, p < .001). The Dialect effect was significant for CAa and CCa (F(1,6) = 255.627,p < .001; F(1,6) = 11.238, p < .02). Significant Consonant Dialect interactions wereobtained for CAa, CCa, and Qp (F(1,29) = 266.348, p < .001; F(1,29) = 21.417, p < .005;F(1,29) = 14.956, p < .009). These differences indicated that the constriction for ch wasoverall more posterior than for /t/, and this applied to a greater extent to Cuban than toArgentine speakers. For both groups, ch showed more palatal contact than /t/. For Cubanspeakers, ch was also less centrally occluded than /t/, indicative of the realization of theformer as a fricative or a partially deocclusivized affricate.

Figure 3 presents linguopalatal contact profiles for the two consonants for each of theArgentine (A1A5) and Cuban speakers (C1C3), as well as for the Peninsular speaker (P1).It can be seen that the closure for /t/ was consistently produced in the first two (most speakers)or first three (A2, C2) rows. The relatively large contact area, and particularly laterally atrows 34, indicates that the consonant was produced with the blade of the tongue (andpossibly the tip articulating with the teeth). The consonant is thus a front laminal alveolarwith presumably some dental contact (denti-alveolar). These findings support both NavarroTom as (1918: Section 98) articulatory description ofMadrid Spanish andMart nez Celdr ans(2008) EPG study.

The consonant corresponding to ch was produced quite differently by the two groups.The Argentine speakers had a complete closure in the first two to four rows (rows 12: A3;13: A1, A5; 14: A2, A4), that is, in the area extending from the front alveolar to the post-alveolar region of the palate. The speakers differed somewhat in the location of the constrictionat the release of the affricate, with the constriction being more posterior for some speakersthan others (A2, A4, A5 vs. A1, A3). In contrast to the Argentine speakers, the Cubans


Figure 4 Palates from two tokens of ch in chata produced by speaker C3 (the palates are presented in chronological order) in(a) and the corresponding spectrograms of a fricative (left) and affricate (right) realization of ch in chata produced byspeaker C3 in (b).

tended to lack complete closure, with a more open constriction located in the third and fourthrows, that is, exclusively in the post-alveolar region. Interestingly, the consonant producedby the Peninsular speaker was more similar in constriction location and degree (both closureand release) to those of the Argentine speakers. Regardless of the differences in the primaryconstriction, almost all speakers showed greater lateral contact in the second half of the palatethan for /t/, indicative of a more palatal-like (high and front) position of the tongue body forch.

The variable realization of ch among the Cuban speakers requires special attention.The profile for C1 shows that the speaker produced a consistent post-alveolar fricative (witha wide central channel), rather than an affricate. In contrast, C2 produced a post-alveolaraffricate, albeit with an incomplete closure. C3 showed more variation, vacillating betweenthe fricative-like and affricate-like productions. Specifically, four of her six ch tokenswere fricatives, characterized by a wide post-alveolar constriction and fricative noise; twotokens were produced as affricates. Interestingly, these affricates lacked a complete centralocclusion andwere preceded by a shorter fricative-like constriction. Two representative tokenswith this speakers ch are illustrated in Figure 4. In the first token, all the palates duringthe constriction have a wide central channel, thus representing a clear fricative [S]. In thesecond token, the sound is a pre-fricated affricate, with palates 8082 corresponding to ashort fricative component, palates 8388 corresponding to the acoustic closure, and palates8993 corresponding to the fricative release of the affricate. In sum, the results show thatch is realized as either a post-alveolar affricate [] or fricative [S] by the Cuban speakersand consistently as an alveolar/post-alveolar affricate [] by the Argentine speakers. Thisvariability in the realization of ch has also been reported for other Caribbean varieties,such as Puerto Rican Spanish (Quilis 1993). Based on acoustic data, Quilis (1993: 299306)identified up to six different realizations, ranging from the fricative [S] to the affricate, withintermediate variants showing different degrees of pre-frication.


Figure 5 Individual linguopalatal contact profiles for [n] and [], with shading indicating how frequently a given electrode wasactivated over multiple repetitions (black = 100%, white = 0%).

3.3 Nasals /n /ANOVAs for the target consonants in nada and pestanar revealed a significant Consonanteffect for CPa and Qp (F(1,29) = 99.326, p< .001; F(1,29) = 68.218, p< .001). The Dialecteffect was significant only for CAa (F(1,6) = 56.472, p < .001). These differences showedthat the constriction for // extended further back and had greater palatal contact than for n,and that both nasals were overall more posterior for Cuban than for Argentine speakers.

It can be seen in Figure 5 that the closure for n was produced most commonly in thesecond and third rows of the palate, with somewhat more contact in the first row shown byArgentine speakers. Only C2 showed an exclusively post-alveolar constriction. Notably, thePeninsular speaker showed an even more fronted articulation of n with the closure at rows1 and 2.

Overall, there was considerably more variation in the articulation of //. For Argentinespeakers the maximum closure for this consonant was in the relatively front part of the palate in rows 2 and 3, or even in rows 1 and 2 (A3). In this respect, // was not considerably differentfrom n. This is indeed consistent with previous studies on Spanish (Fern andez Planas 2007,2009) and other Romance languages (Recasens et al. 1993), which did not find differencesbetween both nasals in CAa, but did in CPa. The key difference between the two was thepresence or absence of additional side contact (columns 2, 3 and 6, 7) in rows 48. Thedegree of this contact was greater for some speakers in the palatal region (as clearly seenfor speakers A4, A5), which suggests that the consonant had two distinct constrictions alveolar/post-alveolar and palatal. It should be noted that the two constrictions were notnecessarily produced simultaneously. Figure 6(a) presents palates from a single token of //produced by speaker A2, from the midpoint of the closure to the midpoint of the followingvowel /a/. It can be seen that the points of maximum contact were different for the alveolarand palatal regions, at frames 280 and 284287, respectively. In other words, the palatalconstriction was considerably delayed with respect to the alveolar constriction, producingwhat seems to be a sequence of [n] and [j] or a palatalized alveolar [nj], rather than asingle alveolo-palatal nasal. This is also seen in the corresponding spectrogram in Figure6(b). Other Argentine speakers, however, seemed to differ in the realization of //, producinga more typical alveolo-palatal nasal, albeit with a somewhat fronted closure. Unlike theArgentine speakers, the maximum closure for the Cuban speakers tended to be somewhatfurther back on the palate, in rows 2 to 4 (C1) or 3 to 4 with considerable additional contactfurther back (C3 and especially C2). This is characteristic of an alveolo-palatal articulation.The // of the Peninsular speaker had a somewhat more front closure and substantial palatalside contact.

3.4 Continuants: Fricatives (or affricates/glides) s, z, ll, yIn most Latin American varieties, the graphemes s, z, ll, y correspond to two phonemes, asopposed to some Peninsular and a few Latin American varieties, where a phonemic distinctionis maintained (see Section 1.1.1 above). Although differences were expected only between


Figure 6 (a) Palates from a single token of [] in pestanar produced by speaker A2 (the palates are from the midpoint of theclosure to the midpoint of the following vowel). (b) The corresponding spectrogram illustrating the realization of [] as asequence of nasal + glide, extracted from the word pestanar as produced by speaker A2.

the consonants represented by s, z and ll, y, respectively, statistics were run comparingall four word-initial consonants in order to confirm this expectation. ANOVAs for the targetconsonants in saga, zanja, llave, and yale yielded a significant Consonant effect for all indices(CAa: F(3,89) = 20.952, p < .001; CPa: F(3,89) = 4.325, p < .02; CCa: F(3,89) = 6.971,p < .004; Qp: F(3,89) = 7.928, p < .002). Bonferroni post-hoc tests for these variablesshowed that significant differences involved the pairs s, z and ll, y. The Dialect effectwas significant for CAa and CCa (F(1,6) = 98.094, p < .001; F(1,6) = 21.722, p < .004).There was a significant ConsonantDialect interaction for CAa (F(3,89)= 8.040, p< .002).These differences reveal that, as expected, the constriction for the consonant represented byll, y was more posterior and less centrally occluded than for the consonant representedby s, z. This difference was more substantial for the Cuban than the Argentine speakers,given that in Argentine Spanish both /s/ and /SZ/ were fronted and both were sibilantfricatives. In addition, ll, y showed a greater palatal contact than s, z for both dialectgroups.

As seen in Figure 7, the consonants represented by the graphemes s and z wereremarkably similar to each other within the Argentine and Cuban productions, given the


Figure 7 Individual linguopalatal contact profiles for s, z, ll, and y, with shading indicating how frequently a givenelectrode was activated over multiple repetitions (black = 100%, white = 0%).

historic merger mentioned earlier. For the Argentine speakers, s and z showed a verynarrow central channel in the first two rows, thus representing a front alveolar sibilant fricative[s]. The consonant appears to be laminal, given some moderately large side contact in therows immediately behind the constriction. For the Cuban speakers, the consonants in the twowords had a slightly more posterior constriction (and apparently apical for C1), yet notablyexhibiting a much wider central channel. In contrast to the Argentine and Cuban speakers,s and z clearly represent different phonemes in Peninsular Spanish, as seen in the frontalveolar realization of s and an (apparently) interdental realization of z by P1. Note thatthe sibilant fricative produced by P1 was remarkably similar to the one produced by Argentinespeakers (in having the contact is in the first two rows). This realization differs from the apicalalveolar/post-alveolar realization expected for Peninsular Spanish.

The first consonants in the other two words, llave and yale were produced by P1 asaffricates, while showing some variation in the precise locations of the closure and releaseconstrictions. In contrast, both ll and y were realized by Argentine speakers as a palato-alveolar fricative, as evident in the fricative-like constriction in rows 2 and 3 (or slightlymore front or back for some speakers). Note also that the central channel for this fricativewas wider than for [s], and that the latter consonant tended to have somewhat greater palatalside contact. While both ll and y were produced by the Cuban speakers similarly, theirrealization was strikingly different from both the Argentine speakers and the Peninsularspeaker. The consonant in question for the Cubans was a weakly constricted approximantwith more contact in the back post-alveolar and/or (pre-)palatal regions (rows 35 and 68).This suggests that a word boundary in the absence of a preceding pause is not a strengtheningcontext for Cuban Spanish speakers. The same Cuban speakers, however, produced thisconsonant as an affricate (or palatal stop) after a nasal and utterance-initially (Kochetov &Colantoni 2010), as would be expected in Peninsular Spanish.

Although the articulatory indices for place and manner reported here already reflectnormalized data (see Recasens 2008: 336), it is possible that some between-variety differencesin the realization of posterior coronal consonants such as ll, y, ch, // could have been affectedby physiological differences among the participants in these groups. It is known that speakers


Figure 8 Individual linguopalatal contact profiles for /l r R/ and the two rhotics, with shading indicating how frequently a givenelectrode was activated over multiple repetitions (black = 100%, white = 0%).

with highly domed palates tend to produce less contact at the hard palate than those withmore flat palates (Recasens & Espinosa 2006a; see also Brunner, Fuchs & Perrier 2009).Following the procedure outlined in Recasens & Espinosa (2006a: 307308), we measuredthe maximum height of the EPG palates of our speakers, which was on average 20 mm for theArgentine speakers (by speaker A1A5: 20, 23, 19, 20, 18), 17 mm for the Cuban speakers(C1C3: 19, 16, 17), and 23 mm for the Peninsular speaker. We also measured the length ofeach palate (along themidline from row 1 to row 8). It was on average 38mm for the Argentinespeakers (by speaker A1A5: 38, 41, 39, 37.5, 35), 39 mm for the Cuban speakers (C1C3:39, 40, 38.5), and 37 mm for the Peninsular speaker. Given the overall differences in height,somewhat less contact at the hard palate would be expected for the Argentine group and forthe Peninsular speaker, compared to the Cuban group (corresponding to differences in Qp andCCa values). Some of these expectations appear to hold, while others do not. For example,we do observe the overall greater Qp values for the Cuban group compared to the Argentinegroup (see Figure 2(d) above and appendix Table A3), yet CCa values for most Cubanconsonants are lower than for the Argentine counterparts. This suggests that differencesin palate height (or length) are unlikely to be a major factor in the observed differencesbetween the groups, although they may explain some individual differences in constrictiondegree.

3.5 Liquids: Lateral l and rhotics /R/ and /r/ANOVAs for the target consonants in laca, arar, and rato revealed a significant consonanteffect for CAa, CCa, and Qp (F(2,59) = 12.602, p < .002; F(2,59) = 11.079, p < .003;F(2,59) = 12.830, p < .002). Bonferroni post-hoc tests for these variables showed thatsignificant consonant differences were between the lateral l and the two rhotics, /r/ (in CAa,CCa, Qp) and /R/ (in CAa, CCa). A significant Dialect effect and a Consonant Dialectinteraction were obtained only for CAa (F(1,6) = 19.467, p < .006; F(2,59) = 6.784, p< .02). Overall, these differences indicate that for both groups of speakers l had a moreanterior and centrally occluded constriction than for the rhotics. The lateral also had lessside contact in the palatal region compared to the trill. Once more, the liquids produced byArgentine speakers were overall more anterior than for the Cuban speakers, and the differencewas particularly notable for the tap /R/.

As seen in Figure 8, the constriction of l was produced by the Argentine speakers inthe first two or three rows, and slightly further back (rows 2 and 3 or 3 and 4) by the Cubanspeakers. In all cases, the constriction involved a complete closure, accompanied by relativelylittle side contact in the back half of the palate. The consonant is thus an apical alveolar/post-alveolar lateral that differed somewhat between the dialects in relative anteriority. The rhoticswere different from the lateral in frequently having incomplete closures. The location of the


Figure 9 (a) Palates from single tokens of /r/ in rato and /R/ in arar produced by speaker A2 (with several palates before andafter the constriction). (b) The corresponding spectrograms illustrating the realizations of /r/ in rato and /R/ in ararproduced by speaker A2.

closures for the tap and the trill varied across speakers, being most commonly realized at rows2 and/or 3, and again somewhat further back for the Cubans than for the Argentine. Indeed,for the three Cuban speakers (probably less so for C3 for whom the differences are small),the tap was more posterior than the trill. Whereas two of the speakers (C1 and C3) producedwhat seemed to be typical Spanish trills, the third speaker (C2) produced pre-aspirated trills,which have also been reported for other Caribbean varieties (Quilis 1993: Section 10.4.9.3;Willis 2007). The Argentine speakers, overall, showed the opposite tendency; that is, the tapwas more fronted than the trill, but the differences were rather small, with the exception of A2and possibly A1 (see appendix Table A4). However as would be expected, the two consonantsdiffered in the numbers of closures. Based on the acoustic record, the trill consisted of mostlytwo closures (57% of the tokens) and less frequently one closure (23% of the instances).7

Some cases of approximants and fricatives were also observed, and thus no closure wasdetected. The tap consisted of a single closure, sometimes longer than a closure of the trill.Examples of the two consonants produced by speaker A2 are shown in Figure 9, with thetrill having three clear closures, two of which were with a complete closure and one a partialclosure. The realization of all three consonants by the Peninsular speaker was relativelyfront (rows 12), similar to some of the Argentine speakers (see Tables A1 and A4 in theappendix).

7 Not all closures could be fully reflected in the EPG data, given the lower sampling rate.


Table 3 Classification criteria for place of articulation in coronal consonants based on the contactanteriority (CAa) and contact posteriority (CPa) indices. Qp = quotient of palatal activation.

CPa

High (& high/intermediate Qp) LowCAa High Laminal posterior, fronted (front

alveolo-palatal)Laminal anterior(denti-alveolar, alveolar)

Intermediate Laminal posterior, backed(alveolo-palatal)

Low Palatal Apical anterior (alveolar,front post-alveolar)

4 General discussion

4.1 Coronal inventories within each varietyAs expected, Cuban and Argentine Spanish have the same number of coronal phonemes. Asin other Latin American varieties, the contrasts between /s/// and //// have merged,although with different phonetic realizations in each variety. The results also revealed someother similarities, as well as considerable phonetic differences between the two varieties inthe realization of other coronal consonants. In this section we provide a preliminary phoneticclassification of the coronal consonants in each variety, based on our results, and makingreference to the data obtained for our control Peninsular speaker.

Before doing so, it is important to establish the criteria for our classification. Theclassification of place was based on the Contact Anteriority (alveolar) index (CAa) andthe Contact Posteriority (alveolar) (CPa) index values averaged for each speaker group (aspresented in Figures 2(a, b) above and the four appendix tables). Recall that these indiceswere calculated based on the degree of activation of the electrodes in the first five rows ofthe artificial palate (see Section 2.4), and thus provide information about the relative degreeof fronting, backing, and the extent of coronal constriction of each consonant. Consonantscharacterized by high CPa are posterior in the traditional phonological sense (alveolo-palatalor palatal), while consonants characterized by low or intermediate CPa are anterior (denti-alveolar, alveolar, or front post-alveolar). Anterior coronals that have lowCAa are apical, whilethose with high or intermediate CAa are laminal. Among the posterior coronals, (laminal)alveolo-palatals can differ in the degree of frontness/backness, corresponding to higher andintermediate CAa values. True palatals are expected to show the lowest CAa values (givenlittle coronal contact). This place classification is shown in Table 3. The classification ofmanner (stricture) and secondary articulation (Table 4) is based on the averaged values forthe Contact Centrality (alveolar) index and the Quotient of activation for the palatal region(Qp) (see also Figures 2(c, d) above and the four appendix tables). The former providesinformation about the relative width of the central channel in the alveolar region, whereasthe latter indicates the amount of contact in the last three rows of the artificial palate. CCavalues are high for consonants with complete closures (stops, affricates, nasals, laterals), andintermediate-to-low for consonants with incomplete closures or fricative/approximant-likecentral channels. Qp is high or intermediate for palatalized or (alveolo-)palatal consonants.Note that the labels high, intermediate, and low are relative, and used for classificationpurposes only.

4.1.1 Argentine SpanishBased on the results reported and the criteria mentioned above, we start by discussing theclassification of coronal consonants in Argentine Spanish. Figure 10 plots the results for place


Table 4 Classification criteria for manner of articulation in coronal consonants basedon the contact centrality (CCa) index and the quotient of palatal activation (Qp).

CCa Qp

High Stops, affricates, nasals, laterals, rhotics PalatalizedIntermediate RhoticsLow Fricatives, glides Not palatalized

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

0.80.850.90.951

CPa

CAa

-rel

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.40.50.60.70.80.91

Qp

CCa

-rel

Figure 10 Coronal consonants of Argentine Spanish plotted in terms of place (Contact Anteriority (CAa) and Posteriority (CPa),left) and manner/secondary articulation (Contact Centrality (CCa) and Palatal contact (Qp), right), averaged over fivespeakers.

and manner. As we see in the left plot, the CPa dimension separates posterior and anteriorcoronals (leaving aside the // release). Among the posterior coronals, // (closure) (ch) and// are quite fronted (based on the high CAa), while /SZ/ (ll, y) is more backed and variesbetween more apical/fronted realizations (speakers A1, A3, A4) to more posterior realizations(speakers A2 and A5). These consonants thus represent either front or back alveolo-palatals,which also differ in the degree of laminality. This classification is somewhat controversial for//, given the inter-speaker variation reported in Section 3.3 above. Recall that some speakersshowed a decoupling of the nasal and palatal gestures, with the underlying palatal nasal havinga front coronal constriction similar to that of the alveolar nasal (see Colantoni & Kochetov2010 for more data on the process). Indeed, these speakers may not even have a palatal nasalin their inventories. Since depalatalization and palatalization of nasal + glide sequences havebeen reported previously for Argentine Spanish (e.g. Malmberg 1950), it is important tounderstand whether this is a change in progress or stable sociolinguistic variation.

Small place differences were also obtained for the voiced and voiceless variants of thisphoneme (/SZ/), which is consistent with the place differences reported by Recasens &Espinosa (2007) for Catalan voiced and voiceless sibilants. Whether these differences can beattributed to different tongue-body shapes for the voiced and voiceless variants (see Ladefoged& Maddieson 1999) is not clear and requires further research. Our preliminary classificationof the fricative /SZ/ is apico-laminal (see Table 5).8 Interestingly, the release of // is moreapical (and somewhat more retracted) than its closure. In terms of these parameters, it is more

8 Sociolinguistic investigations (Wolf & Jim enez 1979, Wolf 1984) reported that voiced and voicelessvariants were socially stratified in Buenos Aires, and this also seems to be the case nowadays (RohenaMadrazo 2008).


Table 5 Classification of Argentine Spanish coronal consonants (only consonants included in the study) based on the results from five speakers.= more retracted articulation.

Anterior coronal Posterior coronalDenti-alveolar Alveolar Fronted alveolo-palatal

Laminal Laminal Apical Laminal/apico-laminalPlosive tAffricate ()Fricative s SZLateral approximant l

similar to /SZ/, and even to the trill /r/. As seen in the right plot, the posterior coronals arecharacterized by higher palatal contact (Qp), which is considerably more extensive for thenasal.

Among the anterior coronals, /t/ has the frontmost constriction (the highest CAa)presumably produced with the blade of the tongue (intermediate CPa). /s/ is also laminal, yetproduced further back (alveolar). The other anterior coronals are apical (low CPa). Among thelatter consonants, the rhotics are more backed, and particularly the trill, which based on thesecriteria can be optionally considered posterior. The differences between the rhotics requirefurther testing given that the tap and the trill in our stimuli do not occur in the same context(i.e. we compared a word-initial trill to a word-medial tap). Further, the liquids /l R r/ have thelowest palatal contact, Qp. The CCa dimension in the right plot separates the fully occludedstops/affricates, nasals, and /l/ from the partially occluded rhotics and fricatives. Among thelatter, /SZ/ has considerably wider opening than /s/. The affricate release is most similar to,although somewhat more open than /SZ/. The patterning of the trill with fricatives seen inboth plots is interesting, as fricative-like realizations of /r/ are not uncommon in some dialectsof Argentine Spanish and other Latin American varieties (see Colantoni & Steele 2005 andreferences therein). The results of our classification are summarized in Table 5.

4.1.2 Cuban SpanishWe turn now to the classification of the Cuban Spanish coronal inventory. Figure 11 displaysthe results for place and manner of articulation. The Cuban posterior and anterior coronalsare clearly separated by the CPa dimension in the left plot. The posterior consonants /S/(ch) and // are backed laminal alveolo-palatals (with the former being more posterior),while // (ll, y) is realized in the context used in the study as a true palatal approximant withlittle coronal contact, [ ]. These three consonants are also characterized by a high degree ofpalatalization, as can be seen in the right plot. As mentioned in Section 3.1, the alveolo-palatalaffricate is highly variable, across and within speakers: one of the speakers showed a weaklyoccluded affricate, another speaker almost exclusively produced sibilant fricatives, while thethird speaker alternated affricates and fricatives in her production.

Within the anterior coronals, the CAa dimension sets aside the laminal denti-alveolar /t/(the highest CAa) from the apical alveolars /n l s/ (considerably lower CAa), and the morebacked apical alveolars /r/ and /R/. Note that the latter is produced with very low CAa, andcan be alternatively classified as a posterior coronal. The grouping of /s/ with the clearlyapical /n l/ may be a side effect of the relatively weak central coronal contact of the former,and thus the consonant may well be laminal. As expected, the lateral has the least palatal sidecontact. The CCa dimension in the right plot distinguishes between the fully occluded /t n l/, the partially or variably occluded rhotics and /S/, and the fricative /s/ and approximant


Table 6 Classification of Cuban Spanish coronal consonants (only consonants included in the study) based on the results from three speakers.= more retracted articulation.

Anterior coronal Posterior coronalDenti-alveolar Alveolar Backed alveolo-palatal Palatal

Laminal Apical LaminalPlosive tAffricate (>)Nasal n Tap R (>)Trill rFricative/Approximant s Lateral approximant l

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

0.30.40.50.60.70.80.91

CAa

CPa

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.20.40.60.81

CCa

Qp

Figure 11 Coronal consonants of Cuban Spanish plotted in terms of place (Contact Anteriority (CAa) and Posteriority (CPa), left)and manner/secondary articulation (Contact Centrality (CCa) and Palatal (Qp) contact, right), averaged over 3 speakers.

//. This supports a classification of this consonant as an approximant (see Mart nez Celdr an2008 for Peninsular Spanish) rather than as a fricative.

The generalizations about place andmanner of Cuban consonants are presented in Table 6.One important difference between this inventory and that for the Argentine speakers(Table 5) is the presence of a true palatal variant [ ] (corresponding to the Argentine alveolo-palatal /SZ/). Another important difference is in the phonetic realization of the apparentlysimilar phonemic contrasts, which will be discussed in Section 4.2 below.

4.1.3 Peninsular SpanishWe conclude this subsection by presenting our classification of the coronal consonantsproduced by our Peninsular Spanish speaker, as shown in Figure 12 and Table 7. Thisclassification is discussed here with the purpose of comparing it against the target varietiesand the conclusions clearly merit further investigation. The interdental //, which has verylow CAa, CPa, and CCa values (see appendix Table A3), is omitted from the figures. Thepresence of this consonant in the inventory (see Table 7), where it contrasts with the alveolar/s/, however, is one of the most salient characteristic of this variety.

As seen in the right plot of Figure 12, the coronal consonants produced by the Peninsularspeaker are relatively poorly differentiated in place, given the overall front realization ofmost articulations. This is in striking contrast with the previously discussed results for CubanSpanish (see above), as well as in some respects different from the previously published


Table 7 Classification of Peninsular Spanish coronal consonants (only consonants included in the study) produced by speaker P1.= more retracted articulation.

Anterior coronal Posterior coronalInterdental Denti-alveolar Alveolar Fronted alveolo-palatal

Laminal Apico-laminal Apical LaminalPlosive tAffricate ()Trill rFricative sLateralapproximant

l

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

0.80.850.90.951

CAa

CPa

-rel

-rel

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.50.60.70.80.91

CCa

Qp

-rel

-rel

Figure 12 Coronal consonants of Peninsular Spanish plotted in terms of place (Contact Anteriority (CAa) and Posteriority (CPa),left) and manner/secondary articulation (Contact Centrality (CCa) and Palatal (Qp) contact, right), based on data fromspeaker P1. Values for // are not shown (see appendix Table A3).

data on Peninsular Spanish (Fern andez Planas 2007; see also Figure 1 above). The left plotin Figure 12 shows some separation between the posterior and anterior coronals in CPa.The posterior coronals are considerably fronted and possibly laminal, with affricate releasesproduced somewhat further back than the respective closures. While // (ll, y) is somewhatmore posterior (based on in CPa and CAa) than // (ch), it is still quite front to be classifiedas a true palatal. Among the anterior coronals, /t n l s/ have a very front contact, and theactive articulator is either the blade or the tip of the tongue. The somewhat lower CPa valuefor /t/ is likely due to the contact extending further to the dental region that is only partiallycaptured by the EPG palate. We therefore classify /t/ as laminal denti-alveolar, and /n l s/ asapico-laminal alveolars, although given the overall degree of fronting of these consonants,these differences may not be fully reliable. The trill is somewhat further back, while thetap is considerably more posterior and is clearly produced with the tip of the tongue. Therelatively poor differentiation between posterior and anterior coronals in CPa/CAa is partlycompensated by greater differences in Qp. The affricate closures and release, and the nasal// have higher palatal contact, somewhat higher for // and // than for //. Based on theseand CAa/CPa similarities and differences, we classify these three consonants produced by our


speaker as laminal alveolo-palatals, with // being more fronted than the others.9 In terms ofCCa, the tap and affricate releases are more centrally open, while the separation between thefricative /s/ and the non-continuants is relatively small, reflecting the overall high constrictiondegree of the consonants produced by the speaker.

The finding that /s/ is a fronted laminal alveolar (having index values similar to thosefor its Argentine counterpart) is unexpected, given the standard characterization of MadridSpanish as apical, as opposed to the laminal realization found in most Latin Americanvarieties (e.g. Quilis 1993). This is clearly illustrated if we compare the palate in Figure1 against that shown in Figure 7. While our results suggest that the phonemic distinctionbetween the consonants corresponding to the orthographic ll vs. y is not maintained bythis speaker, some differences found in the CCa and Qp indices (see appendix Table A3)require further study. The finding of the relatively weak central occlusion for the tap suggeststhat this consonant is articulated as an approximant, which is consistent with previous reportson Peninsular Spanish (see Blecua 2001). The more back articulation of the tap is similar tothe results obtained for our Cuban speakers, yet different from those reported by Fern andezPlanas (2007) for Peninsular Spanish. Thus, more research is necessary to determine whetherthese and other previously noted deviations are due to dialectal or individual differences.

4.2 Dialectal differences in the realization of coronalsOur results revealed dialectal differences not reported in previous studies, in particular inwhat concerns place of articulation. For each of the consonants studied (with the exceptionof /t/), we have found that coronal consonants produced by Argentine speakers are moreanterior than those produced by Cuban speakers. Interestingly, this was not only observed inthe articulation of the initial consonant in words like llave and yale, which was expected to bemore posterior in Cuban than in Argentine Spanish, but also in the case of liquids and nasals,for which no differences in place had been previously reported. Overall the articulatoryspace of Cuban coronals is considerably more dispersed, compared to the more crowdedspace of the Argentine inventory. The Cuban coronals are also overall less constricted thantheir Argentine counterparts. This is clearly seen in Contact Anteriority and Centrality rangesin Figure 11. Even excluding the palatal //, CAa values for Cuban coronal consonants rangefrom .52 to 1.00, while the range for the Argentine consonants is from about .81 to 1.00.Similarly, CCa values for Cuban consonants range from .33 to .89, while for the Argentineconsonants the range is between .42 and .93, with most consonants clustering within aneven narrower range of higher CCa values. One notable difference is that the Cuban // issubstantially further back and variably de-affricated, compared to its Argentine counterpart.Given this, the phonetic contrast between this consonant and the stop /t/ is quite differentphonetically (greater in Cuban than in Argentine), despite their similar phonological status inthe two inventories.

Results obtained for Peninsular Spanish revealed similarities with both dialects. As inArgentine Spanish, the Peninsular speaker studied here showed fronting of most coronalconsonants, which differs from the results reported by Fern andez Planas (2007) for PeninsularSpanish. As in Cuban Spanish, the overall articulatory space of coronal consonants occupiesa wider range, taking into consideration interdentals.

These differences in place between Argentine and Cuban Spanish are similar to thosereported for affricates and fricatives in two Catalan varieties (see Recasens & Espinosa2007). In the case of Catalan, Valencian shows significantly more fronting than Majorcan,although the degree of fronting, as signaled by the anteriority indices, is not as prominentas in our Argentine Spanish data. The consistent cross-dialectal differences that we foundmay be indicative of an overall difference in articulatory settings between the varieties, ifexamined in the context of the Articulatory Settings theory (Honikman 1969). According

9 Given this, it is more appropriate to use the symbol for the voiced palatal affricate (see Quilis 1993).Here, however, we will continue to use the symbol , following Mart nez Celdr an et al. (2003).


to this theory, the articulatory settings of each language/variety are determined by the mostfrequent consonants in the language. In Spanish, coronals are the most frequent consonants,and alveolars in particular (Quilis 1993: Section 2.9.1). If the differences in articulatorysettings apply across varieties, they should extend to non-coronal consonants as well asto vowels. Some acoustic and articulatory studies suggest that this may be the case. It iswell known that word-final nasals in Cuban Spanish are articulated further back, as velars,and that the velar fricative /x/ is realized as a glottal fricative (Quilis 1993, Hualde 2005).Differences in the vocalic inventory may also exist, but the evidence reported so far is stillinconclusive. Indirect evidence is presented by Guitart (1985) who argued that differencesobserved in the production of English [] by Cuban and Peninsular speakers can be attributedto different feature specifications for vowels in each variety. Marinescu (2010), in her ongoinginvestigation, is reporting differences between Peninsular and Cuban Spanish in the directionpredicted by theArticulatory Settings theory, namely, the vocalic systemof Peninsular Spanishis more fronted when compared to Cuban Spanish, but comparable data on Argentine Spanishare not yet available.10

Cross-dialectal differences were not only found for place but also for the degreeof constriction. As mentioned, the difference between Cuban and Argentine Spanish isparticularly salient in the articulation of /s/, which showed a wide central channel in CubanSpanish, as indicated by the mean CCa values of .33 for Cuban and .74 for Argentine Spanish(see appendix Table A3). These differences in the constriction degree of /s/ are likely tobe related to different stages in the weakening processes affecting coda /s/, which is moreadvanced in Cuban than in Argentine Spanish. This would be consistent with Terrells (1979)comparative analysis of /s/ weakening in codas, across several varieties, including Havanaand Buenos Aires Spanish. Terrell concluded that, although weakening was attested in bothvarieties, it was much more advanced in Cuban Spanish, where [h] had become the mostfrequent allophone of /s/.

4.3 Comparisons with previous articulatory studiesOur results showed a number of parallels with those obtained by Fern andez Planas (2000,2007, 2009). First, in all three varieties, /t/ was themost fronted consonant among the coronals,and results indicated that it can be classified as laminal denti-alveolar. Second, [n s l r], asproduced by our Peninsular speaker, can be classified as alveolar. Finally, our data also supportthe classification of / / as alveolo-palatal. Our classification of // as alveolo-palatal ratherthan true palatal (although further back than //) is different from Fern andez Planas (2007).It should be noted, however, that her generalizations were based on the allophone of thisphoneme occurring in a weak position (["a a]), and thus are not fully compatible with ourresults.

Other, more substantial differences involving all three dialects were also found. First,our Peninsular speaker produced overall much more fronted coronals than Fernandez Planasparticipants, suggesting a greater degree of variation in Peninsular Spanish than has beenpreviously reported. Second, the tap produced by ourMadrid speaker wasmuchmore retractedthan the mean values for the tap reported by Fern andez Planas. In this sense, the dataobtained for theMadrid speaker resemble more closely those for Cuban Spanish than previousresults for Peninsular Spanish. The Argentine data, however, are consistent with the generaltendencies reported by Fern andez Planas (2007), and also by Recasens & Pallar es (1999) forCatalan, namely for the tap to be more fronted than the trill. Finally, our data suggests that

10 It is interesting to observe that Recasens & Espinosa (2006b) did not find significant differences inthe direction predicted by the Articulatory Settings theory. Given the fact that Valencian fricatives andaffricates are more fronted vis- a-vis Majorcan consonants, we would expect to find a more frontedvocalic system in the former variety. Although the general tendencies seem to go in this direction, theauthors did not find statistical differences for different vowel pairs betweenMajorcan and Valencian (seeRecasens & Espinosa 2006b: 637), even though they found differences with other Catalan varieties.


the palatal lateral has disappeared from the inventory of this speaker from Madrid, althoughmore research is necessary to determine whether the small differences found in some of thevalues (CCa and Qp, in particular; see appendix Table A3) are indicative of some type ofnear-merger between the orthographic ll and y.

When compared with the Catalan data presented by Recasens and colleagues (seeespecially Recasens & Pallar es 2001), we conclude that as in Catalan, /t/ is the most frontedcoronal in the three varieties under study,whereas // is truly palatal both inCatalan andCubanSpanish, with very similar CAa values. The alveolars /l, n/ are clearly less fronted in Catalanthan in Argentine Spanish. Anteriority values for Cuban /l/ closely resemble those reported byRecasens&Pallar es (2001: 98) for Catalan, but /n/ appears to be less fronted in Catalan than inCuban. The sibilant /s/ has low CAa values in Catalan given its apical articulation, and clearlydiffers from the values obtained for both Cuban and Argentine Spanish. It does resemble theCuban Spanish consonant in CCa values, indicating that in both Romance varieties this soundis articulated with a wide channel. As opposed to Peninsular Spanish, Catalan does have apost-alveolar voiceless sibilant fricative /S/, which can be compared to the voiceless variantproduced by some Argentine speakers and the deaffricated allophone of // produced by someCuban participants. Indeed, the Catalan sibilant resembles the Cuban variant more closelythan the Argentine realization, although it is slightly more posterior than the Cuban /S/. Interms of the central constriction (CCa), on the other hand, the Catalan sibilant is more similarto Argentine than to the Cuban sibilant, where /S/ is realized with a very wide central channel.The Catalan affricate, as both the Argentine and Peninsular affricate, is an alveolo-palatalconsonant. The closure, however, is more fronted in Argentine and Peninsular Spanish thanin Catalan. Finally, the alveolo-palatal nasal // is also less posterior in Argentine Spanish(and in our Peninsular speaker) than in Catalan (see also Recasens & Espinosa 2006a), and interms of closure location, it resembles more closely the data reported for Italian (see Recasenset al. 1993). Data obtained for Cuban Spanish are consistent with those reported for Catalan.

5 ConclusionOur main goal was to further our understanding of cross-dialectal characteristics of Spanishcoronal consonants by presenting new electropalatographic data of two understudied varieties(Cuban and Argentine Spanish). In addition, we compared the results obtained with thosereported in the literature as well as with additional data obtained from one control PeninsularSpanish speaker native of Madrid. Our results have revealed similarities in the overallclassification of coronal places. Thus, we have shown that in the three varieties under study/t/ is the most fronted sound, followed by /s l n/, which can be classified as fronted/anterioralveolar across varieties. A number of consistent expected and unexpected differences werealso reported. As expected, the coronal inventory is larger in Peninsular than in Cuban andArgentine Spanish, and the merger of ll, y has resulted in a different phoneme in eachvariety (i.e. a post-alveolar sibilant in Argentine Spanish vs. a palatal approximant in Cuban).Interestingly, a number of unexpected differences emerged. First, we showed that the coronalspace is more crowded in Argentine Spanish than in the other two varieties. In this variety,coronals are fronted and veryminute differences in anterioritywere found. Second, differencesin the degree of constriction of /s/ were found, with the sibilant being less constricted in Cubanthan in Argentine Spanish. Finally, a number of interesting cases of within dialect variabilitywere also apparent, such as de-affrication of // in Cuban Spanish and decomposition of thepalatal nasal in Argentine Spanish.

AcknowledgementsWeare grateful toAnaMar a Fern andez Planas, two anonymous reviewers, andEditorAdrian Simpsonfor comments and suggestions that have helped to improve the article. We also thank Daniel Recasensand Jos e Ignacio Hualde for valuable advice on the project at its earlier stages, as well as BojanaRadovanovic for assistance with the annotation of EPG data. All errors are the authors responsibility.


The work was supported by University of Toronto Connaught and Victoria College grants to bothauthors.

Appendix. Individual mean values and standard deviations for the four articulatory indicesdiscussed in the articleCAa5 = Contact Anteriority in the alveolar region (the first 5 rows); CPa5 = ContactPosteriority in the alveolar region (the first 5 rows); CCa5=Contact Centrality in the alveolarregion (the first 5 rows); Qp3 = Quotient of activation for the palatal region (the last 3 rows).See Section 2.4 for details.

Table A1 Stops and affricates /t/ and ch (A, P //, C /S/).(a) Closures

CAa5 CPa5 CCa5 Qp3Speaker Sound Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

A1 t 1.00 .00 .90 .02 .91 .02 .26 .02ch 1.00 .00 .93 .00 .93 .01 .39 .06

A2 t 1.00 .00 .88 .03 .94 .01 .25 .01ch .99 .04 .96 .02 .97 .01 .40 .07

A3 t 1.00 .01 .85 .00 .86 .02 .25 .01ch 1.00 .00 .91 .02 .89 .02 .34 .05

A4 t 1.00 .00 .87 .02 .91 .03 .36 .06ch .99 .01 .95 .01 .96 .02 .51 .03

A5 t 1.00 .00 .70 .11 .86 .03 .17 .03ch .97 .07 .80 .08 .92 .02 .24 .02

Argentine t 1.00 .00 .84 .04 .90 .02 .26 .03(mean) ch .99 .02 .91 .03 .93 .02 .38 .05C1 t 1.00 .02 .85 .00 .87 .04 .27 .02

ch .49 .11 .91 .03 .38 .17 .48 .03C2 t 1.00 .00 .85 .03 .93 .00 .38 .04

ch .60 .07 .94 .02 .80 .06 .60 .09C3 t 1.00 .00 .82 .03 .87 .02 .22 .02

ch .59 .19 .94 .02 .52 .17 .55 .08Cuban t 1.00 .00 .84 .02 .89 .02 .29 .03(mean) ch .56 .12 .93 .02 .57 .14 .54 .07P1 t 1.00 .00 .85 .02 .85 .03 .38 .01

ch 1.00 .00 .92 .02 .92 .02 .48 .03

(b) Releases


A1 ch .90 .03 .85 .00 .52 .07 .25 .00A2 ch .73 .14 .91 .03 .45 .19 .32 .07A3 ch .85 .04 .87 .03 .36 .09 .28 .05A4 ch .84 .06 .92 .00 .49 .08 .52 .02A5 ch .81 .06 .47 .28 .25 .13 .20 .04Argentine(mean) ch .83 .07 .81 .07 .42 .11 .31 .04C2 ch .42 .03 .92 .00 .37 .06 .53 .04P1 ch .92 .03 .89 .01 .56 .12 .45 .02


Table A2 Nasals /n /.


A1 n .96 .06 .86 .00 .91 .02 .29 .04 .97 .05 .98 .01 .92 .07 .75 .02

A2 n .93 .10 .74 .13 .91 .02 .23 .03 .96 .07 .92 .02 .91 .03 .49 .03

A3 n .87 .05 .77 .08 .89 .02 .17 .05 1.00 .01 .95 .02 .90 .04 .46 .02

A4 n .97 .04 .85 .02 .92 .02 .37 .09 .97 .05 .96 .02 .93 .08 .64 .06

A5 n .90 .08 .75 .07 .93 .01 .10 .03 .96 .05 .91 .04 .81 .21 .55 .10

Argentine n .93 .07 .79 .06 .91 .02 .23 .05(mean) .97 .04 .94 .02 .89 .09 .58 .05C1 n .75 .11 .82 .05 .90 .02 .26 .03

.84 .08 .95 .01 .93 .02 .46 .04C2 n .64 .09 .90 .01 .88 .00 .39 .03

.71 .05 .98 .02 .91 .03 .87 .12C3 n .83 .09 .78 .01 .85 .04 .21 .00

.65 .02 .95 .02 .84 .08 .66 .08Cuban .74 .10 .83 .02 .88 .02 .29 .02(mean) .73 .05 .96 .02 .89 .04 .66 .08

P1 n 1.00 .01 .78 .00 .87 .01 .36 .02 .94 .02 .96 .02 .92 .05 .61 .06


Table A3 Continuants s, z, ll, y (A, C, P /s/, P //, A /SZ/, C, P //).


A1 s .98 .01 .86 .00 .80 .01 .27 .03z .98 .02 .85 .00 .80 .05 .26 .02ll .92 .05 .92 .01 .59 .16 .44 .08y .90 .04 .92 .01 .53 .06 .49 .03

A2 s .95 .03 .85 .01 .74 .10 .25 .01z .96 .02 .85 .01 .76 .05 .25 .01ll .70 .08 .87 .03 .57 .12 .30 .04y .58 .22 .90 .04 .43 .21 .45 .17

A3 s .98 .01 .85 .00 .72 .03 .25 .01z .97 .00 .85 .00 .71 .00 .25 .00ll .86 .04 .85 .00 .46 .11 .27 .03y .86 .04 .85 .01 .38 .08 .32 .04

A4 s .97 .02 .86 .02 .81 .04 .33 .06z .97 .02 .88 .02 .80 .04 .38 .07ll .89 .03 .92 .00 .58 .06 .45 .05y .92 .03 .93 .01 .73 .10 .47 .05

A5 s .94 .04 .85 .00 .66 .18 .23 .03z .91 .04 .81 .07 .52 .12 .19 .04ll .81 .03 .78 .07 .38 .13 .20 .04y .80 .06 .76 .09 .36 .14 .23 .02

Argentine s .96 .02 .85 .01 .75 .07 .27 .03(mean) z .96 .02 .85 .02 .72 .05 .27 .03

ll .84 .05 .87 .02 .52 .12 .33 .05y .81 .08 .87 .03 .49 .12 .39 .06

C1 s .78 .13 .86 .00 .49 .12 .30 .06z .78 .07 .86 .00 .5 .04 .36 .05ll .28 .22 .89 .03 .26 .25 .32 .10y .18 .21 .87 .04 .19 .27 .34 .10

C2 s .82 .08 .79 .03 .24 .08 .38 .03z .85 .03 .81 .05 .25 .04 .39 .03ll .04 .03 .83 .00 .03 .01 .50 .03y .53 .01 .90 .02 .20 .04 .64 .04

C3 s .79 .11 .85 .00 .38 .12 .30 .04z .66 .08 .78 .04 .11 .09 .24 .05ll .39 .17 .93 .04 .31 .26 .58 .10y .50 .11 .94 .03 .47 .30 .53 .03

Cuban s .80 .11 .83 .01 .37 .10 .33 .04(mean) z .76 .06 .82 .03 .29 .06 .33 .05

ll .24 .14 .88 .02 .20 .17 .47 .08y .40 .11 .90 .03 .29 .20 .50 .06

P1 s .99 .01 .85 .01 .80 .05 .39 .03z .12 .26 .69 .22 .02 .03 .32 .03ll .97 .03 .93 .02 .87 .05 .52 .05y .96 .03 .95 .01 .91 .04 .61 .05

ll-release .93 .03 .93 .02 .72 .11 .56 .05y-release .89 .00 .95 .01 .74 .11 .59 .06


Table A4 Liquids /l R r/.

CAa5 CPa5 CCa5 Qp3Sound Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

A1 l .99 .01 .78 .08 .90 .02 .10 .08R .88 .16 .81 .07 .79 .14 .23 .05r .80 .10 .84 .02 .85 .05 .24 .04

A2 l .93 .10 .75 .09 .91 .03 .20 .05R .93 .09 .59 .04 .87 .02 .12 .04r .66 .12 .82 .03 .84 .05 .18 .05

A3 l .98 .02 .79 .01 .91 .03 .05 .05R .83 .03 .79 .06 .61 .25 .07 .03r .82 .05 .80 .09 .61 .22 .15 .07

A4 l .99 .02 .83 .07 .93 .01 .18 .05R .96 .03 .85 .00 .77 .10 .33 .04r .92 .04 .84 .02 .66 .14 .30 .04

A5 l .89 .06 .78 .11 .93 .02 .03 .03R .86 .06 .69 .10 .86 .05 .06 .04r .83 .09 .69 .11 .84 .06 .09 .03

Argentine l .96 .04 .79 .07 .92 .02 .11 .05(mean) R .89 .07 .75 .06 .78 .11 .16 .04

r .81 .08 .80 .06 .76 .11 .19 .04C1 l .87 .13 .68 .06 .91 .02 .09 .06

R .57 .10 .80 .05 .83 .05 .18 .05r .73 .13 .79 .08 .82 .04 .33 .04

C2 l .60 .02 .90 .01 .87 .00 .22 .03R .37 .16 .86 .01 .70 .32 .33 .03r .60 .05 .85 .03 .79 .02 .37 .03

C3 l .80 .10 .85 .07 .89 .01 .10 .04R .62 .08 .76 .07 .53 .09 .21 .00r .66 .11 .61 .09 .45 .17 .21 .03

Cuban l .76 .09 .81 .04 .89 .01 .14 .05(mean) R .52 .11 .81 .04 .69 .15 .24 .03

r .66 .10 .75 .07 .69 .08 .30 .03P1 l 1.00 .01 .73 .08 .90 .02 .20 .03

R .82 .26 .74 .09 .65 .24 .28 .08r .96 .03 .85 .01 .86 .02 .31 .05

ReferencesAlarcos Llorach, Emilio. 1965. Fonologa espanola. Madrid: Gredos.Blecua, Beatriz. 2001. Las vibrantes del espanol: manifestaciones acusticas y procesos foneticos. Ph.D.

dissertation, Universidad Aut onoma de Barcelona.Bradley, Travis G. 1999. Assibilation in Ecuadorian Spanish. A phonologyphonetics account. In Marc

Authier, Barbara Bullock & Lisa Reed (eds.), Formal perspectives on Romance Linguistics, 5771.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Brunner, Jana, Susanne Fuchs & Pascal Perrier. 2009. On the relationship between palate shape andarticulatory behavior. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125, 39363949.

Colantoni, Laura. 2001. Mergers, chain shifts, and dissimilatory processes: Palatals and rhotics inArgentine Spanish. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota.


Colantoni, Laura. 2006. Increasing periodicity to reduce similarity: An account of deassibilation in rhotics.In Manuel D az-Campos (ed.), 2nd Conference on Laboratory Approaches to Spanish Phonology, 2234. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Colantoni, Laura&AlexeiKochetov. 2010. Palatal nasals or nasal palatalization? Presented at theLinguisticSymposium on Romance Languages (LSRL 40), University of Washington.

Colantoni, Laura & Jeffrey Steele. 2005. Liquid asymmetries in French and Spanish. Toronto WorkingPapers in Linguistics 24, 114.

Collins Spanish Dictionary. 2011. New York: HarperCollins.Corneau, Caroline. 2000. An EPG study of palatalization in French: Cross-dialect and inter-subject

variation. Language Variation and Change 12, 2549.Fern andez Planas, Ana Mar a. 2000. Estudio electropalatografico de la coarticulacion vocalica en

estructuras VCV del castellano. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Barcelona.Fern andez Planas, Ana Mar a. 2007. Cuestiones metodol ogicas en palatograf a din amica y clasificaci on

electropalatogr afica de las vocales y de algunas consonantes linguales del espanol peninsular. Estudiosde fonetica experimental XVI, 1180.

Fern andez Planas, Ana Mar a. 2008. La electropalatograf a (EPG) en el estudio articulatorio del habla. ElWinEPG de Articulate Instruments Ltd. Estudios de fonetica experimental XVII, 286299.

Fern andez Planas, Ana Mar a. 2009. Caracter sticas linguopalatales de la nasal palatalizada en espanol.Estudios de fonetica experimental XVIII, 161174.

Fern andez Planas, Ana Mar a & Eugenio Mart nez Celdr an. 1997. Sobre la articulaci on de [t] y [d] enespanol. Estudios de fonetica experimental VIII, 297317.

Fontdevila, Jordi, Maria Dolors Pallar es & Daniel Recasens. 1994. The contact index method ofelectropalatographic data reduction. Journal of Phonetics 22, 141154.

Guitart, Jorge M. 1985. The resolution of phonological ambiguity in a simulated EnglishSpanishborrowing situation. In Larry King & Catherine Maley (eds.), 13th Linguistic Symposium on RomanceLanguages, 117125. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hammond, Robert. 1999. On the non-occurrence of the phone [r] in the Spanish sound system. InJavier Guti errez-Rexach & Fernando Mart nez-Gil (eds.), Advances in Hispanic linguistics, 135151.Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Honikman, Beatrice. 1969. Articulatory settings. In David Abercrombie, Dennis Fry, P. MacCarthy, N. C.Scott & J. Trim (eds.), In honour of Daniel Jones, 7384. London: Longman.

Honorof, Douglas. 1999. Articulatory gestures and Spanish nasal assimilation. Ph.D. dissertation, YaleUniversity.

Hualde, Jos e Ignacio. 2005. The sounds of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kochetov, Alexei & Laura Colantoni. 2010. Spanish nasal assimilation revisited: A cross-dialect

electropalatographic study. Presented at 12th Meeting on Laboratory Phonology (LabPhon12),Albuquerque, NM.

Ladefoged, Peter & Ian Maddieson. 1999. The sounds of the worlds languages. Oxford: Blackwell.Lavoie, Lisa. 2001. Consonant strength: Phonological patterns and phonetic manifestations. New York:

Routledge.Lipski, John M. 1994. Latin American Spanish. New York: Longman.Lloyd, Paul. 1994. Del latn al espanol. Madrid: Gredos.Malmberg, Bertil. 1950. Etudes sur la phonetique de lespagnol parle en Argentine. Lund: Gleerup.Marinescu, Irina. 2010. Difficult vowel contrasts, native dialect and experience in non-native perception:

Cuban and Peninsular Spanish learners of English. Presented at the Canadian Linguistic AssociationAnnual Meeting, Concordia University, Montreal, QC, 30 May 2 June.

Mart nez Celdr an, Eugenio. 2008. Some chimeras of traditional Spanish phonetics. In Laura Colantoni& Jeffrey Steele (eds.), 3rd Conference on Spanish Laboratory Phonology, 3246. Somerville, MA:Cascadilla Press.

Mart nezCeldr an, Eugenio&AnaMar a Fern andez Planas. 2007.Manual de fonetica espanola. Barcelona:Ariel.

Mart nez Celdr an, Eugenio, Ana Mar a Fern andez Planas & Josefina Carrera Sabat e. 2003. CastilianSpanish. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 33, 255259.


Men endez Pidal, Ram on. 1918.Manual de gramatica historica espanola, 4th edn.Madrid: Librer a generalde Victoriano Su arez.

Navarro Tom as, Tom as. 1918 [1970]. Manual de pronunciacion espanola. Madrid: CSIC.Payne, Elinor. 2006. Non-durational indices of Italian geminates: An EPG study. Journal of the

International Phonetic Association 36, 8395.Quilis, Antonio. 1993. Tratado de fonetica y fonologa espanolas. Madrid: Gredos.Real Academia Espanola. 2001. Diccionario de la lengua espanola, 22nd edn. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Recasens, Daniel. 2008. M etodes de normalitzaci o i de representaci o de dades ac ustiques i articulatori es.

Estudios de fonetica experimental 17, 331348.Recasens, Daniel &Aina Espinosa. 2006a. Articulatory, positional and contextual characteristics of palatal

consonants: Evidence from Majorcan Catalan. Journal of Phonetics 34, 295318.Recasens, Daniel & Aina Espinosa. 2006b. Dispersion and variability of Catalan vowels. Speech

Communication 48, 645666.Recasens, Daniel & Aina Espinosa. 2007. An electropalatographic and acoustic study of affricates and

fricatives in two Catalan dialects. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 37, 143172.Recasens, Daniel, Edda Farnetani, Jordi Fontdevila&MariaDolors Pallar es. 1993.An electropalatographic

study of alveolar and palatal consonants in Catalan and Italian. Language and Speech 36, 213234.Recasens, Daniel & Maria Dolors Pallar es. 1999. A study of /R/ and /r/ in the light of the DAC

coarticulation model. Journal of Phonetics 27, 143169.Recasens, Daniel & Maria Dolors Pallar es. 2001. De la fone`tica a la fonologia. Barcelona: Ariel.Recasens, Daniel, Maria Dolors Pallar es & Jordi Fontdevila. 1997. Amodel of lingual coarticulation based

on articulatory constraints. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 102, 544561.RohenaMadrazo,Marcos. 2008. Devoicing of palatal fricatives in Buenos Aires Spanish: A sociolinguistic

profile in real time. Presented at Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, Universit e Laval, Qu ebec, Canada.Romero, Joaquin. 1995. Gestural organization in Spanish: An experimental study of spirantization and

aspiration. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.Terrell, Tracy D. 1979. Final /s/ in Cuban Spanish. Hispania 62, 599612.Willis, Erik. 2007. An acoustic study of pre-aspirated trills in narrative Cibaeno Dominican Spanish.

Journal of the International Phonetic Association 37, 3349.Wolf, C. 1984. Tiempo real y tiempo aparente en el estudio de una variaci on lingu stica: ensordecimiento

y sonorizaci on del ye smo porteno. In Lia Schwartz Lerner & Isaias Lerner (eds.), Homenaje a AnaMara Barrenechea, 175196. Madrid: Castalia.

Wolf, Clara & Elena Jim enez. 1979. El ensordecimiento del ye smo porteno. In Ana Mar a Barrenechea(ed.), Estudios lingusticos y dialectologicos, 115145. Buenos Aires: Hachette.

Wrench, Alan A., Fiona E. Gibbon, Alison M. McNeill &

Documents

Coronal Place Contrasts in Argentine and Cuban Spanish. an Electropalatographic Study