Which of the following error patterns is the best example of within-word inconsistency?

Which of the following error patterns is the best example of within-word inconsistency?

• A. "fork" → [pɔɝk]; "puffy" → [pʌsi]; "half" → [hæs]
• B. "elephant" → [lɛləәp]; "elephant" → [lɔlipʌnt]; "elephant" → [ɛfəәlʌnt]
• C. "tiger" → [taɪdɚ]; "tiger" → [taɪɡɚ]; "tiger" → [taɪɡɚ]
• D. "soap" → [s̪op], "lacy" → [leɬi], "moose" → [mus̡]

Answer: (B)

Within-word inconsistency means producing the same word in multiple, markedly different ways across attempts, showing instability in how that word is realized. The elephant example does this most clearly: the same word is spoken three times, each with a completely different phonetic form ([lɛləәp], [lɔlipʌnt], [ɛfəәlʌnt]). There isn’t a stable pattern that maps to the target word, illustrating the instability in encoding that word. The other options show either different words being produced with varying errors, or only limited variation within a single word, not the strong, multi-form variability seen here.

Within-word inconsistency means producing the same word in multiple, markedly different ways across attempts, showing instability in how that word is realized.

The elephant example does this most clearly: the same word is spoken three times, each with a completely different phonetic form ([lɛləәp], [lɔlipʌnt], [ɛfəәlʌnt]). There isn’t a stable pattern that maps to the target word, illustrating the instability in encoding that word.

The other options show either different words being produced with varying errors, or only limited variation within a single word, not the strong, multi-form variability seen here.