The proposed model consists of 1) a Phonological Planning Component to plan the symbolic and relational goals for an utterance, 2) a Phonetic Planning Component to plan the quantitative details of the acoustic goals and how they will be achieved articulatorily, and 3) a Motor-Sensory Implementation Component to ensure that the goals are achieved on time. The temporal characteristics specified in the Phonetic Planning Component include durations between acoustic landmarks, as well as parameters of Lee’s TauG-Guidance equation, which determine how (...) a movement evolves over time. Movement coordination is assumed to be based on movement endpoints (rather than onsets) and accomplished via Tau-coupling (Lee 1998). Both the Phonetic Planning and Motor-Sensory Implementation components are assumed to make use of general-purpose, phonology-extrinsic, timekeeping mechanisms to represent, specify, and track time. Supporting evidence includes greater timing precision at movement endpoints compared to other parts of movements, suggesting the separate control of the timing of movement endpoints compared to other parts of movement. This evidence challenges models in which all parts of a movement trajectory are controlled by the same equation of motion, but supports models in which a) each abstract, symbolic phonological representation maps onto spatial and temporal characteristics of the part(s) of movement most closely related to the goal of producing a planned set of acoustic cues to signal the phonological contrast (often the endpoint), b) movements are coordinated primarily based on the goal-related part of movement, and c) speakers give priority to the accurate implementation of the part(s) of movement most closely related to the phonological goals. Further support for phonology-extrinsic timing comes from three types of evidence suggesting that surface durations are represented during speech production. Finally, phonology-extrinsic timing is supported by greater timing variability for repetitions of longer intervals, assumed to be due to noise in a general-purpose (and phonology-extrinsic) timekeeping process. The evidence appears to be incompatible with models that have a unified Phonology/Phonetics Component, with models which do not represent the surface timing of phonetic events, nor with models in which timing in speech production is not represented, specified and tracked by a general-purpose timekeeping mechanisms. (shrink)