<b>Nasal vowel evolution in Romance.</b> By Rodney Sampson. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Pp. xvi, 413. Cloth $105.00.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: Nasal vowel evolution in Romance by Rodney Sampson Douglas C. Walker Nasal vowel evolution in Romance. By Rodney Sampson. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Pp. xvi, 413. Cloth $105.00. The study of nasal vowels continues to be of considerable general interest in phonology. On the one hand, the phonetic underpinnings of the phenomenon, both articulatory and more recently acoustic, appear relatively clear and available as the basis for legitimate explanatory accounts. On the other, phonologists find in nasalization a fertile terrain for theorizing about markedness and universals, nonlinear representations, compensatory lengthening, and a host of related issues. In many of these discussions, French and, to a lesser extent, Portuguese have played a significant role. The story of nasal vowels in Romance is far from exhausted by these two ‘notables’, however, as Sampson’s broad, detailed, and well-documented study makes abundantly clear. After preliminary chapters dealing with (1) general questions (the phonetics and phonology of vowel nasalization, its dynamics, functions and causes, the feature [nasal], and denasalization, 1–31); (2) the frequency and distribution of Romance nasal vowels generally, the three fundamental contexts VNC, VN#, and VNV, and the sources of our knowledge (32–40); and (3) the Latin background (41–51), S begins his tour of the Romance domain, not inappropriately, with Gallo-Romance. Standard French has pride of place (52–112), followed by a welcome discussion of nonstandard varieties of the langue d’oïl (113–37), and Occitan (138–57). Ibero-Romance follows, with separate treatments of Catalan and Spanish (158–74) and Galician-Portuguese (175–218). Raeto-Romance provides an interlude (219–34) and a transition to Italo-Romance (235–81), Sardinian and Corsican (282–97), and Romanian (298–338). A conclusion (339–49), useful set of maps (351–63), extensive bibliography (364–87) and indices (subject, word, and localities; 389–413) close the volume. In each of the descriptive chapters, S outlines the relevant external background, presents the historical phonological developments in detail sufficient to illuminate the many different issues involved, and surveys the current state of the phonological systems (including a number of relevant dialectal differences and contemporary innovations). Recurrent (and fascinating) issues include the diverse fate of the conditioning nasal consonant, the vagaries of denasalization, and the often subtle effects of nasalization even if no overt nasal vowels emerge or remain. Finally, the conclusion inserts many of the Romance findings into a more general context: In Romance, vowel nasalization is typically regressive; stressed and long vowels are most susceptible to nasalization; the height or backness of the vowels involved does not appear to be a consistent factor in favoring or blocking the process while the place of articulation of the conditioning nasal consonant has a significant effect; the number of nasal vowels never surpasses and is normally smaller than the oral inventory; and nasalization cannot be demonstrated to cause vowel lowering. S’s results reinforce or refine conclusions about the domain of nasal vowels in general and highlight at least two areas requiring further study (denasalization and the relationship between vowel length and nasalization). As a consequence, he makes a coherent and sophisticated contribution to our knowledge of the Romance languages and their implications for a key area of general phonology. Douglas C. Walker University of Calgary Copyright © 2001 Linguistic Society of America
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,056 | 0,033 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».