MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W630561488

Pulmonic ingressive speech in Orkney dialect

2015· article· en· W630561488 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter Sundkvist, Man Gao

Notice bibliographique

RevueScottish language · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueLinguistics and language evolution
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésShetlandHistoryLinguisticsVariation (astronomy)PhonationSound changeGeologyPhilosophyOceanography
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

1. INTRODUCTION (1) Pulmonic speech refers to speaking while breathing in. This phenomenon is reported for several Scottish dialects, where it may be used in particular on short words for 'yes' and 'no', such as yeah and aye (e.g. Thom 2005; Eklund 2008). The cross-linguistic distribution of pulmonic speech is a matter of current debate (cf. Clarke and Melchers 2005; Eklund 2007, 2008). According to one viewpoint, it is restricted to a North Atlantic/Baltic zone, stretching from Northern Europe to North America. Others suggest that it is to be found in wide range of languages, covering all continents. Its occurrence within the North Atlantic/Baltic zone has further been argued to reflect migratory patterns, involving Vikings and subsequently British and Irish emigrants. One problem which has militated against more detailed study of speech is the paucity of evidence and documentation for many parts in such forms as audio recordings. Thus far it is only in Scandinavia, Newfoundland and Shetland that corpus studies have been performed (e.g. Steinbergs 1993; Kobayashi 2001; Clarke and Melchers 2005; Sundkvist 2012); for other localities we rely largely on informal observations. This paper examines the existence of pulmonic speech in Orkney based on audio recordings available at Orkney Library and Archives. 2. PULMONIC INGRESSIVE AIRSTREAM MECHANISM The production of an audible speech sound consists of three basic or functional components: initiation, and phonation. For initiation --or airstream mechanism--the aim is to achieve a flow of air in the vocal tract. Those sounds that utilize the lungs as the initiator are called 'pulmonic' sounds (those that utilize some other organ are called 'non-pulmonic'). Most commonly, the direction of the airstream is outwards, from the lungs towards the mouth. This is referred to as a 'pulmonic egressive' airstream. However, it is also possible to generate a flow of air by drawing air into the lungs, which is thus a 'pulmonic ingressive' airstream. The second component, articulation, concerns the subsequent modification of the airstream, which is required to generate a wide range of sound types. This involves such dimensions as place and manner of for consonants, and tongue height and advancement, and lip rounding for vowels. Finally, the definition of varies slightly among authors. To some extent it depends on whether it is seen as an optional component or not. One definition, provided by Catford (1988: 56), is: any of those phonetic activities of the larynx which have neither initiatory nor articulatory function. Under this definition principal types are voiceless (glottis open), voice (vocal folds vibrating), whisper (glottis narrowed), and creak (glottis closed along much of its length but with a small part vibrating). Various combinations of these types are also possible. For our purposes, two benefits may be gained by spelling out and keeping in mind these basics of speech production. Firstly, it is possible to clarify that the crucial aspect of the speech sounds under investigation is their initiation, namely that they involve an airstream directed inwards towards the lungs. Previously, the phenomenon has on occasion been referred to as ingressive articulation (Clarke and Melchers 2005: 51) and ingressive phonation (Eklund 2008:235), neither of which is technically accurate. Secondly, it leaves the of ingressives unspecified. The topic of in speech is a highly complex one, where more research is clearly needed for a fuller understanding (cf. Orlikoff, Baken and Kraus 1997). However, applying a basic distinction between voiced and voiceless ingressives in the analysis allows us to assess additional, potential variation within the speech community. As an example, in Shetland this approach revealed substantial gender differences (Sundkvist 2012). …

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,015
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,030

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,001

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,026
Tête enseignante GPT0,253
Écart entre enseignants0,228 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueScottish languageMême sujetLinguistics and language evolutionTravaux en français237 207