Bibliographic record
Abstract
In phonology the classic division within the sonorant consonants is between nasal and liquid. Nasals by the nature of their articulation are easy to define and have generated a substantial literature (Cohn 1993, Piggott 1992, Huffman & Krakow 1993 among many others). Liquids are by contrast more difficult to define, demonstrate greater phonetic variability and there is far less literature on this class of segments,(Dixon 1972, Bhat 1975, Walsh Dickey 1997). This paper explores whether liquids can be defined both phonologically and phonetically and explores the link between representation and realisation of these sounds. In our discussion, we pay particular attention to the category “liquid” considering recent work on liquids (Walsh Dickey,1997 ) and how they elucidate our understanding of sonorants. We also present our own data from Woods Cree, an Algonquian language spoken in Canada. The data from this language raises interesting issues concerning potential mismatches between phonetics and phonology. This language traditionally lacks a liquid in its phonemic inventory and has clear evidence for a voiced dental fricative patterning as a non-nasal sonorant. Our findings suggest that non -nasal sonorant consonants need not be restricted to liquids and propose a number of possibilities as to the categorisation of these segments. We end our paper with a number of research questions that need to be addressed
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".