A cinefluorographic study of uvular consonants in Swedish and West Greenlandic. Poster presented at the conference From Sound to Sense
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This poster concerns the articulation of uvular consonants with particular reference to quantal aspects of speech production. Data from X-ray motion films are presented. Two speakers of Southern Swedish give examples of [R], and one speaker of West Greenlandic Inuit gives examples of [R] and [q]. Traditionally, uvular consonants are said to be produced by articulating the dorsum against the uvula. Unfortunately, this ought not work, owing to the presence of air passages either side of the uvular: (1) these passages should prevent occlusion for a stop, (2) similarly they should prevent necessary conditions for a Bernoulli force for a tremulant, and (3) they should prevent a Reynolds number sufficiently small for fricatives. The formant transitions to vowels adjacent to these consonants suggest instead that the place of articulation is in the upper pharynx, at the same place as is constricted for [o]-like vowels. The X-ray films confirm that these three subjects constrict the upper pharynx for these consonants. But there was a difference of timing of the uvular consonant gesture for these two languages. The Swedish subjects completed the vowel as usual and then initiated the uvular tongue body gesture. The Inuit subject initiated both vowel and uvular consonant gestures earlier, so that the vocoid segment consisted of the transition to the uvular consonant, reflecting the regular pharyngeal assimilation of vowels preceding uvulars in West Greenlandic.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".