Articulation without acoustics: A case study of Oneida utterance-final forms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whether the targets of speech production are primarily articulatory or acoustic has been controversial [Guenther et al., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 105(5), 2854–2865 (1999)]. While it has been observed that tongue movements occur even in contexts where they may be acoustically obscured [Browman and Goldstein, LabPhonI: 341–376 (1990); Tiede et al., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 110(5), 2, 2657 (2001)], the question of whether natural languages can systematically encode articulations in the absence of acoustic consequences has remained open. A study was conducted to investigate a purported phonological process in the endangered Oneida (Iroquois) language whereby utterance-final forms exhibit fixed sequences having this property. Ultrasound, video, and acoustic data were collected from two native speakers of Oneida in a field setting. Preliminary results indicate that speakers’ tongue positions are significantly different during different utterance-final vowel articulations despite these vowels being completely inaudible. Results confirm claims that the Oneida phenomenon is in fact a case of articulation without acoustics, and indicate that it is indeed possible for articulations to be retained even in the systematic absence of auditory goals. [Work supported by NSERC.]
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".