Test of the movement expansion model: Anticipatory vowel lip protrusion and constriction in French and English speakers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The modeling of anticipatory coarticulation has been the subject of longstanding debates for more than 40 yr. Empirical investigations in the articulatory domain have converged toward two extreme modeling approaches: a maximal anticipation behavior (Look-ahead model) or a fixed pattern (Time-locked model). However, empirical support for any of these models has been hardly conclusive, both within and across languages. The present study tested the temporal organization of vocalic anticipatory coarticulation of the rounding feature from [i] to [u] transitions for adult speakers of American English and Canadian French. Articulatory data were synchronously recorded using an Optotrak for lip protrusion and a dedicated Lip-Shape-Tracking-System for lip constriction. Results show that (i) protrusion is an inconsistent parameter for tracking anticipatory rounding gestures across individuals, more specifically in English; (ii) labial constriction (between-lip area) is a more reliable correlate, allowing for the description of vocalic rounding in both languages; (iii) when tested on the constriction component, speakers show a lawful anticipatory behavior expanding linearly as the intervocalic consonant interval increases from 0 to 5 consonants. The Movement Expansion Model from Abry and Lallouache [(1995a) Bul. de la Comm. Parlée 3, 85-99; (1995b) Proceedings of ICPHS 4, 152-155.] predicted such a regular behavior, i.e., a lawful variability with a speaker-specific expansion rate, which is not language-specific.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".