<b>Nasal vowel evolution in Romance.</b> By Rodney Sampson. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Pp. xvi, 413. Cloth $105.00.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviewed by: Nasal vowel evolution in Romance by Rodney Sampson Douglas C. Walker Nasal vowel evolution in Romance. By Rodney Sampson. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Pp. xvi, 413. Cloth $105.00. The study of nasal vowels continues to be of considerable general interest in phonology. On the one hand, the phonetic underpinnings of the phenomenon, both articulatory and more recently acoustic, appear relatively clear and available as the basis for legitimate explanatory accounts. On the other, phonologists find in nasalization a fertile terrain for theorizing about markedness and universals, nonlinear representations, compensatory lengthening, and a host of related issues. In many of these discussions, French and, to a lesser extent, Portuguese have played a significant role. The story of nasal vowels in Romance is far from exhausted by these two ‘notables’, however, as Sampson’s broad, detailed, and well-documented study makes abundantly clear. After preliminary chapters dealing with (1) general questions (the phonetics and phonology of vowel nasalization, its dynamics, functions and causes, the feature [nasal], and denasalization, 1–31); (2) the frequency and distribution of Romance nasal vowels generally, the three fundamental contexts VNC, VN#, and VNV, and the sources of our knowledge (32–40); and (3) the Latin background (41–51), S begins his tour of the Romance domain, not inappropriately, with Gallo-Romance. Standard French has pride of place (52–112), followed by a welcome discussion of nonstandard varieties of the langue d’oïl (113–37), and Occitan (138–57). Ibero-Romance follows, with separate treatments of Catalan and Spanish (158–74) and Galician-Portuguese (175–218). Raeto-Romance provides an interlude (219–34) and a transition to Italo-Romance (235–81), Sardinian and Corsican (282–97), and Romanian (298–338). A conclusion (339–49), useful set of maps (351–63), extensive bibliography (364–87) and indices (subject, word, and localities; 389–413) close the volume. In each of the descriptive chapters, S outlines the relevant external background, presents the historical phonological developments in detail sufficient to illuminate the many different issues involved, and surveys the current state of the phonological systems (including a number of relevant dialectal differences and contemporary innovations). Recurrent (and fascinating) issues include the diverse fate of the conditioning nasal consonant, the vagaries of denasalization, and the often subtle effects of nasalization even if no overt nasal vowels emerge or remain. Finally, the conclusion inserts many of the Romance findings into a more general context: In Romance, vowel nasalization is typically regressive; stressed and long vowels are most susceptible to nasalization; the height or backness of the vowels involved does not appear to be a consistent factor in favoring or blocking the process while the place of articulation of the conditioning nasal consonant has a significant effect; the number of nasal vowels never surpasses and is normally smaller than the oral inventory; and nasalization cannot be demonstrated to cause vowel lowering. S’s results reinforce or refine conclusions about the domain of nasal vowels in general and highlight at least two areas requiring further study (denasalization and the relationship between vowel length and nasalization). As a consequence, he makes a coherent and sophisticated contribution to our knowledge of the Romance languages and their implications for a key area of general phonology. Douglas C. Walker University of Calgary Copyright © 2001 Linguistic Society of America
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.033 |
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".