MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041067260 · doi:10.1515/labphon.2011.018

Spanish nasal assimilation revisited: A cross-dialect electropalatographic study

2011· article· en· W2041067260 on OpenAlexaff
Alexei Kochetov, Laura Colantoni

Bibliographic record

VenueLaboratory Phonology Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssimilation (phonology)ObstruentPlace of articulationLinguisticsPsychologyPhonotacticsAudiologyConsonantPhonologyMedicineVoiceVowel

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study employs electropalatography to investigate the implementation of nasal assimilation in two Spanish dialects (Argentinian and Cuban) that differ in the realization of word-final nasals as alveolar or velar. 5 speakers of Argentian and 3 speakers of Cuban Spanish were presented with various utterances containing nasals followed by labial, coronal, and dorsal stops and fricatives under two stress conditions. Results revealed that place assimilation of nasals was consistently accompanied by stricture assimilation. The process was generally categorical, that is, the final alveolar or velar nasal adopted the articulation of the following consonant. Nasal + fricative sequences, however, showed a somewhat different behavior: occasional blocking of nasal assimilation before non-coronals, consistent gradient nasal assimilation before coronals (Argentinian), or categorical/gradient strengthening of post-nasal obstruents (Cuban). Overall, the results are largely consistent with Honorof's (Articulatory gestures and Spanish nasal assimilation, Yale University Ph.D. dissertation, 1999) study of Peninsular Spanish and together provide evidence for dialect-specific grammars of assimilation, which nevertheless share certain general principles of gestural organization.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaboratory Phonology Journal of the Association for Laboratory PhonologySame topicPhonetics and Phonology ResearchFrench-language works237,207