Glottalized resonants in NLe kepmxcin (Thompson River Salish)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines properties of glottalized resonants (/m’, n’, l’, y’, w’/) in NLe?kepmxcin, a Northern Interior Salish language, both comparing them with their plain counterparts (m, n, l, y, w) and considering contextual factors as defined by word, syllable, and prominence positions. Despite the relative cross-linguistic rarity of glottalized resonants, they are of considerable theoretical interest given that several recent studies [e.g., Bird and Caldecott, Proceedings of the 10th AICSST (in press)] indicate that their articulatory and acoustic realization may vary significantly across languages and contexts. Of particular relevance to the present study is Carlson, Esling, and Harris’ [UMOPL 17, 58–71 (2004)] claim that in NLe?kepmxcin ‘‘glottalized resonants are a sequential combination of the resonant plus [glottal stop]’’ [pg. 64]. Based on the analysis of glottalized resonants in this study, it appears that the picture is more complex than consistent post-glottalization. Of special interest are glottalized resonants in word-initial position, both because this class is seriously under-represented in the previous literature, and because its characteristics challenge Carlson, Esling, and Harris’ sequencing generalization. Understanding the organization of glottalized resonants will help clarify both sequential and markedness issues in NLe?kepmxcin phonology. [Work supported by SSHRC.]
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".