MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088366785 · doi:10.1353/lan.2004.0191

<b>An acoustic analysis of vowel variation in New World English.</b> By Erik R. Thomas. (Publication of the American dialect society 85.) Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2001. Pp. ix, 230. ISBN 0822364948. $20.

2004· article· en· W2088366785 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert Hagiwara

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic Variation and Morphology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVowelFormantMid vowelLinguisticsVariation (astronomy)ObstruentAmerican EnglishRelative articulationContext (archaeology)Speech recognitionAcousticsHistoryComputer sciencePhysicsPhilosophyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: An acoustic analysis of vowel variation in New World English by Erik R. Thomas Robert Hagiwara An acoustic analysis of vowel variation in New World English. By Erik R. Thomas. (Publication of the American dialect society 85.) Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2001. Pp. ix, 230. ISBN 0822364948. $20. This monograph expands the dialectology of English in North America by presenting 192 'case studies' of individual speakers' vowel systems, each summarized as a two-dimensional vowel space. These represent not impressionistic auditory assessments of height and backness, but rather the average first and second formant frequencies (i.e. the frequencies of the two lowest vocal tract resonances, which are generally well correlated with the traditional descriptive dimensions) as measured by the author. Acoustic analytic techniques were applied to audio recordings of each speaker and the measurements used to plot each speaker's vowel production. Following a brief preface (vii–ix),Ch. 1, 'Introduction and methods' (1–14),places the work in the context of a growing body of sociolinguistic investigations making use of acoustic measurements, especially to investigate subtle vowel variations that are difficult to assess via traditional phonetic transcription. Conventions are introduced for labeling vowel categories and contexts (e.g. phonemic symbols and diacritics such as a raised O to indicate a following voiceless obstruent), and the information contained in (and excluded from) the vowel plots is discussed. Ch. 2, 'Vowel variants in New World English' (15–58),provides an overview of the major 'diaphones' of each of the basic North American English vowels and diphthongs. This includes both intrinsic regional variants (e.g. the fronting of /α/ in Northern-Cities Shift speakers) and contextual allophones (such as the typical neutralizations of vowel contrasts before /r/). The case studies begin in Ch. 3, 'Whites from the north' (59–103), which includes speakers from most of the US and parts of Canada. Each speaker's vowel production is represented as a vowel space plot, with each vowel represented as a vector determined by the first and second formant frequencies at points early and late in each vowel. The remaining chapters present vowel summaries from 'Whites from the southeast' (Ch. 4,105–32), 'White Anglos from the south-central states' (Ch. 5,133–60), 'African Americans' (Ch. 6,161–84), 'Mexican Americans' (Ch. 7,185–95), and 'Native Americans' (Ch. 8, 197–200). The absence of a concluding chapter suggests that this work is meant to pioneer and inspire further work that combines traditional sociolinguistic questions with instrumental methodologies. This goal mitigates some of the book's drawbacks, such as the relative difficulty of isolating a particular vowel or context of interest from a complicated vowel diagram, or the uneven distribution of speakers sampled. While three areas (North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas) are extensively covered, speakers from other regions (Canada, the Caribbean, and the western US) represent only a handful of the total. This work makes an important advance in what might be called 'instrumental dialectology'. Its main strengths are that it allows the reader to compare overall patterns in vowel production across an enormous array of different speakers, and it illustrates the acoustic patterning of many well-described vowel alternations and shifts. The book is not bogged down by endless tables of numerical acoustic measurements, statistical approximations of intrinsic variation, or other information which, while interesting, would have hindered its readability and accessibility. Robert Hagiwara University of Manitoba Copyright © 2004 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1030.066

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.255 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguageSame topicLinguistic Variation and MorphologyFrench-language works237,207