Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both in language change and in substitutions during language acquisition and disordered speech, /l/ has often been observed to alternate with labial sounds such as [w] or rounded vowels, particularly in postvocalic position. While there are many possible explanations for this alternation, including acoustic enhancement and articulator coupling, one possibility that has not been tested is whether normal adult speakers of English actually produce lip rounding for /l/. A study was conducted to test for the presence of a labial gesture in normal productions of /l/. Front and side video data of lip positions were collected from three adult English speakers during productions of /l/ and /d/. Significant differences were found for all subjects in lip protrusion (upper and lower) and/or lip aperture (horizontal and vertical) in post-vocalic allophones, as well as between the pre- and post-vocalic allophones of /l/. No significant differences were observed in comparisons of pre-vocalic /l/ and /d/. Results suggest that there is in fact a labial gesture in the post-vocalic allophone of /l/, but not in the pre-vocalic allophone. These findings are consistent with a notion of gestural simplification as a possible explanation for substitutions and in language change. [Research supported by NSERC.]
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".