On the evolution of consonant harmony: the case of secondary articulation agreement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consonant harmony involves long-distance featural assimilation, or agreement, of consonants across intervening segments. Current correspondence-based analyses of such sound patterns assume that they originate in the cognitive exigencies of articulatory planning, either synchronically, through the functional grounding of the constraints responsible, or diachronically, whereby processing factors incrementally shape the lexicon over time. This paper challenges the validity of this assumption as an all-purpose functional explanation for the full range of long-distance consonant agreement patterns by demonstrating that a variety of diachronic trajectories underlies their emergence and evolution. Focusing on the comparatively rare phenomenon ofsecondary articulation agreement, the evolutionary histories of three cases are examined: (labio)velarisation agreement in Pohnpeian (Oceanic), palatalisation agreement in Karaim (Turkic) and pharyngealisation agreement in Tsilhqot'in (Athabaskan). These histories provide explanations for a range of synchronic properties of the systems in question, some of which are problematic for restrictive typologies of consonant harmony.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".