Retrofl ex realizations of Acadian French /r/: A dialectological perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While apical and dorsal realizations are the most common variants of /r/ in Acadian French, a retroflex approximant often called “le r-anglais” has a noteworthy frequency of occurrence. This paper examines two processes: English-r replacement (the shift to a retroflex rhotic in French-origin words) and r-adaptation (the integration of [r, _] in English incorporations). The retroflex variant, which in the present study occurs in 5.2% of French-origin words and in 79.1% of English incorporations, tends to be found in syllable coda positions in both processes. Analysis is based on about 5,000 tokens from a dialect atlas survey of 18 Acadian localities in Canada’s Maritime Provinces and shows that the retroflex variant follows a regular north-south spatial distribution. This distribution is discussed in relation to physical geographic space and in relation to two socio-demographic factors, rate of assimilation and the local proportion of French speakers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".