Tone and Phonation in Southeast Asian Languages
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Southeast Asia is often considered a quintessential Sprachbund where languages from five different language phyla have been converging typologically for millennia. One of the common features shared by many languages of the area is tone: several major national languages of the region have large tone inventories and complex tone contours. In this paper, we suggest a more fine‐grained view. We show that in addition to a large number of atonal languages, the tone languages of the region are actually far more diverse than usually assumed, and employ phonation type contrasts at least as often as pitch. Along the same lines, we argue that concepts such as tone and register , while descriptively useful, can obscure important underlying similarities and impede our understanding of the behavior of phonetic properties, typological regularities, and diachrony. We finally draw the reader's attention to some issues of current interest in the study of tone and phonation in Southeast Asia and describe some technical developments that are likely to allow researchers to address new lines of research in years to come.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it