The Nature of Laryngealization in St’át’imcets Laryngealized Resonants<sup/>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phonetic variability—the variability with which we speak—has recently received much attention because of its implications for how sounds are represented lexically. This paper considers phonetic variability in laryngealized resonants, which are rare cross-linguistically but common in the Pacific Northwest languages (Salish and Wakashan). Previous literature on these sounds has focused primarily on variability in timing between the oral and laryngeal gestures. This paper explores instead variability in the realization of the laryngeal gesture, focusing on St’át’imcets (Lillooet Salish). Pitch, amplitude, and duration measurements are taken to characterize the laryngeal gesture of intervocalic laryngealized resonants. Results exhibit a high degree of variability but show that, overall, realization depends primarily on the location of the laryngealized resonant with respect to word stress: the correlates of laryngealization are acoustically stronger in post-stress than in pre-stress position. Results are discussed in terms of their possible causes and in terms of their implications for how sound structure is lexically encoded.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".