MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2345917196 · doi:10.1121/1.4950621

Pronunciation change in SENĆOŦEN: A acoustic study of /k, kw, kw’, q, q’, qw qw’/ across generations of speakers

2016· article· en· W2345917196 on OpenAlexaff
Sonya Bird

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic Variation and Morphology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormantPronunciationContrast (vision)VoiceAcousticsConsonantSpectral compositionPhysicsSpeech recognitionMathematicsComputer scienceLinguisticsVowelOpticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an acoustic study of /k, kw, kw’, q, q’, qw qw’/ in SENĆOŦEN, a dialect of North Straits Salish. The “K series”—as these sounds are collectively called—are of particular concern among speakers, the perception being that both the uvular ~ velar and the plain ~ ejective contrasts may be disappearing. To understand how these contrasts are currently being realized, 12 speakers (3 speakers x 4 generations) were recorded pronouncing 20 isolated words (7 consonants x 2–3 words). Based on auditory impression and preliminary acoustic analysis (PLACE: spectral composition of bursts/frication; formant transitions into adjacent vowels; VOICING: VOT; jitter; shimmer; amplitude rise time), the velar ~ uvular contrast is indeed less consistent among younger speakers than among their elders; there is also a lot of variability in the plain ~ ejective contrast, among all speakers. In addition, the plain ~ ejective contrast interacts with the velar ~ uvular contrast for some speakers: /k kw/ and /q qw/ are merged and relatively fronted ([k kw]); /kw’/ and /qw’/ are merged and relatively backed ([qw’]). These realizations likely reflect a combination articulatory/aerodynamic considerations and orthographic influences (e.g., /kw’/ = ‘Q’; /qw/ = ‘Ḱ’).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicLinguistic Variation and MorphologyFrench-language works237,207