Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study has two goals: investigate how laryngeal contrasts in affricates are realized and provide a new, detailed description of affricates in Eastern Oromo, a Cushitic language of Ethiopia. Oromo has a three-way laryngeal contrast between ejective, aspirated, and voiced stops and affricates. Acoustic properties that have been found to distinguish this type of contrast in stops include duration (e.g., closure duration, voice onset time), burst (e.g., centre of gravity, intensity), and vowel measures (e.g., F0 perturbations, rise time) (Kingston 1985, Wright, Hargus & Davis 2002, Vicenik 2010, inter alia). However, these properties have rarely (some not at all) been examined with similar contrasts in affricates. Despite being one of the languages with the most mother-tongue speakers in Africa, Oromo has also been under-documented due to its lack of official status. Therefore, to investigate, 8 native speakers from the Oromia region (residing in Toronto) were asked to read a word list with post-alveolar geminate and singleton affricates, which were in word-initial and word-medial positions (when possible–there are no word-initial geminates and no aspirated singletons). The data was compared to previously analysed stops produced by the same speakers. Preliminary findings suggest similarities in the cues to the laryngeal contrast between stops and affricates in Oromo, but also some differences in the degree to which cues to the three-way laryngeal contrast manifest. For instance, F0 perturbations were not as clear for affricates as for stops, and additional intensity and spectral cues within the frication portion were present for the affricates. The study will discuss these findings with emphasis on articulatory differences between the two manners of sounds, and suggest that while spectral measures are generally referenced as being of importance for place of articulation differences, they may also play a role in distinguishing laryngeal contrasts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".