Bibliographic record
Abstract
Palatalization in many languages emerges as either a lexical process or a post-lexical process, in which lexical palatalization is governed by language-specific phonological rules, and post-lexical palatalization is a result of phonetic coarticulation. This study examines whether lexical and post-lexical palatalization in English manifest as distinct articulatory gestures using ultrasound imaging of 12 native speakers of American English. Comparison of the ultrasound tongue contours shows that lexical and post-lexical palatalization is articulatorily distinct, but the way such articulatory distinction is made is not uniform across speakers, showing no clear universal "palatal" gesture shared in common. Moreover, the effects of lexical information—two different types of palatalization and lexical frequency in this study—vary across different segments, words and speakers. The findings from this study provide additional empirical evidence for the lexical influence on palatalization, and add weight to the growing evidence of speaker-specific variability in speech production. Furthermore, this study suggests that speakers may construct their "individualized" palatalization grammar, resulting in non-generalizable gestural patterns.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".