Predicting prosodic structure by morphosyntactic category: A case study of Blackfoot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines phonetic correlates to three prosodic categories in Blackfoot: the syllable (σ), the prosodic word (ω), and the phonological phrase (φ). I provide evidence that the Blackfoot σ is recognizable by an obligatory process of vowel coalescence and the φ is recognizable by an obligatory process of right edge aspiration. The ω can be distinguished from these other two prosodic constituents by an optional phonetic process which mimics intersyllabic vowel coalescence, but does not apply obligatorily.The prosodic categories investigated in this study are then correlated to three morphosyntactic categories: morphological agreement suffixes, lexical morphemes (adjectives and nouns), and demonstratives. This correlation is used to argue that morphological and syntactic processes function differently at the interface with phonology (cf. Russell 1999), ultimately raising questions with “word-internal syntax” analyses of Blackfoot suffixation which are derived through cyclic head movement (Bliss 2013; Wiltschko 2014) using the Mirror Principle (Baker 1985).This article is part of the Special Collection: Prosody and costituent structure
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".