Sibilant production in Hebrew-speaking adults: Apical versus laminal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Hebrew IPA charts describe the sibilants /s, z/ as 'alveolar fricatives', where the place of articulation on the palate is the alveolar ridge. The point of constriction on the tongue is not defined - apical (tip) or laminal (blade). Usually, speech and language pathologists (SLPs) use the apical placement in Hebrew articulation therapy. Some researchers and SLPs suggested that acceptable /s, z/ could be also produced with the laminal placement (i.e. the tip of the tongue approximating the lower incisors). The present study focused at the clinical level, attempting to determine the prevalence of these alternative points of constriction on the tongue for /s/ and /z/ in three different samples of Hebrew-speaking young adults (total n = 242), with typical articulation. Around 60% of the participants reported using the laminal position, regardless of several speaker-related variables (e.g. tongue-thrust swallowing, gender). Laminal production was more common in /s/ (than /z/), coda (than onset) position of the sibilant, mono- (than di-) syllabic words, and with non-alveolar (than alveolar) adjacent consonants. Experiment 3 revealed no acoustical differences between apical and laminal productions of /s/ and of /z/. From a clinical perspective, we wish to raise the awareness of SLPs to the prevalence of the two placements when treating Hebrew speakers, noting that tongue placements were highly correlated across sibilants. Finally, we recommend adopting a client-centred practice, where tongue placement is matched to the client. We further recommend selecting targets for intervention based on our findings, and separating between different prosodic positions in treatment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".