Rhotics and Palatalization: An Acoustic Examination of Upper and Lower Sorbian
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two of the major problems with rhotics are: (1) rhotics, unlike most other classes, are highly resistant to secondary palatalization, and (2) acoustic cues for rhotics as a class have been elusive. This study examines the acoustics of Upper and Lower Sorbian rhotics. Dynamic measures of the F1-F3 and F2-F1 were recorded and compared using SSANOVAs. The results indicate there is a striking delay in achievement of F2 for both the palatalized rhotics, while F2, F1, and F2-F1 are similar for all the rhotics tested here. The results suggest an inherent articulatory conflict between rhotics and secondary palatalization. The delay in the F2 increase indicates a delay in the palatalization gesture. This is likely due to conflicting constraints on the tongue dorsum. There was also an overlap in the F2 and F2-F1 for both the uvular and alveolar rhotics. This suggests a strong acoustic cue to rhotic classhood is found in the F2 signal. The overall formant similarities in frequency and trajectory also suggest a strong similarity in the vocal tract shapes between uvular and alveolar rhotics.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 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 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".