Lowered F2 observed in uvular rhotics involves a tongue root gesture: Evidence from Upper Sorbian
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Upper Sorbian, an endangered West Slavic language spoken in Germany, is unusual among Slavic languages in having a uvular rhotic /ʀ/. This paper focuses on the gestural configuration and coarticulatory resistance of the uvular rhotic and explores the relation between the articulation and acoustics of this sound. Ultrasound tongue imaging data were collected from six native speakers of Upper Sorbian, who produced /ʀ/ in word-initial, intervocalic, and word-final positions next to the vowels /e a o/. Smoothing Spline ANOVAs were used to compare tongue contours within and across phonetic contexts. Differences in the tongue root and tongue body position were also calculated across environments and compared using a measure of coarticulatory resistance. The results revealed that the sound was produced with considerable tongue root retraction and a uvular-pharyngeal tongue body constriction. The tongue root had a high resistance to coarticulatory effects, while the tongue body did not. The results suggest that the tongue root retraction into the pharyngeal cavity results in observed high F1 and low F2 effects associated with unpalatalized rhotic consonants and may explain perceptual similarity between uvular and alveolar rhotics. Articulatory constraints on the tongue root also account for phonotactic distribution of the rhotics across languages.
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) | 0.003 | 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".