How “mixed” is mixed language phonology? An acoustic analysis of the Michif vowel system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Michif, a severely endangered language still spoken today by an estimated 100-200 Métis people in Western Canada, is generally classified as a mixed language, meaning it cannot be traced back to a single language family [Bakker (1997). A Language of Our Own (Oxford University Press, Oxford); Thomason (2001). Language Contact: An Introduction (Edinburgh University Press and Georgetown University Press, Edinburgh and Washington, DC); Meakins (2013). Contact Languages: A Comprehensive Guide (Mouton De Gruyter, Berlin), pp. 159-228.]. It has been claimed to maintain the phonological grammar of both of its source languages, French and Plains Cree [Rhodes (1977). Actes du Huitieme congrès des Algonqunistes (Carleton University, Ottawa), pp. 6-25; Bakker (1997). A Language of Our Own (Oxford University Press, Oxford); Bakker and Papen (1997). Contact Languages: A Wider Perspective (John Benjamins, Amsterdam), pp. 295-363]. The goal of this paper is twofold: to offer an instrumental analysis of Michif vowels and to investigate this claim of a stratified grammar, based on this careful phonetic analysis. Using source language as a variable in the analysis, the authors argue the Michif vowel system does not appear to rely on historical information, and that historically similar French and Cree vowels pattern together within the Michif system with regards to formant frequencies and duration. The authors show that there are nine Michif oral vowels in this system, which has merged phonetically similar French- and Cree-source vowels.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".