MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039669855 · doi:10.5334/gjgl.1061

On the historical source of <i>a ~ u</i> alternations in Dëne Sułıne optative paradigms

2020· article· en· W3039669855 on OpenAlexafffund
Alessandro Jaker

Bibliographic record

VenueGlossa a journal of general linguistics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersOffice of Polar ProgramsUniversity of TorontoNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAlternation (linguistics)LinguisticsConsonantVowelPhonologyRaising (metalworking)PrefixVerbConsonant clusterMathematicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In most dialects of Dëne Sųłıné, the optative prefix, reconstructed in Proto Dene as *Gʷə (Krauss 1969), exhibits an alternation in verb paradigms: an a-vowel is found in the 1st and 3rd person singular forms (ɣʷa, wa, or ha, depending on the dialect), while an u-vowel is found elsewhere (ɣʷu, wu, hu). This alternation raises three questions. First, how could the same consonant *Gʷ trigger both raising and lowering of the following vowel? Secondly, what phonological factors conditioned this alternation historically? And finally, does this alternation still belong to the synchronic phonology of modern Dëne Sųłıné dialects?In this paper, I will explore what insights the Contrastivist Hypothesis (CH) (Hall 2007, Dresher 2009) can add to our understanding of this alternation. Representationally, the CH makes it possible to describe lowering to a as spreading of [low], while raising to u involves spreading of [round]. I propose that the choice of which process applied in which forms depended on prosodic factors. In addition, I show what insights the CH can contribute to internal reconstruction. Specifically, I argue that, under the CH, spreading of [low] cannot be a part of the modern synchronic phonology of Dëne Sųłıné, but rather originated at a time before a series of consonant shifts occurred in the language, in particular when the retroflex series was still part of the consonant inventory.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.630
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlossa a journal of general linguisticsSame topicPhonetics and Phonology ResearchFrench-language works237,207