Laryngeal Articulation and Voice Quality in Sound Change, Language Ontogeny and Phylogeny
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chapter 8 summarizes the ramifications of the Laryngeal Articular Model for the phonetic description of voice quality and investigates its place in phonetic theory. Predispositions for background voice qualities to underlie different vowel qualities are identified. It is argued that there is a parallel between the coarticulatory path that infants follow in their earliest speech development and elements in the process of phonetic sound change. The laryngeal articulator as an enabler of sound change is explored. Theories of ontogenetic speech development are reviewed (concepts of ‘speechlikeness,’ autogeneration, frame/content, cyclicity, reduplication, variegation) and reinterpreted to reflect the scope of laryngeal behaviour outlined in this volume. The discussion evaluates the implications of the revised view of laryngeal phonetic behaviour for the phylogeny of human speech. The physiology of the larynx is shown to permit a wider range of speech production than formerly assumed and to accommodate, on phonetic grounds, an earlier time period for the appearance of speech in human ancestors, as hypothesized in recent anthropological and genetic research.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".