Paradigmatic and syntagmatic effects in Estonian spontaneous speech
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent evidence indicates that a word’s paradigmatic neighbors affect production. However, thesefindings have mostly been obtained in careful laboratory settings using words in isolation, and thusignoring potential effects that may arise from the syntagmatic context, which is typically present inspontaneous speech. The current corpus analysis investigates paradigmatic and syntagmatic effectsin Estonian spontaneous speech. Following work on English, we focus on the duration of inflectedand uninflected word-final /-s/ in content words, while simultaneously investigating whole words.Our analyses reveal three points. First, we find an effect of realized inflectional paradigm size,such that smaller paradigms actively used by the speakers lead to longer durations. Second, higherconditional probability is associated with shorter word forms and shorter segments. Finally, wedo not directly replicate previous work on effects of inflectional status as in English word-final/-s/. Instead, we find that inflectional status interacts with conditional probability. We discussthe results in light of models of speech production and how they account for morphologicallycomplex words and their paradigmatic neighbors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".