Gradience in prosodic representation: vowel reduction and neoclassical elements in Brazilian Portuguese
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brazilian Portuguese, neoclassical elements (NCEs) may combine with both independent lexical words (e.g., psico in psicolinguística ‘psycholinguistics’) and non-lexical words (e.g., psico in psicologia ‘psychology’). This has led to the proposal that they have distinct prosodic representations depending on the type of structure that they form: NCE+Indep(endent lexical word) prosodizes recursively in the PWd, whereas NCE+Dep(endent form) prosodizes as a simple PWd. However, both NCE+Indep and NCE+Dep are subject to vowel reduction processes that yield similar surface forms: the NCE in NCE+Indep is targeted by word-final raising, and the NCE in NCE+Dep is targeted by raising in pretonic position. This similarity in surface forms poses a problem for the proposal of separate prosodic representations, as different forms of prosodization imply different phonological behavior. We analyze native speakers’ judgements and productions with respect to reduction of the NCE-final vowel under the hypothesis that, if these NCE structures are prosodized differently and undergo different processes, the process that is more frequent in the Brazilian Portuguese grammar (word-final raising) should have higher acceptance and production rates. Results confirm our hypothesis. We argue that the gradient application of phonological processes reflects prosodic distinctions that cannot be captured in a framework that only considers the application or non-application of said processes.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it