Deletion of Word-Final Final [u] in São Miguel Portuguese (Maia): A Variationist Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the linguistic and extralinguistic factors that affect the deletion of word-final [u] (gat/u/=> [gat] ‘cat') in Azorean Portuguese, a prestige marker (Silva 2005) characteristic of the European variety of Portuguese (EP). In this study, native speakers of Azorean Portuguese (AP) completed a picture naming task, a picture description as well as an interview in the presence of both an AP and an EP speaker. The participants were audio-recorded, and relevant data were transcribed, coded and subject to Goldvarb X analysis. Results of the study indicate that extralinguistic factors such as the presence of either an EP or AP speaker affected the process of [u] deletion: participants were more likely to preserve the segment when they completed the tasks in the presence of an EP speaker, confirming that its pronunciation is viewed as a prestige marker by the participants. These results are consistent with Speech Accommodation Theory, which posits that people unconsciously adapt their speech so that it conforms more to the speech of their interlocutors (Coupland and Giles 1988). In addition, the participants were more likely to preserve word-fmal [u] when engaged in more formal tasks (e.g., in picture naming). Finally, it was predicted that the linguistic environment would play a role in the extent to which the final [u] was deleted. Based on the concept of markedness on coda constituents (i.e., voiced codas are more marked than their voiceless counterparts; Prance and Smolensky 1993) and on a study by Silva (1998), it was hypothesized that [u]-delction would be favoured in preceding voiceless environments because the resulting segment (i.e., a voiceless consonant) would constitute the ideal coda. The results of the investigation, however, revealed that deletion was more frequent when [u] was preceded by voiced consonants, contradicting both markedness on coda sonority and Silva’s findings.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".