Le statut lexical des consonnes de liaison
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
One of the issues raised by liaison concerns the lexical status of liaison consonants (LCs). LCs are generally assumed to be lexically attached to the preceding word. It has also been proposed that they are epenthetic and lexically independent, or that they belong to the following word. This issue is revisited in light of new or neglected data, notably from acquisition and phonetics. In the general case LCs are argued to be epenthetic, but in marginal cases they correspond to (fixed) initial or final consonants belonging to distinct allomorphs of the following or preceding word. The model of liaison that emerges from these different categories of LCs differs from the traditional view in several respects. First, liaison is not considered a uniform process. Second, “floating” segments are evacuated. Third, liaison appears to be driven by a constraint requiring lexical invariance, as it involves no modifications of lexical forms, and a constraint against allomorphy. This approach is characterized by the unicity, simplicity, and invariance of lexical forms. By contrast, previous analyses have viewed liaison as a simple and unified process, but they involve either numerous lexical exceptions, widespread allomorphy, or complex autosegmental representations.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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