MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394821279 · doi:10.1515/tlr-2024-2011

Glottal stop insertion and production planning domains in French

2024· article· en· W4394821279 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tobias Scheer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Linguistic Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChoseContext (archaeology)LinguisticsVowelConsonantPsychologyMathematicsPhilosophyHistoryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The article introduces an experimental study of glottal stops that are generated by h aspiré (H) in French ( il [ʔ] hoche la tête ). To date the phenomenon is merely mentioned in passing, and evidence only comes from native speaker intuitions and cursory personal observation. Participants pronounced verbs that either did ( hocher ) or did not ( aimer ) begin with an H, whereby the left context was controlled for: the preceding word could end in a vowel ( tu hoches / aimes ), in a consonant ( il hoche / aime ) or in a liaison consonant (LC nous hochons / aimons ). Results confirm the observation made in the literature regarding the high variability of H: lexical (elision is much more frequent in j’harcèle than in j’hais ), inter-speaker (some participants chose unelided je for 10 out of 12 H verbs, while others only for 4 H verbs) and intra-speaker (participants pronounced vous [z] hissez with liaison, while they chose je hisse in a multiple choice-based pretest). Results also confirmed that H is indeed a glottal stop creator: glottal stops occur much more often before H-initial than before V-initial words. The glottal stop rate also depended on the left context: while LC + H ( nous hochons ) and C + H ( il hoche ) are statistically indistinguishable, both are significantly distinct from V + H ( tu hoches ). This suggests that glottal stop insertion is sensitive to all types of preceding consonants, whether they are pronounced (C + H) or not (LC + H). This result is relevant in the debate on French liaison where it was claimed that (some) LCs are epenthetic, that is absent from phonological computation when unpronounced: this view is challenged by the experimental evidence. On the analytic side, the article argues that all glottal stops that occur stand in Strong Position, i.e. word-initially or after a consonant {#,C}__ (Ségéral, Philippe & Tobias Scheer. 2001. La Coda-Miroir. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 96. 107–152). The word-initial position is in fact domain-initial, and it is a long standing observation in the literature that H sets off its word into a separate domain. Thus even glottal stops in V + H ( tu hoches ) that appear to occur in intervocalic position may in fact be domain-initial V + [H]. The question then is what kind of domain could be responsible for the (rare) presence of glottal stops in V + V ( tu aimes ): such a domain V + [V] cannot stem from H, nor can it be of morpho-syntactic origin. It is argued that these domains are production planning domains in the sense of Wagner (2012. Locality in phonology and production planning. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 22. 1–18 and following).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.356 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Linguistic ReviewSame topicPhonetics and Phonology ResearchFrench-language works237,207