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 OpenAlex
Tobias Scheer

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.654
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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