Stop-Lateral Clusters in French and Spanish: Articulatory Timing Differences and Synchronic Patterns
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
While both French and Spanish have complex onsets, the languages differ in the variety and distribution of clusters allowed as well as in the realization of voiced stops. The present study examines the effects of C1 voicing, place of articulation, and language on the production of word-initial /pl bl kl gl/ using a combination of electropalatographic (C1 and C2 linguopalatal contact and timing) and acoustic measures (duration and relative intensity) from 4 French and 7 Spanish speakers. Certain between-language similarities and differences in the effects of voicing and place on intergestural timing were observed. In particular, (1) both languages showed more overlap in clusters where C1 was velar rather than labial; (2) the effect of voicing (more overlap in clusters with a voiced C1) was restricted to French; and (3) lateral duration was unaffected by C1 place or voicing, while C1 duration was strongly affected by stress and voicing in Spanish alone given the approximantization of voiced stops. These results contribute to a better understanding of the general mechanisms and language-specific patterns of intergestural coordination in onset clusters and add to the growing body of articulatory work on these complex structures in Romance languages.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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