Voice register in Mon: experiments in production and perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
is a two-way contrast realized through a bundle of phonetic properties which may include phonation type, vowel quality, and differences in pitch. Mon, an Austroasiatic language spoken in Myanmar and Thailand, is often described as a prototypical register language. However, reports differ as to which acoustic properties of register are dominant or even present in Mon, and no studies have investigated the extent to which they cue the register contrast in perception. A functional principal component analysis of acoustic and electroglottographic data from seventeen speakers of Burma Mon varieties shows that registers are acoustically differentiated primarily by covarying differences in fundamental frequency (f0) and voice quality. The results of a forced-choice identification study show that listeners are also sensitive to these phonetic properties in perception, but that f0 was the most robust cue to the register contrast. Individual variation is observed in both production and perception, but there is not a straightforward correlation between the two at the individual level. Our analysis suggests that although fundamental frequency is a highly salient cue to register in Burma Mon, it is likely a manifestation of a more general laryngeal configuration rather than a specific acoustic target.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".