MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417517168 · doi:10.1163/15507076-bja10052

Cross-generational Phonetic Drift in Toronto Heritage Tagalog: a Variationist Sociolinguistic Investigation of VOT in Spontaneous Speech

2025· article· W4417517168 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Pocholo Umbal

Bibliographic record

VenueHeritage Language Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic Variation and Morphology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsVariation (astronomy)TagalogSociolinguisticsHeritage languageHomeland

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study provides a variationist sociolinguistic investigation of voice onset time ( VOT ) of voiceless stops in Tagalog, focusing on two generations of heritage speakers in Toronto, with the goal of documenting patterns of variation and illuminating the linguistic and social mechanisms that underlie variability. Data on Tagalog drawn from naturalistic speech were examined, and comparisons between heritage speakers and age-matched homeland speakers in Manila reveal that while VOT among homeland speakers shows no signs of change, VOT among heritage speakers demonstrates cross-generational drift towards the long-lag VOT of English, which may be accounted for by cross-linguistic influence. VOT variation is further modulated by gender and ethnic identity, suggesting that at least some variation may be explained by sociolinguistic motivations. Thus, VOT patterns among heritage speakers are a product of a complex interaction of language-internal and social factors.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeritage Language JournalSame topicLinguistic Variation and MorphologyFrench-language works237,207