Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. INTRODUCTION (1) Pulmonic speech refers to speaking while breathing in. This phenomenon is reported for several Scottish dialects, where it may be used in particular on short words for 'yes' and 'no', such as yeah and aye (e.g. Thom 2005; Eklund 2008). The cross-linguistic distribution of pulmonic speech is a matter of current debate (cf. Clarke and Melchers 2005; Eklund 2007, 2008). According to one viewpoint, it is restricted to a North Atlantic/Baltic zone, stretching from Northern Europe to North America. Others suggest that it is to be found in wide range of languages, covering all continents. Its occurrence within the North Atlantic/Baltic zone has further been argued to reflect migratory patterns, involving Vikings and subsequently British and Irish emigrants. One problem which has militated against more detailed study of speech is the paucity of evidence and documentation for many parts in such forms as audio recordings. Thus far it is only in Scandinavia, Newfoundland and Shetland that corpus studies have been performed (e.g. Steinbergs 1993; Kobayashi 2001; Clarke and Melchers 2005; Sundkvist 2012); for other localities we rely largely on informal observations. This paper examines the existence of pulmonic speech in Orkney based on audio recordings available at Orkney Library and Archives. 2. PULMONIC INGRESSIVE AIRSTREAM MECHANISM The production of an audible speech sound consists of three basic or functional components: initiation, and phonation. For initiation --or airstream mechanism--the aim is to achieve a flow of air in the vocal tract. Those sounds that utilize the lungs as the initiator are called 'pulmonic' sounds (those that utilize some other organ are called 'non-pulmonic'). Most commonly, the direction of the airstream is outwards, from the lungs towards the mouth. This is referred to as a 'pulmonic egressive' airstream. However, it is also possible to generate a flow of air by drawing air into the lungs, which is thus a 'pulmonic ingressive' airstream. The second component, articulation, concerns the subsequent modification of the airstream, which is required to generate a wide range of sound types. This involves such dimensions as place and manner of for consonants, and tongue height and advancement, and lip rounding for vowels. Finally, the definition of varies slightly among authors. To some extent it depends on whether it is seen as an optional component or not. One definition, provided by Catford (1988: 56), is: any of those phonetic activities of the larynx which have neither initiatory nor articulatory function. Under this definition principal types are voiceless (glottis open), voice (vocal folds vibrating), whisper (glottis narrowed), and creak (glottis closed along much of its length but with a small part vibrating). Various combinations of these types are also possible. For our purposes, two benefits may be gained by spelling out and keeping in mind these basics of speech production. Firstly, it is possible to clarify that the crucial aspect of the speech sounds under investigation is their initiation, namely that they involve an airstream directed inwards towards the lungs. Previously, the phenomenon has on occasion been referred to as ingressive articulation (Clarke and Melchers 2005: 51) and ingressive phonation (Eklund 2008:235), neither of which is technically accurate. Secondly, it leaves the of ingressives unspecified. The topic of in speech is a highly complex one, where more research is clearly needed for a fuller understanding (cf. Orlikoff, Baken and Kraus 1997). However, applying a basic distinction between voiced and voiceless ingressives in the analysis allows us to assess additional, potential variation within the speech community. As an example, in Shetland this approach revealed substantial gender differences (Sundkvist 2012). …
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".