MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7006884188

VOT Analysis of L1 and L2 Speakers of Itza’

2023· article· en· W7006884188 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian acoustics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiological and pharmacological studies of plants
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConnaught FundUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsVoice-onset timeVoiceVowelVariation (astronomy)Phonetics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores Voice Onset Time (VOT) in Itza’, a critically endangered Mayan language. VOT is the amount of time elapsed between the release burst of a stop sound such as /p/ or /t/ and the onset of voicing associated with the following vowel; this measurement can vary for the same phoneme across languages and intra-language variation is also found. Research on other languages like SENĆOŦEN has reported that L2 teachers produced a ”stronger” ejective /t’/ than L1 elders, with a longer VOT (Bird 2020). Itza’ is in a similar situation as SENĆOŦEN, with ongoing language revitalization efforts focused on producing a new generation of L2 speakers; this motivated the present analysis of Itza’ ejectives to determine whether there are differences in VOT values of ejective stops and to discuss how this may impact language revitalization efforts. Elicitation sessions using a wordlist with 8 Itza’ speakers (L1 and L2) produced 216 tokens of ejective and plain stops followed by both /a/ and /u/. VOT was segmented and extracted using Praat (Boersma and Weenink 2022). A mixed-effects model was created using R (Bates et al. 2015) with L1/L2 status, airstream mechanism, place of articulation, and following vowel as fixed effects and Speaker ID as grouping variable. L1/L2 speaker status was found to have a significant effect on VOT at the p < 0.05 level, with L1 speakers having a higher VOT than L2s. This could indicate that ejectives in Itza’ are weakening over time, which may have long-term effects on the retention of these sounds in the language due to reduced salience (Ham 2008, 61–62). An effect of vowel at the p < 0.05 level was also found: stops followed by vowel /a/ had a higher VOT than those followed by vowel /u/. Bibliography Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. Bird, S. (2020). Pronunciation among adult Indigenous language learners. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 6(2), 148–179. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2022). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (6.3.02). Ham, S. (2008). Tsilhqut’in Ejectives: A Descriptive Phonetic Study [Thesis]. University of Victoria.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.255 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian acousticsSame topicBiological and pharmacological studies of plantsFrench-language works237,207