Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis provides a phonological, psycholinguistic and phonetic description of vowel harmony in Canadian French (CF), as well as a theoretical account of the phenomenon showing that the CF facts may only be accounted for in derivational frameworks that include the notion of 'cycle.' CF [ATR] vowel harmony is regressive, optional, and parasitic on the feature [+high]. CF [ATR] harmony involves spreading of a [-ATR] feature from a final [+high] vowel in a closed syllable to other [+high] vowels within the same word that are in non-final open syllables (e.g. [fi.lIp] or [fI.lIp] are both acceptable variants for 'Phillip'). The thesis describes and explains the four key attributes of harmony in this language: 1) There is inter-speaker (and possibly intra-speaker) variation with respect to whether harmony is applied locally and/or iteratively. Variation with respect to these parameters leads to the existence of three patterns of harmony, as evidenced by words of more than two syllables. There is the local non-iterative pattern, e.g. [i.lI.sIt] ('illicit'), the non-local pattern, e.g. [I.li.sIt] and the 'across-the-board' pattern [I.lI.sIt].2) As shown in 1), there exists a pattern of non-local harmony, in which the target vowel is separated from the trigger by another [+high] vowel. 3) Harmony is counterbled by a process of 'pre-fricative tensing,' which leads to opaque allophony. 4) Harmony applies cyclically, but is then counterbled by another 'open-syllable tensing' process, which results in another case of opacity. For example, harmony can apply in a word like [mY.zIk] ('music'), but if we concatenate a resyllabifying suffix like [al], we obtain [mY.zi.kal] ('musical'). The initial [+high] vowel can be [-ATR], since harmony applied in the stem, but the resyllabified trigger must be [+ATR], by an open syllable tensing rule.The thesis makes the following claim: CF vowel harmony shows very compellingly that models of the phonological component must include mechanisms accounting for non-local relations, derivational opacity and the interaction between phonology and morphology.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".