The semantics of clause linking: A cross-linguistic typology. Ed. by R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald. (Explorations in linguistic typology 5.) Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Pp. xviii, 410. ISBN 9780199567225. $120 (Hb).
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: The semantics of clause linking: A cross-linguistic typology Lars Johanson The semantics of clause linking: A cross-linguistic typology. Ed. by R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald. (Explorations in linguistic typology 5.) Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Pp. xviii, 410. ISBN 9780199567225. $120 (Hb). The last decades have seen an abundance of descriptions and analyses of syntactic clause-combining types. This volume brings the semantic dimension of clause linking into focus. It is a crosslinguistic examination of the different grammatical means that languages may employ to represent a general set of semantic relations between clauses. It aims at establishing a number of specific types of semantic linking observable in various structures, with the exception of relativeand complement-clause constructions. [End Page 189] The basic ideas of this typological project originate from a 2006 workshop held at the Research Centre for Linguistic Typology of La Trobe University. Since then, the theoretical basis has been refined successively. The volume contains a fascinating diversity of contributions by specialists on various languages, providing readers with the opportunity to orient themselves in the complexity of the possible clause-linking structures. All chapters are written by scholars who have undertaken intensive fieldwork and/or carried out in-depth analyses of the languages they deal with. The volume starts with an opening discussion by R. M. W. Dixon, a detailed position chapter expounding the theoretical and methodological basis of the collective enterprise. This introductory chapter is followed by fourteen comprehensive case studies: Guy Deutscher on Akkadian (Semitic), Mark Post on Galo (Tibeto-Burman, north-east India), David E. Watters on Kham (Tibeto-Burman, Nepal), Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald on Manambu (Ndu family, Papua New Guinea), Lev Michael on Iquito (Zaparoan, Peru), Simon Overall on Aguaruna (Jivaroan, Peru), J. Randolph Valentine on Ojibwe (Algonquian, Canada), R.M.W. Dixon on Boumaa Fijian (Austronesian), Frantisek Lichtenberk on Toqabaqita (Austronesian, Solomon Islands), Alan Dench on Martuthunira (Western Australia), Ho-min Sohn on Korean, Birgit Hellwig on Goemai (Chadic, Nigeria), Maarten Mous and Ongaye Oda on Konso (Cushitic, Southern Ethiopia), and Tonya Stebbins on Mali (Baining family, Papua New Guinea). The analysis depends on the idea that, for most kinds of clause linking, a ‘focal clause’ and a ‘supporting clause’ can be identified on semantic grounds. The focal clause refers to the central activity or state of the biclausal linking. The supporting clause sets out the temporal milieu for the focal clause and specifies a condition or presupposition for it. There may also be more than one supporting clause, namely, a ‘supporting clause complex’. For each type of linkage, criteria are presented to recognize which clause is focal and which is supporting (see tables on p. 2 and p. 6). In each type, a grammatical marker is likely to be attached to one of the clauses, indicating the specific kind of linking. An important issue is the correlation between semantic and syntactic analyses. In many instances, focal clauses are main clauses, but they may also be nonmain clauses. The types of linkage discussed in the volume are summarized below. • temporal succession: The focal clause may be expressed by devices that correspond to the English markers and, then, and and then. • relative time: The supporting clause indicates the relative time (e.g. after, before, when, since, until, and while), whereas the focal clause provides the temporal perspective with respect to it. • conditional linkage: The supporting clause indicates the condition (e.g. if), while the focal clause shows the result if the condition is satisfied (e.g. then). • consequence: A specific linking type where the supporting clause shows the cause or reason (e.g. if and because), whereas the focal clause shows the result or the purpose (e.g. then, therefore, and so, thus, in order that/for). • possible consequence: The supporting clause indicates the possible consequence (e.g. in case, lest), whereas the focal clause shows what is, or is not, to be done to avoid the possible consequence or to make it happen. • unordered addition: Does not allow...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,019 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,025 | 0,009 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».