<b>Language, text and knowledge:</b> Mental models of expert communication. Ed. by Lita Lundquist and Robert J. Jarvella. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000. Pp. 326. $93.35.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: The minimalist parameter ed. by Galina M. Alexandrova, Olga Arnaudova Natalie Sciarini-Gourianova The minimalist parameter. Selected papers from the Open Linguistics Forum, Ottawa, 21–23 March 1997. Ed. by Galina M. Alexandrova and Olga Arnaudova. (Current issues in linguistic theory 192.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2001. Pp. 360. $87.00. The minimalist parameter is a remarkable volume because it clearly shows that generative grammarians [End Page 825] form a world-wide scientific community. This collection is a record of papers read at the ‘Challenges of minimalism’ session of the Open Linguistic Forum. The range of languages represented is impressive: The papers contain data not only from English, French, Spanish, and German, but also from Japanese, Hebrew, Insular and Mainland Scandinavian, Italian, Catalan, Greek, Hindi, Arabic, Korean, Western Apache, Hungarian, Mandarin Chinese, and Yiddish. The minimalist program is not a settled theory yet, and it is natural for it to grow in order to stay healthy. In this respect, the volume contains a number of papers which challenge its propositions by developing certain points or by suggesting an alternative. Denis Bouchard (3–32) opens the discussion with a statement that one property presented as central in the standard minimalist model as a principle turns out to be a contingent property, that is, a parameter setting. Sharon Armon-Lotem (65–76) proposes that Checking is a unified process applied only after Spell-out, thus contradicting the assumption that ‘strong’ features should be checked only after Spellout. Masanori Nakamura (101–12) argues that the notion of interpretability is important also in the determination of the ‘reference set’ and in the application of economy conditions. Andrew Simpson (191–204) examines a paradigm of wh- and negation-related data whose patterning would seem to seriously question the uniformity hypothesis. Julie Anne Legate and Carolyn Smallwood (207–26) argue that the feature [D] is insufficient to account for the range of crosslinguistic variation found among human languages. The majority of the reports, however, investigate certain phenomena in the general frames of the minimalist approach. Susan Powers (33–50) thinks that a minimalist account can be useful for reasons of economy and empirical coverage of phrase structure acquisition, for it directly explains how development proceeds as merge sucessfully combines phrase markers from earlier stages. Hiroyuki Ura (51–64) demonstrates that the theory of multiple F-checking gives a natural explanation of data found in a variety of languages with a limited set of parameters. Artemis Alexiadou and Elena Anagnostopoulou (175–90) investigate the syntactic conditions of the placement of postverbal subjects in transitive and intransitive constructions. Kerstin Hoge (233–48) attempts to reanalyze the that-t effect. Virginia Motapanyane (249–60) gives a new account for crosslinguistic variation in focus constructions and interrogative clauses between Romanian and English-type languages. Other contributors are John Whitman, Takashi Toyoshima, Adam Szczegielniak, Anikó Csirmaz, Ning Zhang, Satoshi Oku, Juan Romero-Morales and Norberto Moreno-Quibén, Huba Bartos, Luis Silva-Villar and Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach, and Bernadette Plunkett. The volume is aimed at a rather narrow range of linguists working within the generative syntactic paradigm. It is impossible to grasp the essence of such complicated analyses without a background knowledge of the subject. However, the language of the papers is as concise as the discussion permits it to be. All the articles have abstracts, separately listed in the appendix. Along with the index of names, the list makes the volume very convenient for future reference. Natalie Sciarini-Gourianova Guilford, CT Copyright © 2002 Linguistic Society of America
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».