MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2026647339 · doi:10.1353/lan.2013.0014

<b>Topic and discourse structure in West Greenlandic agreement constructions</b> . By Anna Berge. (Studies in the native languages of the Americas.) Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press (in cooperation with the American Indian Studies Research Institute, Indiana University, Bloomington), 2011. Pp. xviii, 446. ISBN 9780803216457. $75 (Hb).

2013· article· en· W2026647339 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueLanguage · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSubject (documents)SyntaxIndigenousLinguisticsAgreementErgative caseHistorySociologyPhilosophyMathematicsComputer scienceLibrary science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Topic and discourse structure in West Greenlandic agreement constructions by Anna Berge Louis-Jacques Dorais Topic and discourse structure in West Greenlandic agreement constructions. By Anna Berge. (Studies in the native languages of the Americas.) Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press (in cooperation with the American Indian Studies Research Institute, Indiana University, Bloomington), 2011. Pp. xviii, 446. ISBN 9780803216457. $75 (Hb). This book is a reworked version of the author's Ph.D. dissertation completed in 1997. It won the Mary R. Haas Award presented by the Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas (SSILA), but unfortunately, it had been held up in review for an unusually long period of time. Its publication is, thus, especially welcome. [End Page 173] Anna Berge's objective is to provide readers with an analysis of West Greenlandic agreement constructions based on the structure of discourse rather than on a traditional syntactic approach, by stressing the primacy of topic over the roles of subject and object. Her motivation for so doing stems from two factors: (i) the inadequacy of a purely syntactic analysis for describing ergative languages such as West Greenlandic (the Inuit dialect spoken on the western coast of Greenland), and (ii) the fact that studying syntax through decontextualized sentences entails various problems, including a high number of exceptions that the theory cannot explain without having recourse to nonsyntactic elements (e.g. information flow, 'psychological subject'). The study uses spoken West Greenlandic texts as raw materials—totaling more than 600 clauses—that B collected in the field by interviewing two local consultants in their native language, and by asking two more to talk freely about their personal recollections. All of the data appear in the appendix at the end of the book, with their morphological analyses and English translations. Data analysis is generally correct, except for a small number of errors that do not impair the validity of the study. The book is divided into five chapters. It opens with an introduction discussing West Greenlandic grammar, its role (and that of other Inuit dialects) in syntactic theory, approaches to the study of discourse, and their application to discourse structure in West Greenlandic. This is followed by three core chapters that deal respectively with topic and theme as discourse roles, ergativity as a reflection of topic status, and a discussion of the relevance of switch-reference vs. thematic coherence and topic continuity. Each of these core chapters starts by positioning the chapter's matter within general linguistic theory, before describing in detail what West Greenlandic data analysis has to tell us about the topic under examination. The book ends with a conclusion summarizing its findings and hinting at some more general extrapolations that stem from West Greenlandic discourse analysis. The author's core argument is that in West Greenlandic, the chief factor governing agreement marking is not strictly syntactic, because studies of the language, whether dealing with ergativity, transitivity, or the difference between the ergative and antipassive verbal voices, must always involve nonsyntactic elements in their explanation. This suggests that discourse is particularly important in grammatical analysis. If discourse can predictably affect syntactic constructions, it must possess predictable structural components—as syntax and semantics do—that are necessary to an adequate description of linguistic structure. Several theories have been used in studying West Greenlandic, but without a comprehensive description of what is needed to speak the language, and this at all levels of linguistic complexity (including semantics, discourse, pragmatics, and sociolinguistics), a linguist's analysis risks being tributary to the theory to which he or she adheres. According to B, in order to be satisfactory, the study of discourse must consider central issues such as its effect on syntax, the patterns of information flow, and the thematic development of a text, as well as the sociocultural context within which a text is produced. The central premise of her study is that certain constructions that mark textual cohesion in West Greenlandic can best be understood by assuming that discourse roles such as topic—rather than syntactic roles such as subject or object—are the most relevant structural items. This means that discourse must be viewed as a structure, rather than...

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.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,233
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,975

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,003
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,030
Tête enseignante GPT0,297
Écart entre enseignants0,268 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle