<b>Historical linguistics 1999.</b> Ed. by Laurel J. Brinton Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2001. Pp. xii, 389. Cloth $105.00.
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.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: Historical linguistics 1999 ed. by Laurel J. Brinton Marc Picard Historical linguistics 1999. Ed. by Laurel J. Brinton. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2001. Pp. xii, 389. Cloth $105.00. This book contains 23 of the papers that were presented at the International Conference on Historical Linguistics (ICHL 14), Vancouver, BC, August 1999. These papers, which range in length from 11 to 26 pages, are arranged in alphabetical order by the authors’ names and are followed by an index of languages and language families, an index of names, and an index of subjects. Most of the articles can be roughly divided into those that deal mainly with (morpho)phonology and those that are concerned primarily with (morpho)syntax. In the first category, we find ‘Recent advances in the reconstruction of the Proto-Munda verb’ by Gregory D. S. Anderson and Norman H. Zide, ‘On ablaut and aspect in the history of Aramaic’ by Vit Bubenik, ‘Language change and the phonological lexicon of Korean’ by Young-mee Y. Cho, ‘Distinctive vowel length in Old French: Evidence and implications’ by Randall Gess, and ‘Remains of a submerged continent: Preaspiration in the languages of Northwest Europe’ by Gunnar Ólafur Hansson. Papers in which the languages dealt with are not obvious from the title include Janice M. Aski’s ‘Multivariable reanalysis and phonological split’, which examines the variable outcome of Latin /tj/ and /dj/ in a variety of Tuscan dialects, and Johanna Nichols’s ‘Why “me” and “thee”?’, which looks at the worldwide distribution of these pronouns as well as ‘mama’–‘papa’ lexemes in terms of phonosymbolism. Among the papers that have (morpho)syntax as their major theme, there is ‘How far has far from become grammaticalized?’ by Minoji Akimoto, ‘Are Old English conjunct clauses really verb-final?’ by Kristin Bech, ‘Alternation according to person in Italo-Romance’ by Delia Bentley and Thórhallur Eythórsson, ‘On the origin of the Portuguese inflected infinitive: A new perspective on an enduring debate’ by Ana Maria Martins, ‘Innovation of the indirect reflexive in Old French’ by D.Gary Miller, ‘The English s-genitive: Animacy, topicality, and possessive relationship in a diachronic perspective’ by Anette Rosenbach, ‘Coreference in the Popolocan languages’ by Annette Veerman-Leichsenring, and ‘Atlantis Semitica: Structural contact features in Celtic and English’ by Theo Vennemann. Other languages that are the focus of research in this area are English in David Denison’s ‘Gradience and linguistic change’, Romanian in Maria M. Manoliu’s ‘The conversational factor in language change: From prenominal to postnominal demonstratives’, Mohawk in Marianne Mithun’s ‘Lexical forces shaping the evolution of grammar’, and Vedic in Gregory Stump’s ‘Default inheritance hierarchies and the evolution of inflectional classes’. The four articles that do not fit into these two general categories are ‘Animals and vegetables, Uto-Aztecan noun derivation, semantic classification, and cultural history’ by Karen Dakin, which seeks to establish the direction in which certain borrowed terms were diffused in a number of unrelated Mesoamerican languages; ‘Rapid change among expletive polarity items’ by Jacob Hoeksema, which explores the semantic development of certain collocation relations in Dutch; ‘On the eve of a new paradigm: The current challenges to comparative linguistics in a Kuhnian perspective’ by Marie-Lucie Tarpent, wherein the author speculates on the possible emergence of a new paradigm in historical linguistics to remedy what she sees as its present-day crisis; and ‘Modeling koineization’ by Donald N. Tuten, which argues that this process should not be seen as a ‘mere reduction to a “least common denominator” ’ since it ‘can also lead to the introduction of novel features not found in any of the established contributing dialects’ (325). According to the editor, the selection of these particular articles for publication (less than 15% of the total number of presentations) was ‘intended to display the state of current research in the field of historical linguistics’ (xi). Indeed, a remarkable...
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 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 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 découle