MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2095411346 · doi:10.1353/lan.2006.0009

Nominals: Inside and out. Ed. by Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 2003. Pp. ix, 279. ISBN 1575864746. $25.

2006· article· en· W2095411346 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 · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLinguisticsSection (typography)Ergative caseNominalizationSlovakConstructiveSyntaxGrammaticalizationCognitive grammarGerundGrammarThematic structurePerspective (graphical)VerbCzechAlternation (linguistics)HistoryComputer scienceTransitive relationMathematicsPhilosophyPsychologyNounArtificial intelligence

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Nominals: Inside and out ed. by Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King Michael Barrie Nominals: Inside and out. Ed. by Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 2003. Pp. ix, 279. ISBN 1575864746. $25. This volume is a collection of eight papers that deal with the syntax of nominal constructions within the framework of lexical-functional grammar (LFG). It is the first such publication on nominals exclusively in this framework. In addition to LFG, many of the papers in this volume incorporate other theoretical frameworks into their discussions, including optimality theory (OT) and constructive morphology. These are noted below. The papers are divided into three categories, which the editors entitle ‘Nominals from the outside’, ‘Nominals from the inside’, and ‘Nominals: Inside and out’. The first section concerns how nominals interact with other elements in the clause, where issues such as case and agreement constitute the majority of the discussion. The second section, as the title suggests, deals with internal properties of nominals, including some traditionally troublesome aspects of derived nominals, thematic roles, and event structure. The third section, consisting of a single paper, deals with the problem of gerunds from the point of view of their behavior as a mixed category. Hanjung Lee’s paper integrates OT with LFG to account for a crosslinguistic typology of case and case alternation systems, including split ergative/accusative systems. Empirically, this paper includes a discussion on putatively optional case marking in Korean. Lee appeals to corpus data and offers a variationist perspective on the facts that points toward an analysis in which accusative case marking varies with referentiality of the object. He also discusses split ergativity in Hindi. Devyani Sharma offers a unified approach to discourse and case markers in Hindi, within the framework of LFG and constructive morphology. First, she defends such an approach by highlighting the parallel behavior of discourse and case markers. Her analysis accounts for restrictions on multiple foci, particularly in examples where embedded foci are visible at the clause level. Louisa Sadler discusses the crosslinguistically robust and troublesome phenomenon of coordination and single conjunct agreement, looking specifically at Welsh. She notes a crosslinguistic generalization in which asymmetric agreement manifests itself in VS word order only. Welsh, being a verb-initial language, always exhibits this agreement pattern. Sadler takes the approach that we must draw a distinction between IND, which expresses the resolved features of the coordinated nominal structure, and AGR, which expresses the features of the distinguished (i.e. agreed with) conjunct. In the next paper, Anna Siewierska approaches the problem of how reduced pronominals and argument prominence covary as proposed by Joan Bresnan’s OT approach to the issue. Siewierska takes a broad typological approach, with a sample of 402 languages, and in the end, she substantiates most, but not all, of Bresnan’s claims. Carmen Kelling’s contribution addresses the longstanding debate on whether deverbal nouns inherit [End Page 190] the argument structure of the verbs from which they are derived. The data for her discussion come from French psych verbs and their deverbal counterparts. Kelling argues that deverbal nouns retain the same semantic arguments as their verbal sources, but that these arguments are optionally realized. In their paper on possessive constructions, Erika Chisarik and John Payne compare two such constructions in English and in Hungarian. They propose that poss is not the only grammatical function for possessors in LFG, as is commonly assumed, but that subj and a new function they call adnom are also available. The authors account for the variety of possessor constructions found in English and Hungarian with their approach. Looking at Hungarian again, Tibor Laczkó tackles the problem of the realization of arguments and adjuncts in event nominals. He examines three ways in which arguments can appear in nominalized constructions and demonstrates that phrase structural considerations are of primary importance for a comprehensive treatment of nominals. In the last paper, John Mugane looks at deverbal nouns in the Bantu language Gĩkũyũ. He proposes a head sharing mechanism in which a lexical item corresponds to two heads...

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)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,581
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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 Opus0,014
Tête enseignante GPT0,238
Écart entre enseignants0,224 · 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