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 OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Barrie

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.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,127
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,426

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,002
Communication savante0,0060,011
Science ouverte0,0010,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,1270,102

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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueLanguageMême sujetSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationTravaux en français237 207