Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most current linguistic theories -- whose main proponents are speakers of and researchers in European languages -- are modeled on languages with parts of speech systems organized into the three major classes of verb, noun, and adjective. Cross-linguistic investigation shows that not all languages fit this pattern: while nouns and verbs appear to be essentially universal, languages that have few or no adjectives are a typological commonplace. This implies that there is something marked about the adjectival class that must be accounted for by any credible attempt to define the three major lexical classes. In order to account for the markedness of adjectives, this dissertation argues that parts of speech must be defined by combining the criteria of syntactic markedness and semantic prototypicality. The former characterizes lexical classes in terms of unmarked syntactic roles, the latter in terms of prototypical semantic content. Nouns can be defined as the expressions of semantic NAMEs which are unmarked syntactic actants, verbs as the expressions of semantic predicates which are unmarked modifiers. Because syntactically modification is an inversion of the underlying semantic predicate-argument configuration, the role of modifier is a non-iconic one, motivating the cross-linguistic markedness of the adjectival class. Taking as a starting point a four-member typology of parts of speech systems current in the literature, this dissertation shows that such a system is easily generated by free recombination of the two criterial features, one syntactic and the other semantic, that constitute our definitions of lexical classes. However, examination of five languages and language groups -- Salishan, Cora, Quechua, Upper Necaxa Totonac, and Hausa -- casts doubt on the existence of one of the four possible language types, the noun-adjective conflating inventory. This can be accounted for by replacing the free recombination of semantic and syntactic features with an algorithm for the subdivision of the lexical inventory that gives primacy to semantics over syntax. The result is a sufficiently constrained theory of typological variation in parts of speech systems based on rigorous and criterial definitions of each of the three major lexical classes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".