MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1931835929 · doi:10.3968/7705

The Negative Polarity Item umur in Najdi Arabic

2015· article· en· W1931835929 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ahmad Radi Alshammari

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic Variation and Morphology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegationPhraseCliticPolarity (international relations)LinguisticsArabicSubject (documents)MathematicsComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research investigates the negative polarity item (NPI) ʕ umur in Najdi Arabic, one spoken variety of Arabic. It indicates that this NPI is a head instantiating its own maximal projection, named as AspP (a shorthand for Aspectual Phrase). Some pieces of empirical evidence have been furnished to support this contention, namely distributional properties and pronominal clitics. It turns out that this NPI is not an adverb since it does not share the same distributional properties with other adverbs. Unlike adverbs, this NPI is immobile and licensed only in a position to the right of the negative particle ma whose existence is crucial for ʕ umur . Additionally, the study shows that the pronominal clitic appearing on ʕ umur is a consequence of valuing its uninterpretable φ-features, in most cases, by the interpretable features of the subject. The study demonstrates that AspP is atop TP. Hence, the subject based generated in the Spec of little vP moves first to the Spec of TP, satisfying the EPP on T, then, if topicalized, to the Spec of AspP headed by ʕ umur . Furthermore, the study finds out that the Negation Phrase (NegP) is positioned atop AspP. Thus, the strict adjacency maintained between ʕ umur and ma follows.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicLinguistic Variation and MorphologyFrench-language works237,207