Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dene S�iine (short: Dene), a Northern Athapaskan language spoken in the Northwest of Canada, shows an unusual patterning of situation type, the lexical aspectual meaning of a verb (and its complements), and viewpoint aspect.The perfective, one of the two obli gatory viewpoint aspects of Dene, imposes situation-type telic meaning on predicates, thus obscuring the important theoretical distinction between viewpoint aspect and situation type aspect (Comrie 1976, Smith 1991).This paper has two goals.First, it provides a detailed empirical description of the meaning of the Dene perfective, showing that all perfective predicates entail event completion, i.e. , act like telic (perfective) predicates.However, as I al so show, perfective predicates can independently be established as telic or atelic.Thus, the Dene perfective is "quasi-telic".The second goal is to provide a formal analysis of the quasi-telic meaning, an analysis which does not abandon the theoretical distinction between perfectivity and telicity, or viewpoint and situation aspect more generally.The analysis consists of two points: (i), the Dene perfective does operate in the domain of viewpoint aspect and not of situation aspect; (ii), its quasi-telic meaning is the result of including a posttime of the event.I then show the significance of my fi ndings for the debate whether Dene and related languages have a grammatical telicity distinction.I claim that the quasi-telic meaning of the perfective allows the Dene language not to grammaticize telicity.More generally, while viewpoint and situation type are different level s of aspectual meaning, they are nonetheless capable of fulfilling similar functions.Therefore, it is possible that only one of these two levels is active in a language's grammar.Dene is a language in which only viewpoint aspect is active.1.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".