The semantics of clause linking: A cross-linguistic typology. Ed. by R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald. (Explorations in linguistic typology 5.) Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Pp. xviii, 410. ISBN 9780199567225. $120 (Hb).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviewed by: The semantics of clause linking: A cross-linguistic typology Lars Johanson The semantics of clause linking: A cross-linguistic typology. Ed. by R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald. (Explorations in linguistic typology 5.) Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Pp. xviii, 410. ISBN 9780199567225. $120 (Hb). The last decades have seen an abundance of descriptions and analyses of syntactic clause-combining types. This volume brings the semantic dimension of clause linking into focus. It is a crosslinguistic examination of the different grammatical means that languages may employ to represent a general set of semantic relations between clauses. It aims at establishing a number of specific types of semantic linking observable in various structures, with the exception of relativeand complement-clause constructions. [End Page 189] The basic ideas of this typological project originate from a 2006 workshop held at the Research Centre for Linguistic Typology of La Trobe University. Since then, the theoretical basis has been refined successively. The volume contains a fascinating diversity of contributions by specialists on various languages, providing readers with the opportunity to orient themselves in the complexity of the possible clause-linking structures. All chapters are written by scholars who have undertaken intensive fieldwork and/or carried out in-depth analyses of the languages they deal with. The volume starts with an opening discussion by R. M. W. Dixon, a detailed position chapter expounding the theoretical and methodological basis of the collective enterprise. This introductory chapter is followed by fourteen comprehensive case studies: Guy Deutscher on Akkadian (Semitic), Mark Post on Galo (Tibeto-Burman, north-east India), David E. Watters on Kham (Tibeto-Burman, Nepal), Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald on Manambu (Ndu family, Papua New Guinea), Lev Michael on Iquito (Zaparoan, Peru), Simon Overall on Aguaruna (Jivaroan, Peru), J. Randolph Valentine on Ojibwe (Algonquian, Canada), R.M.W. Dixon on Boumaa Fijian (Austronesian), Frantisek Lichtenberk on Toqabaqita (Austronesian, Solomon Islands), Alan Dench on Martuthunira (Western Australia), Ho-min Sohn on Korean, Birgit Hellwig on Goemai (Chadic, Nigeria), Maarten Mous and Ongaye Oda on Konso (Cushitic, Southern Ethiopia), and Tonya Stebbins on Mali (Baining family, Papua New Guinea). The analysis depends on the idea that, for most kinds of clause linking, a ‘focal clause’ and a ‘supporting clause’ can be identified on semantic grounds. The focal clause refers to the central activity or state of the biclausal linking. The supporting clause sets out the temporal milieu for the focal clause and specifies a condition or presupposition for it. There may also be more than one supporting clause, namely, a ‘supporting clause complex’. For each type of linkage, criteria are presented to recognize which clause is focal and which is supporting (see tables on p. 2 and p. 6). In each type, a grammatical marker is likely to be attached to one of the clauses, indicating the specific kind of linking. An important issue is the correlation between semantic and syntactic analyses. In many instances, focal clauses are main clauses, but they may also be nonmain clauses. The types of linkage discussed in the volume are summarized below. • temporal succession: The focal clause may be expressed by devices that correspond to the English markers and, then, and and then. • relative time: The supporting clause indicates the relative time (e.g. after, before, when, since, until, and while), whereas the focal clause provides the temporal perspective with respect to it. • conditional linkage: The supporting clause indicates the condition (e.g. if), while the focal clause shows the result if the condition is satisfied (e.g. then). • consequence: A specific linking type where the supporting clause shows the cause or reason (e.g. if and because), whereas the focal clause shows the result or the purpose (e.g. then, therefore, and so, thus, in order that/for). • possible consequence: The supporting clause indicates the possible consequence (e.g. in case, lest), whereas the focal clause shows what is, or is not, to be done to avoid the possible consequence or to make it happen. • unordered addition: Does not allow...
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.009 |
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".