Cross-linguistic variation in imperfectivity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper examines variation in the interpretations of imperfectives in Slavic, Romance, and Jê (Mẽbengokre). It develops a core modal analysis for an imperfective operator (IMPF) within situation semantics, coupled with language-specific constraints formally encoded in modal bases. Cross-linguistic contrasts in the interpretation of imperfectives are explained in terms of variation in modal bases for IMPF, lexicalization patterns, and its interactions with other operators. The proposal accounts for why Romance languages use imperfectives to make reference to past plans while most Slavic languages do not, as well as for narrative uses specific to Romance languages, and factual uses specific to some Slavic languages. The proposal also accounts for lexically specified aspectual operators in Mẽbengokre, as well as language-specific interaction between IMPF and other modal operators, as in the Bulgarian Renarrated Mood, and two different semantic instances of Slavic Involuntary States. Appealing to cross-linguistic evidence to argue for a view according to which IMPF makes significant semantic contributions in all occurrences, the paper shows how a modal analysis can account for well-known temporal properties of imperfectives. It also demonstrates that data from closely related as well as unrelated languages provide evidence for an invariant semantic core behind imperfectivity.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 it