MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994412687 · doi:10.1075/dia.26.3.03mla

On morphosyntactic change in Bulgarian

2009· article· en· W1994412687 on OpenAlexaff
Олга М. Младенова

Bibliographic record

VenueDiachronica · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics, Language Diversity, and Identity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarkednessDefinitenessBulgarianLinguisticsInflectionSalience (neuroscience)AnimacyNounLanguage changeUnderspecificationSuffixHistoryPhilosophyPsychologyCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The existence of a connection between the loss of case inflection and the emergence of overt definiteness in Bulgarian can be supported with arguments of various weight. Among them are: (i) The comparison with parallel developments in Germanic and Romance, (ii) the ability of articles to perpetuate case distinctions after case marking on nouns and adjectives has been obliterated, (iii) their capacity to take over functions formerly performed by case, (iv) the participation of both processes in the analyticity-syntheticity cycle, (v) their involvement in the pendulum between hypo- and hyper-determination, and (vi) the parallel sequence of their implementation among noun classes defined by animacy, gender and number. I argue that the similarities of implementation between the two diachronic processes should be explained in terms of three interrelated variables: markedness, perceptual salience and frequency. The conclusions reached fit in with the predictions of the Usage-Based Model of Change espoused by Bybee and Phillips and those of Andersen’s Markedness Theory of Linguistic Change and show the potential of these models for the analysis of the core issues of the Balkan Sprachbund.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiachronicaSame topicLinguistics, Language Diversity, and IdentityFrench-language works237,207