MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027027242 · doi:10.1075/jpcl.21.2.02lef

On the properties of Saramaccan <i>FU</i>

2006· article· en· W2027027242 on OpenAlexaff
Claire Lefebvre, Virginie Loranger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pidgin and Creole Languages · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguisticsVerbGrammaticalizationSubject (documents)Character (mathematics)Class (philosophy)MoodComputer scienceFunction (biology)Lexical itemSociologyPsychologyMathematicsArtificial intelligencePhilosophySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The formfu(variantu) fulfills several functions. It is a preposition selecting NPs and clauses, tensed or infinitival. It is a mood marker occurring either between the subject and the verb, or before the subject. It is a complementiser selected by predicates of thewant-class; as such it is in a paradigmatic relationship with other complementisers in the language. Finally, in some contexts,fuappears to function as a case marker, rather than as a preposition, as it may be associated with several thematic roles. The first objective of the paper is to provide a detailed inventory of all the functions offuand a detailed description of its properties for each of its functions. This will be done mainly on the basis of published sources. The proposal thatfucan head various syntactic projections (P, Force, Fin, Mood, Kase) will be shown to account for its multifunctional character. The second objective of the paper is to discuss the origin of the properties offu. First, we consider the grammaticalisation scenario proposed in the literature. In this scenario, the prepositionfuwould have been reanalysed as a complementiser. We argue that this scenario is not an optimal one. Second, we consider a relexification scenario along the lines of Lefebvre (1998b). Although the form of the lexical item in question is derived from Englishfor, as has been noted by several authors, most of its other properties cannot be derived from this lexical item. A comparison of the properties offuwith those of corresponding lexical items in one of the substratum languages of Saramaccan, Fongbe (e.g. Smith 1987), yields a different conclusion: while the form of the Saramaccan lexical entry is derived from English, the bulk of its semantic and syntactic properties are derived from those of corresponding substratum language lexical entries. The properties of the creole lexical entry thus appear to follow from the re lexification account of creole genesis. In this case, however, two substratum lexical entries (nú, preposition and complementiser, andní, mood marker and complementiser) appear to have been relexified on the basis of a single superstratum formfor, yielding the creole lexical entryfucumulating all the functions of the two substratum entries. Some details distinguish the creole lexical entry from the two substratum ones. It will be shown that the make up offuhas also involved some reorganisation of the original lexicon, and some innovation.

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)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.003

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations37
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pidgin and Creole LanguagesSame topicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationFrench-language works237,207