MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The manifestation of viewpoint aspect in Inuktitut*

2009· article· en· W2048585470 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Clarke

Bibliographic record

VenueStudia Linguistica · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeature (linguistics)LinguisticsEvent (particle physics)Interval (graph theory)Variation (astronomy)MathematicsPhilosophyPhysicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. This article refutes the claim ( Swift and Bohnemeyer 2004 ) that viewpoint aspect in Inuktitut is determined wholly by telicity. We claim that, in fact, Inuktitut lacks default viewpoint aspect altogether. This article follows Cowper (2005) and Kyriakaki (2006) in assuming that viewpoint aspect can be encoded with the morphosyntactic features Interval (imperfective aspect) and Moment (perfective aspect), which are possible dependents of the feature Event. We show that, while English has two past tense constructions, one of which is infelicitous with states because it spells out Interval, the dependent feature of Event, Inuktitut has only one. There is no tense construction in Inuktitut that is felicitous only with events, indicating that there is none that spells out a dependent of the feature Event. Other tests for perfectivity and imperfectivity prove inconclusive in Inuktitut; there is no evidence of a feature Interval or Moment. Thus, we conclude that no such feature exists. Therefore, all Inuktitut clauses are neither perfective nor imperfective, but simply unmarked with respect to viewpoint aspect. We further show that the locus of all aspectual variation in Inuktitut is little v, and that this variation relates to lexical aspect only, not viewpoint aspect.

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 score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations56
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudia LinguisticaSame topicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationFrench-language works237,207