<b>Grammatical relations and change.</b> Ed. by Jan Terje Faarlund. (Studies in language companion series 56.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2001. Pp. 326. ISBN 9027230587. $65 (Hb).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviewed by: Grammatical relations and change ed. by Jan Terje Faarlund Claire Bowern Grammatical relations and change. Ed. by Jan Terje Faarlund. (Studies in language companion series 56.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2001. Pp. 326. ISBN 9027230587. $65 (Hb). Approximately half of the papers collected here were presented as part of a workshop on Grammatical Relations and Grammatical Change at ICHL XIV (the Fourteenth International Conference on Historical Linguistics) in Vancouver in 1999. Additional papers were invited following the workshop. The contributors to the volume are: Werner Abraham (‘How far does semantic bleaching go?’), John Ole Askedal (‘Oblique subjects, structural and lexical case marking’), Jan Terje Faarlund (‘The notion of oblique subject and its status in the history of Icelandic’), Elly van Gelderen (‘Towards personal subjects in English: Variation in feature interpretability’), Alice Harris (‘Focus and universal principles governing simplification of cleft structures’), Lars Heltoft (‘Recasting Danish subjects: Case system, word order and subject development’), Alana Johns (‘Ergative to accusative: Comparing evidence from Inuktitut’), D. Gary Miller (‘Subject and object in Old English and Latin copular deontics’), Muriel Norde (‘The loss of lexical case in Swedish’), Lene Schøsler (‘The coding of the subject-object from Latin to Modern French’), and Annette Veerman-Leichsenring (‘Changes in Popolocan word order and clause structure’). The term ‘grammatical relations’ here refers, for the most part, to the relation between the head of a predicate and its argument phrases (particularly ‘subject’ and ‘object’); some authors, however, use the term in a wider sense, to refer to the relationship between nonlexical heads and their complements. There is a distinct bias in this book towards data from Germanic and Romance, with eight of the eleven papers dealing with languages from one or both of these subgroups. The three other papers consider data from North-East Caucasian, Popolocan (Otomanguean), and Inuktitut. This is a shame since many of the papers make claims about typological tendencies which cannot be said to have been tested to any rigorous extent because of their bias towards languages from a single family and area. Despite the small number of languages considered, the book does have quite a broad range of perspectives on such topics as change of marking of grammatical relations, change of category of core arguments, and grammaticalization more generally. Abraham’s paper, for example, discusses semantic bleaching of focus particles, evidential meanings of tenses, and nominative subject representations (among other categories). Johns considers shift of relations from ergative alignment to accusative via the reanalysis of an antipassive in different Inuktitut dialects. Harris examines the grammatical change in focus constructions and shows that languages move through several stages in going from biclausal focus cleft constructions to single clauses with a marked focus position. Overall, there do not seem to be many new insights in the volume; it is a treatment of well-known topics from Germanic syntax with the occasional non-Western European language for variety. It is, however, a useful summary of the issues and treatments of some interesting problems in historical syntax. Claire Bowern Harvard University Copyright © 2004 Linguistic Society of America
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.117 | 0.056 |
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".