<b>Romance languages and linguistic theory 2002</b> : Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’, Groningen, 28–30 November 2002. Ed. by Reineke Bok-Bennema, Bart Hollebrandse, Brigitte Kampers-Manhe, and Petra Sleeman. (Current issues in linguistic theory 256.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004. Pp. viii, 273. ISBN 1588115852. $119 (Hb).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviewed by: Romance languages and linguistic theory 2002: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’, Groningen, 28–30 November 2002 ed. by Reineke Bok-Bennema, Bart Hollebrandse, Brigitte Kampers-Manhe, and Petra Sleeman Natalya I. Stolova Romance languages and linguistic theory 2002: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’, Groningen, 28–30 November 2002. Ed. by Reineke Bok-Bennema, Bart Hollebrandse, Brigitte Kampers-Manhe, and Petra Sleeman. (Current issues in linguistic theory 256.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004. Pp. viii, 273. ISBN 1588115852. $119 (Hb). ‘Going Romance’ is a major European-based annual international conference on theoretical Romance linguistics. The present book contains fifteen selected papers delivered at the sixteenth installment of this conference held in November 2002 at the State University of Groningen. Since Going Romance 2002 included a workshop on acquisition, five of the papers contained in the volume treat L1 acquisition-related issues. Cécile de Cat relies on data from two longitudinal corpora following the acquisition of French by children to argue that the pragmatic competence required to encode topics is available from the earliest attested stages of language production. Cristina Dye compares English, Spanish, French, and Italian in terms of variation in ostensibly nonfinite matrix verbs in child language, concluding that the occurrence of ostensibly nonfinite forms depends on the existence in a given language of a periphrastic construction embedding the same type of nonfinite verb. Jacqueline van Kampen incorporates Dutch data to explain the acquisition of free anaphors in child French, arguing that the use of free anaphors depends on the previous acquisition of D-marking. Ana T. Pérez-Leroux, Cristina Schmitt, and Alan Munn analyze the acquisition of inalienable possession in English and Spanish, supporting a distributional view of the phenomenon. Ken Wexler, Anna Gavarró, and [End Page 216] Vincenç Torrens demonstrate that object-clitic omission in child Catalan and Spanish has a nonaccidental correlation with participle agreement. Several articles focus on Romance dialectal varieties. Manuela Ambar, Manuela Gonzaga, and Esmeralda Negrão explore the differences in distribution and interpretation of the adverb sempre in European Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese, arguing that these differences are due to a parametric change taking place in the Brazilian variety. Clàudia Pons Moll draws on the premises of optimality theory to account for the different strategies of avoiding adjacent sibilant segments in Balearic Catalan. Marie-Thérèse Vinet challenges the traditional interpretation of the Quebec French enclitic -tu as an interrogative marker. Cécile de Cat analyzes the impact of French subject clitics on the information structure of the sentence, demonstrating that subject clitics can appear only when the subject is interpreted as the topic of the sentence and are banned whenever the subject is in focus. Heles Contreras relies on Spanish and Romance data to propose the restricted view of head movement. Laura Dominguez proposes that in Spanish focus is realized both phonologically and syntactically. Mara Frascarelli provides a comparative analysis of Italian left and right topic constructions, examining the connection between syntax and information structure. Daniela Isac discusses the N-words in Italian, Spanish, European Portuguese, and Romanian. Daniela Isac and Charles Reiss provide a syntax-semantics analysis of X-else elements in Romance. Laura M. Kornfeld and Andrés L. Saab analyze nominal ellipsis in Spanish, arguing that the phenomenon is strongly constrained by operations and properties of morphological structure. Natalya I. Stolova Colgate University Copyright © 2007 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.092 | 0.040 |
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".