Not Moving Clauses: Connectivity in Clausal Arguments
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Novel reconstruction data is introduced which argues that clauses do not move leftward, thus contributing to a long‐standing debate about sentential subjects and topics (Koster 1978, Alrenga 2005). Although fronted clauses appear to reconstruct for variable‐binding purposes, I offer several arguments that these bound‐variable interpretations are only apparent. First, left‐dislocated CPs do not exhibit the kinds of reconstruction interactions that hold of other moved constituents, as discovered by Lebeaux (1991). Second, we find apparent bound variables in left‐dislocated CPs that can be shown to have no movement source that would provide a site for reconstruction. I will then provide a detailed analysis that marshals the semantics of de re pronouns to explain why covariation without reconstruction is available in these dislocated CPs. Aside from offering a detailed syntax–semantics for clausal complementation, I make the case that there must be syntactic derivations of sentential subjects and topics that do not involve movement and that a parsimonious theory rules out movement of clausal arguments altogether.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it