MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095411346 · doi:10.1353/lan.2006.0009

Nominals: Inside and out. Ed. by Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 2003. Pp. ix, 279. ISBN 1575864746. $25.

2006· article· en· W2095411346 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguisticsSection (typography)Ergative caseNominalizationSlovakConstructiveSyntaxGrammaticalizationCognitive grammarGerundGrammarThematic structurePerspective (graphical)VerbCzechAlternation (linguistics)HistoryComputer scienceTransitive relationMathematicsPhilosophyPsychologyNounArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Nominals: Inside and out ed. by Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King Michael Barrie Nominals: Inside and out. Ed. by Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 2003. Pp. ix, 279. ISBN 1575864746. $25. This volume is a collection of eight papers that deal with the syntax of nominal constructions within the framework of lexical-functional grammar (LFG). It is the first such publication on nominals exclusively in this framework. In addition to LFG, many of the papers in this volume incorporate other theoretical frameworks into their discussions, including optimality theory (OT) and constructive morphology. These are noted below. The papers are divided into three categories, which the editors entitle ‘Nominals from the outside’, ‘Nominals from the inside’, and ‘Nominals: Inside and out’. The first section concerns how nominals interact with other elements in the clause, where issues such as case and agreement constitute the majority of the discussion. The second section, as the title suggests, deals with internal properties of nominals, including some traditionally troublesome aspects of derived nominals, thematic roles, and event structure. The third section, consisting of a single paper, deals with the problem of gerunds from the point of view of their behavior as a mixed category. Hanjung Lee’s paper integrates OT with LFG to account for a crosslinguistic typology of case and case alternation systems, including split ergative/accusative systems. Empirically, this paper includes a discussion on putatively optional case marking in Korean. Lee appeals to corpus data and offers a variationist perspective on the facts that points toward an analysis in which accusative case marking varies with referentiality of the object. He also discusses split ergativity in Hindi. Devyani Sharma offers a unified approach to discourse and case markers in Hindi, within the framework of LFG and constructive morphology. First, she defends such an approach by highlighting the parallel behavior of discourse and case markers. Her analysis accounts for restrictions on multiple foci, particularly in examples where embedded foci are visible at the clause level. Louisa Sadler discusses the crosslinguistically robust and troublesome phenomenon of coordination and single conjunct agreement, looking specifically at Welsh. She notes a crosslinguistic generalization in which asymmetric agreement manifests itself in VS word order only. Welsh, being a verb-initial language, always exhibits this agreement pattern. Sadler takes the approach that we must draw a distinction between IND, which expresses the resolved features of the coordinated nominal structure, and AGR, which expresses the features of the distinguished (i.e. agreed with) conjunct. In the next paper, Anna Siewierska approaches the problem of how reduced pronominals and argument prominence covary as proposed by Joan Bresnan’s OT approach to the issue. Siewierska takes a broad typological approach, with a sample of 402 languages, and in the end, she substantiates most, but not all, of Bresnan’s claims. Carmen Kelling’s contribution addresses the longstanding debate on whether deverbal nouns inherit [End Page 190] the argument structure of the verbs from which they are derived. The data for her discussion come from French psych verbs and their deverbal counterparts. Kelling argues that deverbal nouns retain the same semantic arguments as their verbal sources, but that these arguments are optionally realized. In their paper on possessive constructions, Erika Chisarik and John Payne compare two such constructions in English and in Hungarian. They propose that poss is not the only grammatical function for possessors in LFG, as is commonly assumed, but that subj and a new function they call adnom are also available. The authors account for the variety of possessor constructions found in English and Hungarian with their approach. Looking at Hungarian again, Tibor Laczkó tackles the problem of the realization of arguments and adjuncts in event nominals. He examines three ways in which arguments can appear in nominalized constructions and demonstrates that phrase structural considerations are of primary importance for a comprehensive treatment of nominals. In the last paper, John Mugane looks at deverbal nouns in the Bantu language Gĩkũyũ. He proposes a head sharing mechanism in which a lexical item corresponds to two heads...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.581
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.224 · 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