Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper highlights striking similarities of three well‐known but hitherto disparately treated alternations in Germanic morphosyntax: (i) the positional alternation of the finite verb between a low and a left peripheral (V2) position; (ii) the morphological alternation in adnominal adjectives between so‐called weak and strong agreement; and (iii) the contrast in definiteness marking between a free DP‐initial definite article and a so‐called suffixed article. The number and kinds of punctual similarities among these alternations suggest that we are dealing with a parallelism that is non‐accidental (even if not always fully surface apparent). In an attempt to propose a principled account of this parallelism, I argue that the familiar syntactic CP/DP analogy must (A) be extended to include the extended adjectival projection (xAP), and (B) that it is more than an analogy. It is, I claim, a point‐wise isomorphism. I identify a shared complementizer head C, which, I claim, extended projections of all colors converge on. In Germanic, C is either lexicalized/identified qua head, asd‐, or it attracts the lexical category of its containing extended projection, indiscriminately of whether it is verbal, nominal, or adjectival. Movement of the lexical category to the left periphery results, in many cases, in its preceding material which it does not precede in the absence of such movement, notably inflectional material. If correct, the proposed isomorphism hypothesis has consequences for the analysis of the phenomena involved in that it allows us to transfer insights from one domain to another. In particular, it supports an analysis of the adjectival inflection alternation in terms of adjective movement; and an analysis of V2 as involving two merger steps.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".