MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154826617 · doi:10.7202/603188ar

The Syntax of Clitic Placement in European Portuguese

2009· article· en· W2154826617 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue québécoise de linguistique · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCliticLinguisticsRomance languagesHead (geology)Computer scienceSyntaxFocus (optics)Feature (linguistics)SpecifierVerbObject (grammar)Natural language processingArtificial intelligenceNoun phrasePhilosophyPhysicsNoun

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In most Romance languages, object clitics appear to the left of the verb (proclitics); in European Portuguese (henceforth, EP) they appear to the right (enclitics). Furthermore, several syntactic environments trigger proclisis in EP, which usually have no effect on clitic placement in other Romance languages. These environments can be roughly split into two categories: those in which CP is filled (Wh-questions, focus constructions, subordinate clauses), and those in which a head position between CP and TP is filled (negation, special adverbs). To account for this, I propose that C 0 in EP has the strong feature [+lexical] which must be checked by a lexical item before Spell-Out. I also propose the following clause structure: TopP>CP>Adv s P>NegP>TP>vP>VP. Adv s P is a functional projection which hosts any one of a small set of special adverbials. If CP is filled by Spell-Out (either in its head or specifier position), the [+lexical] feature will be checked and erased. If not, then C 0 attracts the closest lexical item.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.717
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.234 · 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