MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2254378927 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v6n1p24

A Minimalist-Based Approach to Phrasal Verb Movement in North Hail Arabic

2016· article· en· W2254378927 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Murdhy Radad Alshamari, Marwan Jarrah

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Linguistics, Cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTopicalizationVerbLinguisticsPredicate (mathematical logic)PhraseVerb phrase ellipsisAdjunctMovement (music)Computer scienceSpecifierObject (grammar)CliticReflexive verbArabicPsychologyModal verbMathematicsPhilosophyNoun phrase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>This research explores one less-investigated though significant manifestation of verb movement in North Hail Arabic, namely verb topicalization alongside its internal argument and any accompanying adjunct. In adequate dialogical and pragmatic contexts, the lexical verb (L-verb), the direct object (DO), and VP and vP adjoining adjuncts appear to move to the Specifier position (Spec) of a dedicated Topic Phrase in the left periphery in the sense of Rizzi (1997). This quasi-holistic movement is labelled as <em>Defective Predicate Topicalization</em> (DPT), where all predicate elements, apart from Tense, move overtly to Topic Phrase. Linear order between the L-verb, the DO, and any accompanying adjuncts is assumed, among others, to be evidence supporting this contention. Furthermore, the study argues that DPT is syntactically licensed for its phrasal-movement fashion. Hence, no violation of (head-related) locality principles is involved.</p>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicLanguage, Linguistics, Cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207