The Assertive Clause Hypothesis, Performative Sentences and the Adjacency Condition on Question Tags
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>This article is a continuation of recent work by Achiri-Taboh (2015) in which I have examined <em>isn’t it? </em>as a generalized invariant tag (GIT) used throughout the inflectional paradigm of question tags appended to declarative anchor clauses in different spoken varieties of English around the world. In that work, it is argued from a generative point of view that the source of the GIT is a truncated assertive matrix (TAM) clause in which the actually uttered anchor clause is embedded. In the present study, I explore this Assertive Clause Hypothesis (ACH) in two main ways. First, I look at the implication of the TAM clause for another such matrix clause, namely, the performative matrix clause of John Austin (1962) that has been explored within the framework of Generative Semantics initiated by John Ross in (1970). Then, to further show how the GIT<em> </em>actually connects with the TAM clause, the Adjacency Condition on Question Tags (ACQT) is established with the implication that restrictive tags, as opposed to the GIT, cannot be appended to a compound declarative with the view of questioning the holistic idea asserted in the latter.</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 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 | 0.001 | 0.035 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".