Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of the present progressive to express future is a grammatical construction imported into Portuguese from English. In this construction here called Future Present Progressive (FPP), the verbal predicate expresses the present tense, while a temporal adverb locates the event in the future. The assimilation of this construction to Brazilian Portuguese (BP) enriches the language’s inventory of periphrastic expressions of the future tense.\n\nThis work studied the internal structure of FPP constructions in BP and the relationship between its components. Lexical and grammatical aspects were considered to investigate why utterances such as: ‘Estamos nos mudando em duas semanas’ (We are moving in two years) are grammatical, while utterances as: ‘*Estou morando no Candá ano que vem’ (*I am living in Canada next year) are not, although both expressions are grammatical in the present progressive in BP. The research was conducting with naturally occurring language, collected from the Twitter microblogging service, using a methodology, which one might call digital linguistics. The data was treated using the resources of the multi-lingual database TypeCraft, and is freely available at: http://typecraft.org/TCEditor/1730/.\n\nOur analysis of FPPs focuses on the relationship between lexical and grammatical aspect and suggests an extension of the semantic features that define different aspects. It furthermore highlights the role that the stage-level predicate ‘estar’ plays in deriving the semantics of this construction. Our research suggests that, besides the combination between lexical and grammatical aspect, different semantic mechanisms can also influence the compatibility pattern of verbs and syntactic constructions. Our research also shows that the FPP, although a borrowing from English, has morphosyntactic and semantic properties that makes it an integral part of the BP grammar.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".