Wh-agreement in Ojibwe relative clauses: Evidence for CP Structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article discusses the morphological and syntactic structure of relative clauses in Ojibwe (Algonquian), in particular their status as wh -constructions. Relatives in this language are full clauses that bear special morphology, show evidence of A′-movement of a wh -operator, and consequently exhibit wh -agreement also found in interrogatives and certain types of focus constructions. Ojibwe shows the possibility of wh -agreement realized on T (in addition to C and v for other languages), as it appears on tense prefixes. We account for the realization of wh -agreement on T in Ojibwe via the mechanism of feature inheritance. We propose that while declarative matrix clauses are canonical in that C introduces φ -features in Ojibwe, the role of C in embedded or wh -contexts is to introduce δ -features (discourse features), such as [ u wh], rather than φ -features. These δ -features can be introduced by C, but are transferred down to T where they spell out as wh -agreement.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".