MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2505079651 · doi:10.1075/rllt.2.03bor

The syntax of Spanish comparative correlatives

2010· book-chapter· en· W2505079651 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueRomance languages and linguistic theory · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecifierSyntaxLinguisticsFocus (optics)AdverbialDependent clauseComputer scienceSemantics (computer science)SentencePhraseNatural language processingPhilosophyProgramming languageNoun phrase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we provide a principled account of the syntactic properties of Spanish Comparative Correlatives (CCs) within Principles and Parameters theory. CCs have lately been at the centre of the debate between Construction Theory proponents, who claim construction status for them because of their idiosyncratic syntax and semantics, and supporters of UG-based syntax.1We contribute to this debate by showing that, despite appearances, Spanish CCs have a regular internal and external syntax. Assuming a cartographic approach to the syntax of Topic and Focus, we argue that their informational properties are the clue to their macrostructure. Specifically, we propose that C1, the first clause of CCs, is a subordinate clause that sits in the specifier position of the topic Phrase of the main clause and is followed by a focus-fronted constituent which occupies the specifier position of the focus Phrase of the main clause. We also show that our analysis can be extended to other sentence-initial adverbial adjunct clauses.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.709
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.238 · 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