Di-transitive Constructions in Persian Based on the Minimalist Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article studies the structure of double-object constructions, a challenging structure in Persian, based on Bowers’ (1993, 2001) minimalist approach. The major goal here is to evaluate the effectiveness of Bowers’ approach in analyzing such constructions. First, we reviewed the Persian grammarians’ analyses of transitivity and the continuity of the transitive system which claims that there are verbs with one object at one side of this continuum and verbs with two objects at the other side. Based on this analysis, transitivity differs from verb to verb. In other words, di-transitive verbs are more transitive than other verbs because they have to get two objects so that the omission of one of these objects makes the construction ungrammatical. In this study we used Bowers’ approach (1993, 2001), i.e., double predication phrase design, to analyze the above mentioned structures in Persian. Later the sequence of the direct-indirect object was identified to be the unmarked grammatical sequence in Persian based on native speakers’ language intuition.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".