MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2585913608 · doi:10.5430/elr.v6n1p47

Nouns as Lexical Heads in Urhobo English Code-Switching

2017· article· en· W2585913608 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fure Oduaran

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Linguistics Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguisticsCode-switchingAdjectiveNounComputer scienceInflectionPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two topics in the front burner of contact linguistics are bilingualism and code switching. Code switching between an indigenous language and the English language is pervasive where outer circle Englishes are spoken. Nigeria and other former colonies of Great Britain belong to this circle of Englishes. This study discusses nouns functioning as lexical heads in Urhobo/ English code switches. The switches include code switched NP[Z1] with determiner[Z2] s from Urhobo and head word[Z3] s from English; Urhobo –English complex Code switched NP with an adjective; complex CS NP with an adjective[Z4] prepositional phrase as complement. The study is premised on two theories. First is Noam Chomsky’s (1981) principles and parameters theory of transformational grammar which has been used for the analysis of the sentences. The second is Myers-Scotton’s (2002) Matrix Language Frame (MLF), which is used for distinguishing between the matrix and the embedded languages in the nominal phrasal constituents within the code switched sentences. In this study, Urhobo is the matrix language while English is the embedded[Z5] language based on matrix language frame (MLF) parameters. The study concludes that nouns functioning as lexical heads constitute part of the structural basis of Urhobo English code-switching. [Z1]NPs [Z2]determiners [Z3]words [Z4]adjective [Z5]embedded language

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Linguistics ResearchSame topicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationFrench-language works237,207