MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2600820115 · doi:10.5334/gjgl.51

Nominalizations and the structure of progressives in Chuj Mayan

2017· article· en· W2600820115 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

VenueGlossa a journal of general linguistics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNominalizationLinguisticsVerbErgative casePredicate (mathematical logic)Computer scienceNounMathematicsPhilosophyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the structure of progressives and nominalizations in Chuj, an understudied Mayan language of Guatemala. Like many other Mayan languages, Chuj shows aspect-based split ergativity: the otherwise ergative head-marking pattern in the language disappears in the progressive aspect. In other Mayan languages—for example Ch’ol (Coon 2010; 2013) and Yucatec (Bricker 1981)—the appearance of a non-ergative pattern in the progressive has been attributed to nominalization. In Chuj, however, there is no clear morphological reflex of nominalization, as is found in other languages in the family. Using data from negation, particle placement, and agreement, we argue that Chuj progressives nonetheless involve an aspectual matrix predicate and a nominalized embedded verb. This provides a clear structural explanation for the split pattern. Finally, we distinguish different types of nominalizations in Chuj: those which are nominalized directly from a root, and those which are nominalized above verbal projections.

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)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.247 · 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