Clichés, an Understudied Subclass of Phrasemes
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Natural languages have three major families of phrasemes: - Lexical phrasemes (phraseologized phrases): kick the bucket, black box, pay a visit, if you know what I mean. - Morphological phrasemes (phraseologized wordforms, see [Beck & Mel’čuk 2011]): for+get, light+house, in+dispens+able. - Constructional, or syntactic, phrasemes (phraseologized constructions, or phrase schemata): “X (N) V INF ?!?”, as in John be afraid?!? For more details on phrasemes within the Meaning-Text framework, see (Mel’čuk 2015: 336-340). This paper proposes an overview of an important subclass of lexical phrasemes that has not been as yet paid sufficient attention: cliches. First, a typology of lexical phrasemes is presented, with the definitions that underlie the subsequent discussion; this provides a formal framework for the description of cliches (Section 1). Second, the class of cliches is examined and a typology of cliches is proposed, based on the type of the cliche’s referent (Section 2). Third, a dimension for restrictions on the use of lexemic expressions in particular situations of linguistic communication is introduced-namely, a pragmatic constraint. Applied to cliches, it defines a subclass of a subclass of cliches- pragmatemes (Section 3).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it