Cantonese jihgei: Subject-object asymmetry and non-subject antecedent potential
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subject orientation is generally viewed to be a cross-linguistic core property of long distance anaphors (LDAs). This property has an important bearing on theories of Chinese LDA which predict only subject antecedents. However, the claim that LDAs are strictly subject-oriented has been discredited in at least Korean, where recent experimental studies have demonstrated that Korean caki can potentially take an object as antecedent. The current study explores the non-subject antecedent potential of the Cantonese LDA, which has not been experimentally studied in the Chinese literature. Two experiments involving forced-choice tasks were conducted to investigate if jihgei could potentially take a non-subject antecedent. It was found that jihgei indeed has non-subject antecedent potential in certain syntactic and logophoric environments, thus greatly weakening syntactic approaches that cannot predict non-subject antecedent potential. It was also found that some amount of competing subject preference remained in cases where a non-subject antecedent was possible. The study concluded that jihgei's subject preference is not categorical, but is modulated by logophoric factors.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".