Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study uncovers Japanese middle constructions based on the approach of “distributed morphology”. The findings reveal that adjunct is obligatory in Japanese middles. Two types of grammatical elements contribute to the adjunct: suffix and adverbs. The suffix yasui corresponds to English “able”. The case of the subject must be nominative, i.e., が. Once verbs are attached by the suffix yasui, their part of speech transits from verb into adjective. The new lexicon predicates an inherent property of the subject. Regarding middles with adjuncts rendered by adverbs, two subtypes are confirmed: the na-adjective formed adverb 簡単に kantan ni, and the i-adjective formed adverb よく yoku. The former is produced by the na-adjective 簡単 with the copular に. The latter is formed by the i-adjective よい with the predicate く ku. The mechanisms of the constructions rendered by the two are similar. Furthermore, unlike English middles, where non change-of-state verbs are ruled out, there is no distinct lexical category of middle verb Japanese. Rather, six groups of verbs are compatible: (a) motion verbs; (b) change-of-state verbs; (c) action verbs; (d) perception verbs; (e) stative verbs; and (f) accomplishment verbs. Crucially, such generosity does not result from the adjuncts. It is the “potential form” of verbs that enables psychological and perception verbs to be licensed in Japanese middles.
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 | 0.168 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".