Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary of the thesis\n\nWe use modal expressions to talk about permissions, obligations and desires (e.g. Peter must/may/ wants to leave) as well as how certain we are of something (e.g. It must/might/may be raining). Like other parts of language, there is not always a one-to-one correspondence between the meaning of a modal in one language and the meaning of a modal in another language. The thesis provides semantic and pragmatic analyses of modal expressions in the endangered Inuktut dialect Uummarmiutun. In other words, it accounts for a) what exactly the modals in Uummarmiutun mean (their semantics), and b) how they are used to communicate different meaning nuances when they are used in different contexts (their pragmatics).\n\nUummarmiutun is spoken mainly by Elders in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region in Canada. The linguistics literature has paid significant attention to modal expressions in Indo-European languages such as English, German and Norwegian. The body of in-depth empirical and theoretical investigations of modality in other language families has just recently begun to grow, and the thesis is a contribution to the growing understanding of modal expressions in the languages of the world.\n\nTo perform the study, the thesis first discusses various definitions of modality. It argues that modal meaning is best understood as unrealized force-dynamic potential (Boye, 2005), and it shows that this definition is accurate and rich enough to identify modal expressions in a language. To ensure cognitively plausible analyses of the pragmatic as well as the semantic properties of the modals, the thesis makes use of the relevance-theoretic (Sperber and Wilson, 1986/1995) framework. It builds on Papafragou’s (2000) model, which was originally developed on the basis of English. Through the application on Uummarmiutun modals, the thesis refines and extends the cross-linguistic applicability of Papafragou’s model.\n\nThe study is based on interviews with native speakers of Uummarmiutun in Inuvik in Canada. During our meetings, they have shared knowledge about the subtle meaning nuances that can be communicated with modal expressions in their 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".