MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2986336649 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v9n6p337

The Syntax of Sluicing in Omani Arabic

2019· article· en· W2986336649 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEllipsis (linguistics)LinguisticsSyntaxArabicComputer scienceNatural language processingArtificial intelligencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the syntax of sluicing in Omani Arabic to uncover its morpho-syntactic properties and underlying source. It also attempts to account for the apparent preposition stranding (p-stranding) effects displayed by Omani Arabic sluicing, which indicates that the language is a counterexample to the p-stranding generalisation (Merchant, 2001). The paper concludes that sluicing exists in the language and it is derived from regular wh-questions by wh-movement and TP ellipsis at PF. Furthermore, Omani Arabic displays pseudo-sluicing (i.e., an elliptical cleft wh-question), which can also be derived via wh-movement from spec-TP to spec-CP plus TP deletion at PF. Finally, the study argues that the apparent cases of sluicing under p-stranding are actually pseudo-sluicing. The drop of copular pronouns in the sluiced clause and omission of the preposition with the relative clause lead to the illusion that sluicing in Omani Arabic exhibits p-stranding effects.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.233 · 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