MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3084016091 · doi:10.5565/rev/isogloss.37

Cortadora relative clauses: A comparative analysis between Spanish, Portuguese and French

2020· article· en· W3084016091 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Enrique Pato, Anahí Alba de la Fuente

Bibliographic record

VenueIsogloss Open Journal of Romance Linguistics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaJunta de Castilla y LeónMinisterio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades
KeywordsRomance languagesLinguisticsPortuguesePhenomenonGenerative grammarRelative clauseGrammarRomanceHistoryHumanitiesComputer sciencePhilosophyLiteratureArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper focuses on cortadora relative clauses – or non-pronominal relative clauses –, a special type of relativization registered in Rio de la Plata Spanish varieties, in which the preposition is deleted or ‘chopped’ (‘cortada’). This phenomenon is an example of preposition optionality and has been previously studied in Brazilian and European Portuguese, and French within the framework of generative grammar. The main goal of this paper is to show that this syntactic-discursive phenomenon is basically the same in all these three closely related Romance languages, following the works of Kato (2010), Valer (2008), and Tarallo (1983) for Portuguese, Bouchard (1981) for French, and Caviglia & Malcuori (2007) for Spanish. Only inherent prepositions (a, de, con, en, and por) can be deleted, and the position of the topic in Topic Phrases is the one relativised in cortadora relative clauses. The data used for Spanish examples come from the COLEM-Argentina and Uruguay corpora (COLEM: Corpus oral de la lengua española en Montreal).

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIsogloss Open Journal of Romance LinguisticsSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207