Recursion of Phonological Phrase: Views from the Jordanian Arabic dialect of Irbid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the original model of Prosodic Hierarchy (Selkirk 1984, 1986; Nespor and Vogel 1986), the prosodic representation was partly autonomous from the syntactic structure, and prosodic recursion was not possible. Recently, it has been proposed in Match Theory (Selkirk 2011) that each prosodic unit has a corresponding syntactic constituent, and prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies prosodic recursion exists, as proposed in some recent empirical studies (Féry and Truckenbrodt 2005;Féry and Truckenbrodt 2005; Féry and Truckenbrodt 2005;Féry and Truckenbrodt 2005;Féry and Truckenbrodt 2005;Féry and Truckenbrodt 2005;Féry and Truckenbrodt 2005;Féry and Truckenbrodt 2005;Féry and Truckenbrodt 2005;Féry and Truckenbrodt 2005; Féry and Truckenbrodt 2005; Féry and Truckenbrodt 2005;Féry and Truckenbrodt 2005;Féry and Truckenbrodt 2005;Féry and Truckenbrodt 2005;Féry and Truckenbrodt 2005; Féry and Truckenbrodt 2005;Féry and Truckenbrodt 2005;Féry and Truckenbrodt 2005;Féry and Truckenbrodt 2005; Wagner 2005, 2010, Selkirk 2009, 2011, Itô and Mester 2012, 2013; Elfner 2012among others).This paper empirically investigates the phonological phrase construction in Jordanian Arabic as spoken in Irbid. The empirical results indicate that phonological phrases phonological phrases phonological phrases phonological phrases phonological phrases phonological phrases phonological phrases phonological phrases phonological phrases phonological phrases phonological phrases phonological phrases phonological phrases phonological phrases phonological phrases phonological phrases match XPs and are marked by low phrase accents and pre-boundary lengthening. They also suggest that syntactic nesting motivates prosodic recursion: a nested XP matches a recursive phonological phrasephonological phrasephonological phrasephonological phrasephonological phrasephonological phrase phonological phrasephonological phrase phonological phrasephonological phrase phonological phrasephonological phrasephonological phrasephonological phrasephonological phrasephonological phrase which is cued by gradient pre-boundary lengthening. However, a recursive phonological phrasea recursive phonological phrasea recursive phonological phrasea recursive phonological phrase a recursive phonological phrasea recursive phonological phrasea recursive phonological phrasea recursive phonological phrase a recursive phonological phrasea recursive phonological phrasea recursive phonological phrasea recursive phonological phrasea recursive phonological phrasea recursive phonological phrase a recursive phonological phrasea recursive phonological phrase a recursive phonological phrase a recursive phonological phrasea recursive phonological phrasea recursive phonological phrasea recursive phonological phrasea recursive phonological phrasea recursive phonological phrase is limited to two subcategories, i.e. a minimal and maximal layer. In accord with that, prosodic recursion is neither prohibited as proposed in the early version of Strict Layer Hypothesis (Selkirk 1984, 1986; Nespor and Vogel 1986), nor freely allowed to perfectly mirror syntactic nesting as in Match Theory (Selkirk 2011)..
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".