Predicting emergent linguistic compositions through time: Syntactic frame extension via multimodal chaining
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural language relies on a finite lexicon to express an unbounded set of emerging ideas.One result of this tension is the formation of new compositions, such that existing linguistic units can be combined with emerging items into novel expressions.We develop a framework that exploits the cognitive mechanisms of chaining and multimodal knowledge to predict emergent compositional expressions through time.We present the syntactic frame extension model (SFEM) that draws on the theory of chaining and knowledge from "percept", "concept", and "language" to infer how verbs extend their frames to form new compositions with existing and novel nouns.We evaluate SFEM rigorously on the 1) modalities of knowledge and 2) categorization models of chaining, in a syntactically parsed English corpus over the past 150 years.We show that multimodal SFEM predicts newly emerged verb syntax and arguments substantially better than competing models using purely linguistic or unimodal knowledge.We find support for an exemplar view of chaining as opposed to a prototype view and reveal how the joint approach of multimodal chaining may be fundamental to the creation of literal and figurative language uses including metaphor and metonymy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".