Calling a spade a shovel: A cognitive construction account of BE-relativisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SRelativisation, a process by which relative clauses are formed, exhibits variability in its internal structure, meaning and interpretation. One form of relativisation is that sort of relative clause in which we directly relate one concept through another concept. The present study identifies and classifies such relativisation as BE-relativisations, and shows the extent to which this sort of relativisation significantly draws on the cognitive abilities of both the speakers and the listeners. Framed within broad theoretical tools in cognitive construction grammar, the study argues that noun phrases (NPs) in BE-relativisation cognitively function as NP1 & NP2. It is shown that these NPs, though lexically independent, are cognitively interdependent for processing purposes. The study further shows that listeners often unconsciously cooperate with speakers in processing different concepts in BE-relativisation. For instance, it is shown that conceptualising NP1 the guys is conceptually the same as NP2 my students in ‘The guys who were my students won the competition’. Drawing on corpus evidence from interference-driven Nigerian and syntactically developed Canadian Englishes, the study shows that BE-relativisations are essentially cognitive-driven, regardless of sociolinguistic background of the speakers/listerners. Among other observations, the study attests scarcity of BE-relativisation and a similar pattern of cognitive activation and cooperation in BE-relativisations found in both varieties of English.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".