Arguments, adjuncts and instruments in English and Turkish
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The argument-adjunct distinction is highly discussed in the literature. There is an ongoing debate about the categorization of instruments. Some linguists classify them as arguments, some classify them as adjuncts, and some argue that they are arguments for some verbs and adjuncts for others. This thesis revisits the argument-adjunct distinction and investigates the categorization of instruments in English and Turkish using both traditional argumenthood tests and reaction time studies. Phrases with instrumental case (Turkish -(y)le) or preposition marking (English with) can be clear arguments or adjuncts, but instruments seem to fall in between in both languages. Some argumenthood tests classify instruments as arguments and some as adjuncts. The current thesis thus adds support to previous studies that have argued that English instrument phrases have unclear status as arguments or adjuncts. Furthermore, the studies presented here found no statistical difference in reaction time categories between arguments, adjuncts and instruments.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it