An investigation on the role of referentiality in the interpretation of relative clauses in Brazilian Portuguese
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an off-line experiment we conducted to investigate theinfluence of referentiality on relative clause (RC) interpretation in BrazilianPortuguese. RCs associated with complex NPs seem to be preferentiallyattached to a referential noun. This referentiality effect can be treated indiscourse terms (Gilboy, Sopena, Clifton & Frazier, 1995) or in syntacticsemanticterms (Bezerra, 2017; this paper). Our questionnaire tested theseapproaches using two types of complex NPs (occupational and kinshipNPs) and the results showed that the syntactic-semantic structure ofthese complex NPs can account for the referentiality effect reported in theliterature by Gilboy et al. (1995). Based on our results, we argue in favorof the syntactic-semantic approach and show that the discourse-orientedapproach lacks explanatory power.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".