MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4237280143 · doi:10.1017/cnj.2016.13

The Shona reflexive as covert anaphora

2016· article· en· W4237280143 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Linguistics / La revue canadienne de linguistique · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguisticsAffixMorphemeShonaCovertObject (grammar)ReflexivityLexemeCliticIndexicalityPsychologySociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents an analysis of reflexives in Shona. Taking seriously the observation that the reflexive morpheme zvi- is homophonous with one of Shona's object markers, I argue that this homophony is not accidental. Rather, the morpheme that emerges in reflexive contexts is object marking triggered by a covert anaphor. The analysis rests on two planks: first, establishing that zvi- is the default agreement form in the language generally; and second, establishing that a covert anaphor may trigger such an agreement. In so doing, a treatment of object marking as the exponence of discourse-givenness is advanced. The analysis is compatible with treatments of object marking in Shona as either an agreement affix or a clitic. Theoretical issues related to default agreement, covert anaphors, and distinctions between discourse-givenness and topicality are also discussed, along with an alternative account treating zvi- as a valence-reducing derivational affix.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.085
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.085
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it