Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the interaction of Tense, Aspect and Modality in French, Italian and Spanish, languages in which Modals are inflected as main verbs. Imperfective modals are a-averidical, as modals are expected to be, but when they appear in a perfective tense, unexpected entailments and implicatures appear. For example, the following example is three-way ambiguous in Spanish; the corresponding example is two way-ambiguous in Italian and French: P. may have won, could have won, managed to win the race The three readings, epistemic, counterfactual and implicative, are derived from the alternative orderings of three heads, Tense, Aspect and Modal; any ordering in which Modal scopes over Tense is out on semantic grounds; these leaves three possible orderings which result in the three readings. In the epistemic construal, Modal has scope over Tense and Aspect, which are read on the infinitive. As a result, Modal Evaluation Time is at Utterance Time and the lower infinitive is Past and Perfective. There is no interaction between Modal and the other two heads and averidicality is the result. In the counterfactual reading,Tense scopes over Modal, which in turn scopes over Aspect: the result is a past Modal Evaluation; Perfective Aspect makes the interval in which verifying instances of the lower event are sought bounded, which contributes settledness. These are the crucial ingredients for counterfactuality. When Tense and Aspect are both read on the modal, the lower event is entailed and an implicative reading ensues. Italian and French do not have the counterfactual reading because their only surviving perfective past is a morphological perfect which, since it involves a resulting state, is incompatible with counterfactuality. Spanish perfecto also lacks this reading.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.005 |
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".