MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244906433 · doi:10.1075/slcs.89.11kup

The definite article in non-specific object noun phrases: Comparing French and Italian

2007· book-chapter· en· W4244906433 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

VenueStudies in language companion series · 2007
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObject (grammar)LinguisticsNounPoint (geometry)Function (biology)Noun phraseContrast (vision)HistoryProper nounComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Italian allows for the use of the definite article in non-specific direct object NPs ( mettersi la giacca ‘put on a jacket’, avere il gatto ‘have a cat’). However, in French, the corresponding constructions typically take only the indefinite article ( se mettre un blouson, avoir un chat ). We present a corpus analysis and a questionnaire study which both establish a striking contrast between French and Italian on this point. We argue that the more widespread use of the Italian definite article in this non-specific function shows that it is further grammaticalized than its French counterpart. This conclusion calls for a reconsideration of the widespread view of French as the language with the more grammaticalized article system.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.942

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.320
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