MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390910141 · doi:10.1515/9783110730951-004

4 Hul’q’umi’num’ Salish applicative constructions

2024· book-chapter· en· W4390910141 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Donna B. Gerdts

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic Variation and Morphology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguisticsTransitive relationVerbErgative caseComputer scienceInflectionCausativeMathematicsPhilosophyCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on original fieldwork and data from texts, this paper details applicatives in Hul'q'umi'num', spoken along the western shores of the Salish Sea in British Columbia, Canada. Hul'q'umi'num' has four applicative constructions marked by suffixes that allow the expression of objects with such semantic roles as goal, beneficiary, direction, and cause/stimulus. Applicatives are divided into two types: relationals, which are formed on intransitive bases, and redirectives, formed on transitive bases. (Transitivity is easily ascertained in Hul'q'umi'num' due to transitive morphology and ergative inflection.) Hul'q'umi'num' is a direct/oblique object language: only two NPs per verb can be direct arguments and other NPs are introduced by oblique marking. In semantically ditransitive constructions, the applied object is always the direct object and thus there are no non-applicative counterparts for redirective applicatives. As a polysynthetic language, Hul'q'umi'num' exhibits voice and valence marked by suffixes- limited control, passive, causative, reflexive, reciprocal, and antipassive-as well as lexical suffixes with the semantic meaning of nominals. These all co-occur with the applicative suffixes. Applicative constructions are an important device for expressing topic-worthy NPs as direct objects or, if they are also passivized, as subjects.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.585
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0180.004

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLinguistic Variation and MorphologyFrench-language works237,207