Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We provide the first detailed description and analysis of the syntax of the understudied Greek split reciprocal reconstruction. As in other languages, the reciprocal appears to be bipartite consisting of a quantificational distributor (‘the one’) and a reciprocator (‘the other’). We show that, in Greek, this bipartiteness runs deep: the two parts are syntactically independent, with the reciprocator having the syntax of a Condition A anaphor, and the distributor behaving as a floating quantifier. Once we turn to how these elements establish relations between themselves and their antecedent, we find that Greek reciprocals resist a movement‐ or Agree‐based analysis, since both elements can occur in positions inaccessible to movement/Agree. Given that the reciprocator can occur in embedded subject position, the Greek data also argue against recent attempts to reduce the binding domain to phases, instead supporting a more traditional definition of the binding domain in terms of the smallest XP containing the anaphor and a subject. Finally, we show that the morphosyntactic properties of the bipartite construction can be connected to independent properties of its two component parts and that these can, in turn, be related to interpretive aspects of reciprocity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".