Investigating the effect of prosodic markedness on the interpretation of simple disjunction in Romanian
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to Horn’s (1984) Principle of Division of Pragmatic Labor, marked forms should have marked meanings. We investigate differences in the interpretation of two prosodically distinct forms of the disjunction sau in Romanian (‘A sau B’): (i) neutral rise-fall prosody, and (ii) marked rise-fall-rise prosody, where both disjuncts are stressed. Adults typically interpret disjunction inclusively (A or B, possibly both) or exclusively (A or B, but not both), while children interpret it inclusively or conjunctively (A and B), cf. Singh et al. (2016) and Tieu et al. (2017). We ask whether similar preferences hold for Romanian and probe into the understudied role of prosody. Given adults’ greater sensitivity to prosody compared to children (Gotzner et al. 2013), we predict they might associate marked sau with the marked exclusive meaning more than children do. We tested Romanian-speaking adults and 5-year-olds using a forced-choice task, in which two puppets made guesses about what would happen, using either neutral sau or marked sau. While adults preferred neutral sau to describe contexts in which both disjuncts were true and marked sau for contexts in which only one disjunct was true, children selected the two disjunctions indiscriminately. We conclude that, unlike adults, children do not distinguish between prosodically marked and unmarked forms of disjunction.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".