Open-class-ness, Aspect, Iconicity, and Other Characteristics of Japanese Ideophones Viewed through the Lens of Closed-class Semantics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper adopts closed-class semantics (Talmy, 2000) to examine the semantics and morphophonology of Japanese ideophones. First, it considers the class category status of ideophones, arguing that the membership expansion of ideophones as open-class forms is impeded by iconicity, or the sound-symbolism of a phoneme. Next, it explores the relevance of three grammatical concepts expressed by closed-class forms (aspect, force dynamics, and perspective) to the meaning of ideophones, arguing that: (i) the forms of ideophones are iconic representations of (un)boundedness; (ii) ideophones can elaborate on the force enacted by the antagonist or agonist; and (iii) a proximal perspective underlies commonly used descriptions, such as dramaturgicness. The discussion touches on cross-linguistically common characteristics of ideophones, including use of a closed-class means such as reduplication to create aspect-informed forms. The paper shows that the class category status is an important measure to seize characteristics of ideophones, corroborating Dingemanse (2019, 2023).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".