The form and force of Kirundi exclamatives
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper examines the syntax and semantics of two types of exclamatives in Kirundi: property exclamatives, which express surprise at the extreme degree of some property of an entity, and proposition exclamatives, which express surprise at a proposition’s truth. Though most languages have canonical clause types for declaratives, interrogatives, and imperatives, only some further distinguish exclamatives ( Sadock & Zwicky 1985 ). Drawing on fieldwork, I argue that the form and force of Kirundi exclamatives motivates their recognition as a true clause type. Notably, Kirundi exclamatives satisfy semantic criteria for exclamativity but take a unique form, lacking overt wh - and/or degree morphology. I propose a constructional account, in the spirit of Zanuttini & Portner 2003 , in which exclamativity arises as the result of interaction between syntactic elements linked to factivity, general interrogative force, and focus. This paper has implications for exclamative typology and the analysis of illocutionary force at the syntax-semantics interface.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it