Complement Clause Constructions in Flux: Insights from Corpus-Based Analysis
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
Complement clause constructions in English are evolving. This study demonstrates that shifts in speakers’ focus of consciousness can induce changes in a construction’s complement clause, affecting both its syntax and semantics. The construction [This is the [ordinal number (ON)] time (that)] (e.g., This is the first time (that)) typically employs the present perfect, as in This is the first time that I’ve heard her sing (Swan, 2017). However, corpus data from English-Corpora.org reveal that the pattern [This is the ON time (that) + S + present tense or present progressive] is also attested (e.g., …this is the first time you see formal territorial markers…, COCA, 2006, ACAD), reflecting shifts in speaker perspective and current experiential focus, despite the construction not ordinarily requiring these tenses. This study adopts a qualitative, corpus-based approach to describe and interpret these non-canonical patterns, focusing on [This is the first time (that)]. Emphasis is placed on mapping meaning and speaker viewpoint onto observed constructions, rather than on quantitative prevalence. The analysis clarifies how the function of [This is the ON time (that)] shifts with its complement clause, illustrating the interaction between construction and tense/aspect—i.e., colligation—and providing a precise, comprehensible account of ongoing changes in English complement clause constructions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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