MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417203948 · doi:10.1075/sic.24006.bro

Semantic persistence in Spanish temporal constructions

2025· article· en· W4417203948 on OpenAlexaff
Katharine Brownshire, Juliana De la Mora

Bibliographic record

VenueSpanish in Context · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrammaticalizationAlternation (linguistics)Possession (linguistics)Persistence (discontinuity)Semantic changeSemantic property

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In Spanish, the verbs llevar and tener variably occur in durative temporal constructions, as in “ llevo dos años cantando ” and “ tengo dos años cantando .” Despite occurring in functionally equivalent contexts, the distinct semantic origin of the verbs – llevar encoding movement, direction, and causativity, and tener being a prototypical possession verb– makes these constructions an ideal locus to examine how the persistence of core semantic properties influence alternation in grammaticalizing constructions. Adopting a variationist approach, we analyzed internal and external factors affecting the use of 221 occurrences of temporal constructions in Mexican Spanish. Results reveal that llevar + time is favored in contexts associated with change and affectedness, whereas tener + time is preferred in contexts associated with control and invariability. These findings suggest that despite semantic bleaching, the core semantic features of llevar and tener persist, shaping the distribution of their corresponding durative constructions. This can be taken as further evidence for the grammaticalization of durative temporal constructions in Spanish.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpanish in ContextSame topicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationFrench-language works237,207