MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7019208724

The form and function of interrogatives in Sm’algyax

2024· other· en· W7019208724 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship (California Digital Library) · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInterrogativeInterrogative wordTransitive relationObject (grammar)Set (abstract data type)Core (optical fiber)Conjunction (astronomy)AgreementFunction (biology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dissertation examines the formation of questions in Sm’algyax (Maritime Tsimshianic;ISO: tsi; British Columbia, Alaska) based on new fieldwork.\nThe first part outlines the complex morphosyntactic reflexes of both local and\nlong-distance Ā-movement, including wh-movement, relativization, and focus. Although Sm’algyax\nexhibits a rigidly ergative pattern in terms of number and person agreement, it shows a unique\nthree-way distinction when extracting core arguments of a predicate. The extraction of an intran-\nsitive subject, a transitive subject, and a direct object are all marked differently. This reveals an\nunderlying structural distinction between intransitive subjects and transitive objects that is not\napparent when these elements remain in their in-situ positions.\nMoving beyond local movement, I show that long-distance movement is possible and exhibits\nthe same morphosyntactic marking found in local movement in each intermediate clause. This\nprovides clear evidence that cross-clausal movement does not occur in “one fell swoop”, but\nrather involves intermediate landing spots along the way (Chomsky, 1986, 2000; McCloskey, 2000;\nChomsky, 2001; Rackowski & Richards, 2005; Chomsky, 2008; van Urk & Richards, 2015).\nThe second part focuses on a unique set of markers in Sm’algyax—referred to as interrogative\nclitics—that appear in both wh-questions and polar questions. I show that they are sensitive to\na root/non-root clause distinction: they may appear in root/matrix questions, but not embedded\nquestions. Their appearance in matrix questions is sensitive to whether those questions are in\nsome sense canonical questions or not. I analyze the interrogative clitics as operators that appear\nin a high, peripheral syntactic position, and select for an interrogative clausal complement.\nFinally, I turn to the linear positioning of the interrogative clitics in the clause, and show\nthat they occupy a typologically rare second-last position. I show that appealing to the syntax,\nphonology, or a combination of syntax and phonology does not capture their distribution. Instead,\nI argue that the penultimate linearization implicates a distinct morphological component.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.195 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship (California Digital Library)Same topicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationFrench-language works237,207