Bibliographic record
Abstract
Constraints on movement are of central concern to syntactic theory. Recent work has focused on the relationship between the height of the landing site and locality restrictions. Keine (2020) argues that the higher the landing site the fewer locality restrictions are imposed on the movement (“higher is freer”). In contrast Deal (2017) argues that a lower landing site can lead to movement being less restricted due to Delayed Opacity, i.e. “lower is freer”. In this paper we argue that, in Kalaallisut (Inuit, Greenland), it is not the height of the landing site that determines whether movement across a finite clause boundary is possible, rather it is the nature of the features driving the movement. In particular, hyperraising is driven by a composite ϕ+D probe, which means that the embedded CP does not act as an intervener for Agree with a goal inside the embedded clause (Halpert 2019). In focus fronting, on the other hand, the embedded CP does intervene for Agree with a focused element inside the embedded clause, which accounts for the clause-bounded nature of focus fronting. In addition to deriving the differing locality profiles of hyperraising and focus fronting, the analysis of focus fronting generalizes to wh-movement and also accounts for apparent long-distance A-bar movement. The final segment of the paper lays out a broader cross-linguistic typology of locality profiles for A and A-bar movement and suggests that it arises from variation in probe specifications and in the featural content of C.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".