Fusional morphology, metasyncretism, and secondary exponence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using Latin as a case study, we show that Lexical-Realizational Functional Grammar (a union between a morpheme-based realizational morphology and the nonderivational, constraint-based syntactic framework of Lexical-Functional Grammar) is able to offer insights into two fundamentally important morphological phenomena. The first of these is metasyncretism, which is of particular interest because it is a (putative) paradigmatic effect, yet LRFG does not have paradigms as theoretical objects. Syncretism is captured via cascading macros (i.e., templates), such that a macro for one case value may also call another macro with a different case value, leading to case containment which models a feature hierarchy. We also use the same approach for gender and number. Metasyncretism is handled through a single vocabulary item mapping to a disjunction of two or more possible exponents. The second phenomenon of interest is secondary exponence (or morphological conditioning). This is handled through the addition of constraints to the (relevant) vocabulary items corresponding to their conditioning environments.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.001 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".