TY - JOUR
T1 - Evidence Based on a dynamic source
T2 - Database support for a theory of transitive reciprocals
AU - Safir, Ken
N1 - Funding Information: Acknowledgements: The author would like to acknowledge the support of NSF BCS-1324404 and the advice and commentary of Jeff Good, Larry Hyman and Naga Selvanathan.
PY - 2015/12
Y1 - 2015/12
N2 - The novelty of this document is that the empirical support for the predictions it examines, predictions about the distribution and interpretation of transitive reciprocal constructions, will be different each time it is read. The evidence will change because this paper will only provide parameters for a search of the Afranaph Database (ongoing) and two other databases, and as these databases grow and change over time, the search results returned today will be different from the results returned by the same search executed months or years from now. Reversing the normal priorities of linguistic research, the proposal we present about the nature of reciprocal constructions in natural language, which contends that direct object full DPs anaphors do not directly contribute reciprocal meaning (a proposal more broadly and specifically defended by Safir and Selvanathan (in preparation) is secondary (a) to our demonstration of the methodology we employ to support our claims and (b) to the lessons we draw from it about the evaluation of evidence for research in linguistics in the digital age.
AB - The novelty of this document is that the empirical support for the predictions it examines, predictions about the distribution and interpretation of transitive reciprocal constructions, will be different each time it is read. The evidence will change because this paper will only provide parameters for a search of the Afranaph Database (ongoing) and two other databases, and as these databases grow and change over time, the search results returned today will be different from the results returned by the same search executed months or years from now. Reversing the normal priorities of linguistic research, the proposal we present about the nature of reciprocal constructions in natural language, which contends that direct object full DPs anaphors do not directly contribute reciprocal meaning (a proposal more broadly and specifically defended by Safir and Selvanathan (in preparation) is secondary (a) to our demonstration of the methodology we employ to support our claims and (b) to the lessons we draw from it about the evaluation of evidence for research in linguistics in the digital age.
KW - Linguistic database
KW - Reciprocal
KW - Transitive reciprocal
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047224152&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85047224152&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2014-1016
DO - https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2014-1016
M3 - Article
SN - 2199-174X
VL - 1
SP - 79
EP - 88
JO - Linguistics Vanguard
JF - Linguistics Vanguard
IS - 1
ER -