Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Holo what?" or, The Exceptional Business of Naming:A Dialogue Mareike Neuhaus (bio) North American indigenous literatures in English use what I call relational word bundles, a rhetorical structure that is exceptional both in form and origin. A relational word bundle effectively is a figure with significant narrative function that is combined with other such figures to form a text's narrative grid, thus functioning as synecdoche writ large. Given the relational word bundles' origin in a significant Indigenous language structure—the holophrase (one-word sentence)—a rhetorical analysis of relational word bundles from the perspective of a non-Indigenous scholar (that is, myself) is equally exceptional. This essay explores the rhetoric of relational word bundles from the perspective of both Indigenous rhetorics and classical rhetoric, focusing particularly on Canadian contexts. In the spirit of the exceptionality of relational word bundles, the essay takes the form of a dialogue between two scholars. Their conversation points to relational word bundles as the rhetorical expression of Indigenous notions of community and storytelling. Tracing the story of the relational word bundle's evolution, this dialogue also explores the ethics of reading, foregrounding questions all too often lingering in the background: What do critics do, how, and why do they do it, and what are the implications of their work? [End Page 63] Finally, it deserves mentioning that of the two characters featured in the dialogue one is a fictional version of myself, while the other functions as a kind of epitome of the various friends and colleagues—both Native and non-Native—with whom over the years I have had the pleasure to share my work. Why fictionalize myself, and why make this epitome an Oscar Wilde specialist? As Oscar Wilde once noted, "One should always be a little improbable" ("Phrases and Philosophies" 177). It's a sunny afternoon, sometime in July. People are sitting on the porch in front of a café somewhere in North America. Among them are Oscar, a writer and Oscar Wilde expert, and Kate, a scholar of Indigenous literatures; the two have known each other for a good number of years. Birds sitting on a nearby tree are chirping. Cars are passing by. Music can be heard playing from inside the café. Oscar. So, how's your summer going? Kate. The usual. I'm getting all too fond of not having to teach. (Both laughing.) Kate, more seriously. 'N how about you? (takes a sip from her coffee) Oscar. Oh, I've been working on this and that. Nothing spectacular. That is, I did start a new project. Kate, raises her eyebrows. What's that? Oscar, chuckling. You might enjoy this. The title I'm using is "Oscar Wilde's Influence on Shakespeare's Sonnets." Kate. Sounds better than "A Wildean reading of Shakespeare." Oscar. You betcha. (lights his pipe) Kate. But you're not planning to prove the existence of Willie Hughes, are you?1 Oscar. No, no, no, far from it. My point is that Willie Hughes, or whoever stands behind the letters W.H., is a mere fiction. Kate. A mere fiction? Oscar. Yes, I want to suggest a reading of Shakespeare's life as imitating his sonnets; the sonnets expressed Shakespeare's deepest desires, desires he didn't even know he had. Desires that had to be fulfilled eventually. Kate. Erotic desires, I assume? [End Page 64] Oscar, smirking. Of course, for fulfilled they were "between the sheets," so to speak, with all those real W.H.s Timothy Findley hints at in his play Elizabeth Rex.2 Kate. I get it, "Life imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life" (Wilde, "The Decay of Lying" 40). Oscar. Exactly. Kate. Just let me know once you're done so I can prevent you from committing suicide. Oscar, puts out his pipe. I'll probably die of this (waves his pipe) before I'm even close to finishing. (Both laughing.) Your turn, Kate. What is it that you're so fond of this summer? Kate. Nothing really original; I'm revisiting my work on the paraholophrase3— Oscar. Para what? Kate, slightly perturbed. Para-holo-phrase. Oscar, mocking her. A hollow paraphrase? Kate. Not...
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 | 0.000 | 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".