MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020560311 · doi:10.1080/0163853x.2012.664759

Japanese Negotiation Through Emerging Final Particles in Everyday Talk

2012· article· en· W2020560311 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscourse Processes · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationComputer scienceConversation analysisLinguisticsPsychologySociologyCommunicationConversationSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article focuses on the grammar of Japanese kara ‘because/so’ and kedo ‘but’, traditionally understood as conjunctive particles whose function is to mark a “subordinate” clause and connect it to a following “main” clause. This article shows that, in conversation, these forms are often used turn-finally without an apparent main clause and that they are grammaticizing into final particles functioning to yield a turn. Then lexicalized uses of kara ‘because/so’ exploited for turn continuation purposes are considered, showing that different uses of kara ‘because/so’ reflect various stages of its ongoing change. It is argued that the lexicalized independent conjunction dakara is developing from a “consequential” conjunctive particle connecting two clauses to an independent “non-consequential” form. This article shows that this non-consequential form is used for giving explanations for an assertion in an immediately preceding turn and for (re)claiming a turn. Findings shed light on the grammar of turn continuation and highlight the diachronically and synchronically emergent nature of Japanese interactants' grammar.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.176
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 communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.253 · 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