Interprétation des insultes et relations de solidarité
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article focuses on the empirical domain of the solidarity uses of certain insults in different varieties of French (standard, Quebec, Burgundy) from diachronic and synchronie points of view. "Solidarity uses" refers to the usage of axiological terms as terms of endearment to mark social proximity between subjects. This value is signalled by morpho- syntactic, prosodie and mimeo-gestural features indicating the speakers disposition towards the addressee. These psychological and social parameters conspire to attenuate the axiological term's argumentative program, which however can never be entirely evacuated. This argumentative program is nevertheless subordinated to pragmatics, which remains necessary in order to evaluate the extent to which the conventional lexical meaning is maintained in these uses. The attenuation of conventional meaning under solidarity uses shows the relevance of relational and attitudinal notions for the negotiation of meaning. It further establishes that at least in some cases, the analysis of linguistic interpretation require a multidisciplinary approach, most specifically where the relation between Semantics and Pragmatics is concemed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".