MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056389688 · doi:10.1353/lan.2001.0029

<b>Deixis and information packaging in Russian discourse.</b> By Lenore A. Grenoble Amsterdam &amp; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1998. Pp. xvii, 455.

2001· article· en· W2056389688 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Asya Pereltsvaig

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiscourse Analysis and Cultural Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeixisLinguisticsSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Deixis and information packaging in Russian discourse by Lenore A. Grenoble Asya Pereltsvaig Deixis and information packaging in Russian discourse. By Lenore A. Grenoble. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1998. Pp. xvii, 455. In this book the term ‘deixis’ is defined negatively, as those properties of an utterance that cannot be known or understood without reference to the communicative acts in which the utterance plays a part. Deixis is divided into three primary dimensions of time, space, and person which are further extended to the secondary dimensions of information status, those of knowledge, focus, and theme. The term ‘information packaging’ is used to cover the linguistic devices involved in encoding information structure and tracking information flow of the discourse. Deixis plays an important role in information packaging [End Page 177] in that it gives interlocutors cues as to both where a referenced information structure is located within the overall packaging of the discourse and how it fits in with the thematic structure of the discourse. The discourse itself is analyzed as constituted by four interrelated frameworks: the linguistic text, the text setting, the text content, and the participant framework. This study of the role of deixis and information packaging in discourse is based on an analysis of several corpora of Russian spoken and written texts. Russian provides an excellent example for studying information packaging because of its morphological and syntactic properties. For instance, rich inflectional morphology allows for a certain freedom of word order as well as for a higher degree of ellipsis and zero anaphora than in English. Other factors that affect deixis and information packaging in Russian are the morphological expression of verbal aspect, the lack of deictic motion verbs, and the absence of definite articles. The book is divided into three parts. The first part presents the framework used throughout the book, focusing on the study of primary temporal, spatial, and person deixis. Ch. 1 defines deixis and its different dimensions. In Ch. 2, the author presents an overview of the primary deictic system of Russian. The second part of the book provides analyses of the use of deixis in organizing the text. Ch. 3 considers the mapping of spatial and temporal dimensions onto the linguistic text, showing how extralinguistic devices are incorporated into the linguistic text. Ch. 4 discusses the issues related to knowledge and evidentiality. Such linguistic devices as reported speech, quotative particles, and evidential adverbs are investigated. The final part explores larger issues of information packaging within the discourse. Ch. 5 examines devices that mark changes in topical flow of the discourse and track the participants, including topicalization, verbal morphology, anaphora, quasi-clefts, and left-dislocation. Ch. 6 focuses on issues of grounding and saliency. Here, the author shows that predicate properties (such as tense, aspect, and mood), as well as individuation properties (such as animacy, person, number, and definiteness) are important in determining information packaging within the discourse. The role of voice and transitivity is likewise discussed in this chapter. Ch. 7 presents the author’s concluding remarks. The book contains name and subject indexes as well as an appendix with some representative texts from the corpora that the study is based on. Asya Pereltsvaig McGill University Copyright © 2001 Linguistic Society of America

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.014

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguageSame topicDiscourse Analysis and Cultural CommunicationFrench-language works237,207