L’énonciation non sérieuse a-t-elle une force illocutoire? À propos de l’hypothèse performative de la fiction littéraire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans la foulée des récentes recherches interdisciplinaires sur la fiction littéraire, cet article a pour objectif d’identifier la force illocutoire de l’énonciation dite «non sérieuse» (Frege, Austin et Searle) de l’auteur de fiction sur la base de l’hypothèse théorique que les unités minimales de la signification des énonciations sont des actes de discours du genre illocutoire (Austin), composés d’une force (Frege) et d’un contenu propositionnel (Searle). À la lumière des analyses philosophiques des énonciations non sérieuses et performatives d’énoncés déclaratifs, je formule l’hypothèse fondamentale selon laquelle les unités minimales de la signification des énonciations non sérieuses sont des déclarations linguistiques de forme F(dans le jeu de langage x, P) ayant pour but d’instaurer des événements extralinguistiques représentés dans le contenu propositionnel de cet acte de discours par le fait de faire ce que l’énoncé signifie par convention.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".