A Study of Ideational Metafunction in Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness”: A Critical Discourse Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The linguistic study of literature or critical analysis of literary discourse is no different from any other textual description; it is not a new branch or a new level or a new kind of linguistics but the application of existing theories and methods (Halliday, 2002). This study intends to determine how ideology or opinion is expressed in Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness and what kind of lexico-grammatical strategies are used in the first part of this novella to convey the author’s ideological meaning. By focusing on the lexico-grammatical choices in the transitivity system of the structure of the clauses, the researcher tries to shed light on the ideational meaning in the first section of the story. That is, the grammar of the clause as representation (transitivity patterns) which represents the encoding of experiential meanings: meaning about the world, about experience, about how we perceive and experience what is going on. By examining the transitivity patterns in text, we can explain how the field of situation is being constructed, i.e. we can describe what is being talked about and how shifts are achieved in the field. Both Halliday and Hassan have integrated theoretical statements with demonstrations of text analyses (Hassan, Matthiessen, &amp; Webster, 2005). In that spirit, the researcher here offers a textual demonstration of reading of a literary text. In order to do so, the researcher has identified metafunctional patterns of ideation found in the lexico-grammar of Joseph Conrad’s <em>Heart of Darkness </em>and has noted the author’s use of foregrounding against these patterns to contrast the racist and imperialistic ideologies being opposed to through the frame narration of the whole first part by Marlow as the chief character said to be Conrad’s own voice in the process of sailing and cruising on the Thames in a yawl by the name of Nellie.</p>
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".