Pragmatic markers as constructions. The case of anyway
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study is to explore the idea that discourse markers are oriented to properties of spoken language and the interaction and have special uses or tasks depending on formal and contextual factors. The empirical data comes from an analysis of anyway in informal conversation in several regional varieties of English. The British component of the ICE-corpus was selected as the home variety. Comparisons have been made with Canadian English (ICE-CAN), Philippine English (ICE-PHIL), and New Zealand English (ICE-NZ). Anyway has been analysed in a constructional approach as a combination of form and function. It does not have a fixed meaning but a meaning potential containing information about the position of anyway in the clause and the turn sequence, collocation, activity types and regional specialization. The analysis has shown that anyway can be regarded as distinct constructions (or meaning potentials) in the left and the right periphery or as a stand-alone marker. The meanings reflect the activities and tasks which have to be performed at interactionally sensitive transitions in the evolving discourse. While some varieties prefer anyway in the left periphery this may not be a general tendency when we look at more varieties.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it