Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the form, function and distribution of certain discourse markers which seem to occur outside traditional clause boundaries and are used to request confirmation. These ‘confirmationals’ differ according to what is expected to be confirmed. Some confirmationals trigger a response from the addressee to confirm that the proposition is true; others require a response to confirm that the addressee knows that the proposition is true. This variation is reminiscent of scope effects and suggests that confirmationals should be analysed in syntactic terms despite their peripheral position. For our analysis, we adopt the Universal Spine Hypothesis (Wiltschko 2014), which promotes a hierarchically organized series of core functional projections. We propose that the highest functional projection of a clause is dedicated to a ‘grounding’ layer, which in turn consists of a speaker-oriented and an addressee-oriented structure. The topmost layer is dedicated to regulate response and consists of a position that encodes the call on the addressee. Our analysis of speech act structure is an updated version of Ross’ (1970) performative hypothesis. We explore the predictions and implications of this hypothesis for the syntax-pragmatics interface.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".