MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610928249 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v7n1p35

Textual Function of Presupposition in Business Letter Discourse

2017· article· en· W2610928249 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yu Chunmei

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLexicography and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresuppositionLinguisticsSentenceComputer scienceUtteranceTheme (computing)Function (biology)NominalizationNounPhilosophyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Presupposition refers to what is assumed by the speaker when uttering a specific sentence, usually realized by the useof particular lexical items and/or linguistic constructions which are known as presupposition triggers, is an evitablerequirement for interpretation of the utterance. Based on the theme-rheme theory and thematic progression patternssuggested by Hu Zhuanglin and Zhu Yongsheng, the author adopts qualitative method to make an analysis of thetextual function of presupposition which is realized by serving as themes in clauses, helping to construct differentthematic progression patterns and transmitting information in business letter discourse. Presupposition helps toconstruct four main thematic progression patterns in business letter discourse, which can be conclude as T1→T2 (thesame theme), R1→R2 (the same rheme), R1→T2 (the rheme or part of the rheme in the previous clause becomes thetheme of the next clause) and T1+R1=T2 (both the theme and rheme of the preceding clause are encapsulated into anoun phrase functioning as the theme of the frequent clause). The author chose 30 business letters selected from theinternet and several textbooks as the object of research, and they cover almost every stage of foreign trade.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of English LanguageSame topicLexicography and Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207