MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2788162572 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v8n3p303

Linguistic Choices in Hamid’s Moth Smoke: A Transitivity Analysis

2018· article· en· W2788162572 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hafiz Muhammad Qasim, Mubina Talaat, Qamar Khushi, Musarrat Azher

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransitive relationAttributiveLinguisticsCharacter (mathematics)ExistentialismFocus (optics)PsychologyRank (graph theory)Sample (material)GrammarProjection (relational algebra)MathematicsPhilosophyEpistemologyCombinatoricsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study is aimed at an investigation of how meanings are construed in a literary text. The main theoretical framework employed for the data analysis was transitivity, which finds its roots in Halliday’s (1994) Systemic Functional Grammar. 21 texts from Hamid’s novel, Moth Smoke (MS) were selected as data. A sample size of 1100 complex clause sentences containing different processes, participants and circumstances was drawn for analysis. The focus of the study was the identification of transitivity patterns associated with the main characters of the novel following Simpson (2004) who viewed it “useful indicator of character in prose fiction” (p. 119). The findings of transitivity constructions showed that all types of processes were found in MS. Based on the rank of frequency, material processes were computed the most frequent processes. They did have frequency of occurrence as (1076=51.45%). The projection of mental processes was (13.91%) in the second position. The verbal processes were (11.23%), relational processes (19.75%) while the lowest projection was found in behavioural (2.63%) and existential (0.86%) processes. Male characters were ascribed with more material and verbal processes while females were drawn as having mental and attributive process clauses. The current study concluded that transitivity options can function as a useful analytical tool in the analysis of a literary text.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207