MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806386595 · doi:10.3968/10381

Analysis of Discourses in Jane Eyre From the Perspective of Pragmatics

2018· article· en· W2806386595 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lian Min

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImplicaturePoliteness maximsCharacter (mathematics)Freudian slipCooperative principleSociologyPerspective (graphical)CriticismGricePragmaticsPsychoanalysisFeminismEpistemologyLiteraturePolitenessAestheticsPhilosophyPsychologyLinguisticsGender studiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Jane Eyre , as an autobiography of the author Charlotte Bronte, which has been credited as an “influential feminist text” by the Penguin edition since it was published in 1847, in London, England. It is a novel about the orphan Jane Eyre’s lifetime who experienced lots of difficulties and distress and finally lived a happy life. Many scholars studied the novel from different perspectives, and most of them studied it mainly form the following five aspects: exploring the feminism in the novel; analyzing the characters’ images based on Appraisal theory; discussing the protagonists’ dual character based on Freudian psychoanalysis; exploring the Christian cultural elements in the novel from the point view of religion and culture; elaborating the real reasons why the two leading characters had a tortuous relationship by applying Ethical literary criticism. While few studied it from the point view of pragmatic theories. Given this, the paper selects typical dialogues from the novel and analyzes them on the basis of Grice’s Cooperative Principle and Leech’s Politeness Principle, in the hope of revealing the speakers’ conversational implicature and providing an unique visual angle for the appreciation of the novel.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.950

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.311 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207