Syntactic Deconstruction of Beckett’s Dramatic Text: A Transitivity Analysis of Waiting for Godot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the dominant elements of Transitivity (Ideational meaning) of Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot. The analysis of data was conducted by using computational tool, UAM Corpus Tool (UAMTC). The study has found that Beckett’s dramatic text has a considerable amount of Material processes going on in the world of the play but these processes are less directed to a Goal and are even agentless too. The processes are also not spatially and temporally situated. The characters are out of time in Waiting for Godot (Esslin, 1980). The text is a linguistic paradox; lexically simple but structurally complex. The fragmented syntax of the play corresponds with the chaotic existence of man. The meaninglessness of human life has been conveyed through broken language. It is due to these qualities that the play is able to make a mark on the minds of its readers. The present study has explored of the possibility of reconciliation between literary and linguistic approach to the study of literary texts in general and modern drama in particular.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".