Shared Knowledge and Communication: A Pragmatic Analysis of Taofiq Azeez’s Brigandage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pragmatics is the study of meaning as used in context and interpreted by the listener. Bearing the focus of Pragmatics in mind, this work adopts Cooperative Principles formulated by Paul Grice to analyse Taofiq Azeez’s Brigandage. The aim is to see how the cooperation between the characters facilitates communication in the text and to determine the extent to which the characters in the text observe the principles formulated by Paul Grice. This work also identifies the implicature generated by the characters as they break the maxims. That is, what meaning a character implies as he fails to observe the maxim(s). Some data were collected from the text and analysed. It was observed that interlocutors, as represented by the characters, strive to cooperate with each other but, for obvious reasons, flout the maxims; thus, implying additional meaning beyond what is explicitly said. The study revealed that non-observance of maxims does not impair communication owing to the fact that listeners, through shared knowledge, infer the implied meaning from the speaker’s contribution and this sustains communication.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".