A Corpus Stylistic Analysis of Speech and Thought Presentation in James Joyce’s Dubliners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article utilizes the theory of narrative style which is interesting from both the standpoint of literary stylistics as well as from that of the theory of communication. In this framework, the relation of a narrator to a reader is the basic relationship underlying all narrative structures. According to this basic relationship a number of ways of narration are differentiated or, as Mc Hale (1978) calls them represented/reported discourse. This article endeavours a systematic analysis of the stylistic devices used in fictional writing for the representation of a character’s speech and thought. So, the present study attempts to analyze the interaction between categories of speech and thought presentation in James Joyce’s Dubliners by applying Leech and Short Model (2007). Excerpts of 2000-word length have been selected and manually tagged to have the accurate annotation keeping in mind the contextual potential to recognize discourse categories in Joyce fiction and then corpus software AntConc (Laurence Anthony, 2018) was used to get quantitative results. Since fictional texts display the tendency to move between categories of speech and thought presentation as well as between the modes within one category and its demarcation is a real challenge to the researchers. The practical part of research was done on the basis of short stories from James Joyce’s Dubliners. Special emphasis is given to variations between the two modes as well as to the instances of ambiguity created by their interplay.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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".