MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3002426507 · doi:10.2478/ausp-2019-0013

Deconstructing Language Borders through the Hybrid. A Topical Approach to Margaret Atwood’s <i>Dark Lady</i>

2019· article· en· W3002426507 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Liana Muthu

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Universtitatis Sapientiae. Philologica · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Communication and Language
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHybridityLinguisticsNarrativeMeaning (existential)PremiseFace (sociological concept)RepertoireContext (archaeology)SociologyHistoryLiteraturePsychologyArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Starting from the premise that cultures assume myriads of foreign elements, alterities, and differences, this paper analyses a phenomenon that becomes a conscious and an intentional one, namely language hybridity. Our purpose is to give thoughtful attention to certain instances of hybridity perceived at the syntactic, semantic, and lexical levels. Since language users make their choice in any situational context, we witness a great degree of linguistic blending: e. g. the borrowing of words and phrases becomes tied to new ways of making meaning. Additionally, we face a dynamic increase of mixed language registers, styles, and voices that form a complex linguistic repertoire in a literary work. For exemplification, we will analyse Margaret Atwood’s experimentations across genre and linguistic boundaries encountered in her short story Dark Lady , integral part of the short fiction collection Stone Mattress. Nine Wicked Tales (2014). This narrative is characterized by a mixture of heterogeneous elements: hybrid phrases created as a result of borrowing words, elevated language (sprinkled with widely known Latin sayings), and alteration of idioms by one-word substitution. Hybridity becomes a way through which Margaret Atwood deconstructs language borders. In Dark Lady , the Canadian writer shows that hybridity stimulates innovation since the individual is allowed to move freely between spaces of meaning.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.668

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Universtitatis Sapientiae. PhilologicaSame topicDigital Communication and LanguageFrench-language works237,207