Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although several studies have described the use of discourse markers (DMs) from a syntagmatic point of view, the possible reduplication of some DMs has never been studied in detail (ex. in French : bon bon, tiens tiens, voyons voyons, là là, bien bien and in English, OK OK, all right all right...). The present article has two aims. First, it seeks to analyze the role of the pragmatic reduplication (PR) of the là marker in Quebec French. It then aims to discover whether the PR of DMs is similar to the PR of other grammatical classes, such as that of adjectives, where the reduplication is generally considered to be an intensification process. The working hypothesis is that, if “intensification” is defined as a semantic category equivalent to “very X” or “really X”, the notion of “intensification” is not adequate to describe the PR of DMs. Intensification is only possible with words on a scale and DMs are not scalar. This being the case, it is proposed that the PR of DM is essentially related to the speaker’s commitment to his message and that the use of a reduplication device allows him to add an emphatic modal quality to the performance of an illocutionary act.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".