MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401123005 · doi:10.17118/11143/21777

Verga tra vecchio e nuovo : le «sgrammaticature» veriste, la resistenza dei puristi e i ripensamenti d'autore

2023· article· it· W4401123005 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fábio Diniz Rossi

Bibliographic record

VenueCircula · 2023
Typearticle
Languageit
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRenaissance Literature and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Riassunto : Il particolare impasto linguistico delle novelle e dei romanzi verghiani suscitò numerose critiche da parte dei letterati e dei grammatici più tradizionalistici. Soprattutto alcune soluzioni sintattiche risultavano sgradite, in quanto troppo vicine al parlato meno sorvegliato. Verga prese a cuore molte di quelle critiche, al punto da “correggere” alcuni costrutti nelle edizioni successive alla princeps. Il presente articolo, partendo da una sintetica rassegna delle critiche al “nuovo” sintattico, mostra come siano proprio quelle supposte «sgrammaticature» (secondo l’ironica definizione di Capuana) l’elemento di maggior interesse, oggi, della scrittura e della struttura narrativa verghiane. L’articolo si concentra soprattutto sulla resa, mediante quelle «sgrammaticature», della polifonia tipica della tecnica del discorso indiretto libero, del virtuosistico cambiamento del punto di vista e dell’altrettanto virtuosistico andirivieni della voce narrante. Il “nuovo” sintattico, pragmatico e testuale della scrittura verghiana assume dunque più propriamente i connotati di un “nuovo” narrativo, in una modernissima operazione intrinsecamente metacomunicativa, troppo precoce, forse, per lusingare i contemporanei, ma destinata a larghissima fortuna internazionale nei decenni successivi.||Abstract : The particular linguistic mixture of Verga’s short stories and novels aroused numerous criticisms from the more traditionalist writers and grammarians. Above all, some syntactic solutions were unwelcome, as they were too close to the informal speech. Verga took many of those criticisms to heart, to the point of “correcting” some constructs in the editions following the princeps. This article, starting from a brief review of the criticisms of the “new” syntax, shows how those supposed “ungrammatical errors” (according to Capuana’s ironic definition) are the element of greatest interest, today, in Verga’s writing and narrative style. The article focuses above all on the rendering, through those “errors”, of the polyphony typical of free indirect speech, of the virtuosic change of point of view and of the virtuosic coming and going of the narrative voice. The syntactic, pragmatic and textual “new” of Verga’s writing therefore more properly takes on the connotations of a “new” narrative, in a very modern intrinsically metacommunicative operation, too early, perhaps, to flatter contemporaries, but destined to very wide international success in the future.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.773
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.209 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculaSame topicRenaissance Literature and CultureFrench-language works237,207