Non-situational demonstrative expressions and the cognitive status of their referents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This paper deals with non-situational demonstratives as text-deictic units and discusses the degree of activation or cognitive status of their referents under the scope of Gundel, Hedberg & Zacharski’s (1993) Givenness Hierarchy combined with Centering Theory.In order to determine the cognitive status of the referents of the demonstratives, a narrative corpus consisting of J. M. Barrie’s Peter Pan and two translations of Barrie’s text into Catalan and Spanish is analyzed. Firstly, the situational or non-situational natures of the demonstratives this/these/thus and that/those, and their counterparts in the translations, are determined. Secondly, the cognitive status of the referents of the non-situational demonstratives is discussed.The analyses show that the demonstratives referring to ‘in focus’ entities are frequent. Moreover, there is no one-to-one correspondence among the demonstratives in the source and the target texts. Both results point to changes in the cognitive status of some referents in the process of translation. These results also lead to conclude that some discourse non-identificational constraints should be taken into account when facing the analysis of demonstratives.Key words: demonstratives, reference, deixis, anaphora, cognitive status.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".