/LING
|
Update: February 24, 2023 The new version of Termout.org is now online, so this web site is now obsolete and will soon be dismantled. |
Lista de candidatos sometidos a examen:
1) argumentation (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística
1) Candidate: argumentation
Is in goldstandard
1
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines186 - : In this paper we study grammatical features relevant in Spanish from a functional point of view, to the extent that they can be associated with semantic and pragmatic functions of discourse (Halliday, 1994; Biber, Conrad & Reppen, 1998). Specifically, we analyse the occurrence of grammatical features associated with two textual characteristics, subjectivity and argumentation, in three discourse genres: didactic genres (school book, professional school manual, etc .), popularized genres (popularized article, popularized book, review, etc.), and behaviour-regulating genres (contract, agreement, law, etc.). In this research we study texts included in the corpus of the Royal Academy of Spanish Language (RAE), available in Internet, in order to obtain and to quantify automatically the features observed. The results show differences in grammatical characteristics of each discourse genres, both from a quantitative perspective and a qualitative one, in other words, the grammatical units observed are
2
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines266 - : Metaphors and argumentation: Place and function of conceptual metaphors in argumentative activity
3
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines266 - : El título del trabajo con el que Jacobs y Jackson (2006) participaron en el tributo a Frans van Eemeren al cumplir éste sus sesenta años, fue: Derailments of argumentation: It takes two to tango -Descarrilamientos en la argumentación: Se necesitan dos para el tango- (Jacobs & Jackson, 2006: 121 ). It takes two to tango es, de acuerdo con Mieder (2005: 13), un proverbio norteamericano que ha sido exportado con éxito a otras culturas con el mismo significado y aplicación. Este caso es una muy buena representación del uso de la sabiduría popular en el contexto académico. El esquema que este proverbio contiene, en tanto información de nivel genérico, podría ser caracterizado, al menos, con las siguientes entradas: 1) Hay un baile llamado tango; 2) Este baile no puede ser bailado solo por una persona; 3) Si alguien trata de bailar el tango a solas, no será realmente tango; y 4) Para bailar este baile se necesitan dos personas.
4
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines376 - : Argumentation and linguistic standardization: Normative beliefs in Zorobabel Rodríguez's Diccionario de chilenismos (1875 )
5
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines532 - : Pauletto, F., Aronsson, K. & Arcidiacono, F. (2017). Intergenerational argumentation: Children’s account work during dinner conversations in Italy and Sweden . En F. Arcidiacono & A. Bova (Eds.), Interpersonal Argumentation in Educational and Professional Contexts (pp. 1-26). Nueva York, NY: Springer . [ [122]Links ]
Evaluando al candidato argumentation:
1) tango: 5
2) genres: 5 (*)
3) grammatical: 4 (*)
4) baile: 3
5) discourse: 3 (*)
6) popularized: 3
argumentation
Lengua: eng
Frec: 118
Docs: 45
Nombre propio: 2 / 118 = 1%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 3
Puntaje: 3.707 = (3 + (1+4.58496250072116) / (1+6.89481776330794)));
Candidato aceptado
Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término
(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)| argumentation |
: Adam, J. (1992). Les Textes: Types et Prototypes. Récit, Description, Argumentation, Explication et Dialogue. París: Nathan. : Akiguet, S. & Piolat, A. (1996). Insertion of connectives by 9- to 11-year-old children in an argumentative text. Argumentation, 10, 253-270. : Alonso-Almeida, F. & Álvarez-Gil, F. J. (submitted). Developing argumentation in history texts: Epistemic modality and evidentiality. Pragmalingüística. : Arcidiacono, F. & Bova, A. (2017). Interpersonal Argumentation in Educational and Professional Contexts. Nueva York: Springer. : Arcidiacono, F., Pontecorvo, C. & Greco Morasso, S. (2009). Family conversations: The relevance of context in evaluating argumentation. Studies in Communications Sciences, 9(2), 79-92. : Arnoux, E. (2012). Potencialidades y limitaciones de los dispositivos argumentativos que articulan materiales clínicos y reflexión teórica en los escritos del campo psicoanalítico. Cogency. Journal of Reasoning and Argumentation, 4(2), 47-75. : Baker, M. (1999). Argumentation and constructive interaction. En Pierre Coirier & Jerry Andriessen (Eds.), Studies in writing. Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 179-202). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press. : Barth, E. & Krabbe, E. (1982). From axiom to dialogue: A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin & New York: W. de Gruyter. : Bova, A. (2015a). This is the cheese bought by Grandpa. A study of the arguments from authority used by parents with their children during mealtimes. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 4(2), 133-157. : Bova, A. (2015b). Adult as a source of expert opinion in child’s argumentation during family mealtime conversations. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 4(1), 4-20. : Brumark, Å. (2008). Eat your hamburger! - No, I don’t want to! Argumentation and argumentative development in the context of dinner conversation in twenty Swedish families. Argumentation, 22(2), 251-271. : Doury, M. & Plantin, C. (2015). Une approche langagière et interactionnelle de l’argumentation. Argumentation et Analyse du Discours, 15, 1-25. Doi: 10.4000/aad.2006 : Doury, M. (2003). Argumentation et mise en voix: Les discours quotidiens sur limmigration. En M. Bondi & S. Stati (Eds.), Dialogue analysis 2000, selected papers from the 10th IADA anniversary conference, Bologna 2000 (pp. 173-183). Niemeyer: Verlag. : Eemeren, F. Van (1992) Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. A Pragma-dialectical Perspective, New York Hove and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. : Eemeren, F. Van (1994) "The study of argumentation as normative pragmatics", en Eemeren, F. Van y Grootendorst, R. (Comps.) Studies in Pragma-Dialectic, Amsterdam: Sic Sat: International Centre for the Study of Argumentation. : Eisenberg, A. (1987). Learning to argue with parents and peers. Argumentation, 1(2), 113-125. : Feteris, E. (1997). A survey of 25 years of research on legal argumentation. Argumentation, 11(2), 355-376. : Feteris, E. (2007). Euthanasia and the teaching of argumentation in Chile. Comentario a ponencia presentada en The Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, Universidad de Windsor, Canadá. : Hirvela, A. (2017). Argumentation & second language writing: Are we missing the boat? Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 69-74. : Jacobs, S. & Jackson, S. (2006). Derailments of argumentation: It takes two to tango. En P. Houtlosser & A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics (pp. 121-134). Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum. : Johns, A. (1993). Written argumentation for real audiences: Suggestions for teacher research and classroom practice. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 75-90. : KhrosraviNik, M. (2010). Actor descriptions, action attributions, and argumentation: Towards a systematization of CDA analytical categories in the representation of social groups. Critical Discourse Studies, 7(1), 55-72. : Mateos, M., Cuevas, I., Martín, E., Martín, A., Echeita, G. & Luna, M. (2011). Reading to write an argumentation: The role of epistemological, reading and writing beliefs. Journal of Research in Reading, 34(3), 281-297. : Mcdonald, E., Zembal-Saul, S. & Strauss, S.G. (2014). Inviting argument by analogy: Analogical‐mapping‐based comparison activities as a scaffold for small‐group argumentation. Science Education, 98(2), 243-268. : Mercier, H. (2011). Reasoning serves argumentation in children. Cognitive Development, 26(3), 177-191. : Micheli, R. (2010). Emotions as objects of argumentative constructions. Argumentation, 24, 1-17. : Micheli, R. (2012). Les visées de l’argumentation et leurs corrélats langagiers: Une approche discursive. Argumentation et Analyse du Discours, 9, 2-15 [en línea]. Disponible en: [146]http://aad.revues.org/1406 : Muller Mirza, N. & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (2009). Argumentation and education. theoretical foundations and practices. Nueva York, NY: Springer. : PERELMAN, CH. y OLBRECHTS-TYTECA, L. (1971) The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation, Londres: University of Notre Dame Press. : Perelman, Ch. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). Traite de Argumentation. La Nouvelle rhétorique. BruxeIIes: Ed. de l'Université de Bruxelles. : Perelman, Ch. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rethoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press. : Pessoa, S. (2017). How SFL and explicit language instruction can enhance the teaching of argumentation in the disciplines. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 77-78. : Polo, C., Plantin, C., Lund, K. & Niccolai, G. (2016). Group emotions in collective reasoning: A model. Argumentation, 31, 301-329. : Quiroz, B. (2013). The interpersonal and experiential grammar of Chilean Spanish: Towards a principled Systemic-Functional description based on axial argumentation. Tesis doctoral, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. : Rocci, A. (2017). Modality in argumentation. Dordrecht, NE: Springer. : Rundgren, C. J., Eriksson, M. & Rundgren, S. N. C. (2016). Investigating the intertwinement of knowledge, value, and experience of upper secondary students’ argumentation concerning socioscientific issues. Science & Education, 25(9), 1-23. Doi: 10.1007/s11191-016-9859-x : Sadler, T. & Donnelly, L. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463-1488. : Santibáñez, C. (2010). Metaphors and argumentation: The case of Chilean parliamentarian media participation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(4), 973-989. : Stent, A. & Allen, J. (2000). Annotating argumentation acts in spoken dialog. Nueva York: University of Rochester. : Tindale, C. (1992). Audiences, relevance, and cognitive environnements. Argumentation, 6, 177-188. : Tindale, C. (2004). Rhetorical argumentation. Nueva York: Sage. : Van Eemeren, F. & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. : Van Eemeren, F. & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic Theory of Argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. : Van Eemeren, F. & Houtlosser, P. (2002c). Strategic maneuvering: Maintaining a delicate balance. En F. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 131-159). Dordrecht: Kluwer. : Van Eemeren, F. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. : Van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. : Van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press . : Van Eemeren, F., Grootendorst, R. & Kruiger, T. (1987). A handbook of argumentation theory. Holanda/U.S.A: Foris Publications. : Van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., Jacobs,S. (1997) Argumentation. En Van Dijk, T. Discourse as Structure and Process. London: Sage Publications, Ltda. : Vignaux, G. (1988). Le Discours, acteur du monde. Enonciation, argumentation et cognition. Paris: Ophrys. : Walton, D. (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press . : Walton, D. (2014). Argumentation schemes for argument from analogy. En H. Ribeiro (Ed.), Systematic Approaches to Argument by Analogy (pp. 23-40). Dordrecht: Springer. : Walton, D. N., Reed, C. & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Nueva York: Cambridge University Press. : Walton. D. (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. : Wenzel, J. (1980) "Perspectives On Argument", en Rhodes & Newell (Eds.) Proceedings of the Summer Conference on Argumentation, SCA/AFA. : van Eemeren, F. & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication and fallacie. A pragmadialectical perspective. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. |