Termout.org logo/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) expert (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística

1) Candidate: expert


Is in goldstandard

1
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines480 - : “The movement forward is towards a degree of professionalization. (...) A shift from telling the client what to do in the light of the professional’s expert knowledge to cooperate with the client as a self-determining person” (^[56]Heron, 2001: 210 ).

2
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines577 - : ^[57]Luzón, 2017), which recalls ^[58]Biber and Gray’s (2016) claim that there is an increasing ‘colloquialisation’ of written texts in digital media. Research also contends that the functional goals associated with the linguistic features of these texts are to construct a credible online identity, assert the researchers’ professionalism and create proximity with readers. Studies on spoken genres such as TED Talks also report the use of conversational features such as deictics, person pronouns (I/you) and inclusive we-pronouns to communicate expert knowledge while conveying “a certain degree of informality and colloquialism” (^[59]Caliendo, 2012: 101 ). It is also argued that TED Talk presenters use stance markers to express judgments and position themselves subjectively (^[60]Scotto di Carlo, 2014).

3
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines577 - : The need to recontextualise expert knowledge, a process referred to as ‘genre transmediality’ or ‘transmedial gradation’ (^[61]Engberg & Maier, 2015) has also raised the issue of hybridisation in genres that reach diversified audiences. One clear example of processes of transmedial gradation can be found in science popularisation genres. These draw on strategies such as reformulation and rephrasing of expert knowledge for both “argumentative and promotional purposes” (^[62]Gotti, 2014: 15 ). ^[63]Motta Roth and Scotti Scherer (2016) examine ‘interdiscursivity’ in science popularisation genres and contend that these genres borrow features of scientific discourse, journalistic discourse and pedagogical discourse to inform about scientific contents, ‘sell’ the value of their scientific work and teach science to a general public. Digital projects in crowdfunding websites (e.g. Kickstarter, Experiment.com, Crowd.science, Rockethub and GoFundMe) also instantiate what ^[64]Herring (2013) defines

4
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines577 - : Previous rhetorical and linguistic studies contend that colloquial features associated with conversation can be traced across genres and new forms of communication in Web 2.0 (^[150]Luzón, 2013; ^[151]Mancera & Pano, 2013; ^[152]Barbieri, 2018; ^[153]Mancera, 2018; ^[154]Moya & Carrió-Pastor, 2018a, 2018b). One linguistic difference between Spanish and English that needs to be addressed in the analysis of crowdfunding proposals concerns the issue of structural elaboration vs. structural compression. In English academic writing “phrasal (non-clausal) modifiers embedded in noun phrases are the major type of structural complexity” (^[155]Biber & Gray, 2010: 3), rendering a compressed style that packages information into nominal compounds that condense information in chunks and is thus “efficient for expert readers, who can quickly extract large amounts of information from relatively short, condensed texts” (^[156]Biber & Gray, 2016: 326 ). Yet, the Spanish proposals differed in that phrasal

5
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines577 - : The present study also sheds light on the situational (register) and contextual (genre) constraints that shape digital texts. In TED Talks, presenters use a conversational style to tell issues of science and the use of linguistic resources such as first and second person pronouns reduces distance “to breach the expert/non expert barrier” (^[178]Scotto di Carlo, 2014: 201 ). In research blogs, conversational features construct proximity (^[179]Luzón, 2013), and in online medical campaigns language resources help scientists to construct credible identities (^[180]Paulus & Roberts, 2018). In analysing science popularisation genres, ^[181]Motta Roth and Scotti Scherer (2016: 173) also underline the “interdiscursivity between discourses from scientific, pedagogic and media spheres”. In the crowdfunding proposals analysed in this study, the situational and contextual constraints easily explain why these texts rely on both grammatical features that are typical of conversation and features

Evaluando al candidato expert:


1) genres: 6 (*)
4) texts: 4 (*)
6) linguistic: 4 (*)
8) luzón: 3
9) biber: 3
10) construct: 3 (*)
12) proposals: 3 (*)
13) crowdfunding: 3
15) structural: 3
16) conversational: 3
17) gray: 3
18) popularisation: 3
19) digital: 3 (*)
20) discourse: 3 (*)

expert
Lengua: eng
Frec: 55
Docs: 33
Nombre propio: / 55 = 0%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 7
Puntaje: 7.967 = (7 + (1+5.58496250072116) / (1+5.8073549220576)));
Candidato aceptado

Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término

(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)
expert
: Aitkenhead, M. J. (2008). A co-evolving decision tree classification method. Expert Systems with Applications, 34(1), 18-25.
: Berliner, D. C. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 15(7), 15-13.
: 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.
: Cook, G., Pieri, E. & Robbins, P. (2004). ‘The scientists think and the public feels’: Expert perceptions of the discourse of GM food. Discourse and Society, 15 (4), 433-449.
: Crossley, S. A. & McNamara, D. S. (2010). Cohesion, coherence, and expert evaluations of writing proficiency. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32 ^nd annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 984-989). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
: Dressen-Hammouda, D. (2008). From novice to disciplinary expert: Disciplinary identity and genre mastery. English for Specific Purposes, 27(2), 233-252.
: EAGLES. Expert Advisory Group on Language Engineering Standards [en línea]. Disponible en: [54]http://nlp.lsi.upc.edu/freeling/doc/userman/parole-es.pdf
: Gangemi, A., Sagri, M. & Tiscornia, D. (2003). Metadata for content description in legal information. Proceedings of the 14th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (pp. 745-749). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
: Mansourizadeh, K. & Ahmad, U. K. (2011). Citation practices among non-native expert and novice scientific writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 152-161.
: Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1985). Star Wars: A developmental study of expert and novice knowledge structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 746-757.
: Periñán-Pascual, C. & Arcas-Túnez, F. (2004). Meaning postulates in a lexico-conceptual knowledge base. Preceedings. 15th International Workshop on Databases and Expert Systems Applications, 38-42. Los Alamitos: IEEE.
: Polat, K. & Günes, S. (2009). A novel hybrid intelligent method based on C4.5 decision tree classifier and one-against-all approach for multi-class classification problems. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(2), 1587-1592.
: Vantage Learning Tech. (2000). A study of expert scoring and intellimetric scoring accuracy for dimensional scoring of grade 11 student writing responses. Technical Report RB-397, Vantage Learning Technology, Newtown, Philadelphia, U.S.A.
: Walton, D. N. (1997). Appeal to expert opinion. Arguments from authority. Pennsylvania: State University Press.