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) interactive (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística

1) Candidate: interactive


Is in goldstandard

1
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines192 - : [77]14 Under interactive generation, RedACTe makes a distinction between two sets of feature: underlying features, for use by the generator, and interface features, for a friendly presentation to the user of the system . Of course, all features in rules in Figures 2-3 are underlying features.

2
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines530 - : ^[65]Bugel’s (2013) study intended to measure the impact that a process-oriented translation course had on Spanish L2 and HLL learners, while the latter served as interpreters for a group of parents that were Spanish monolinguals who lived in the Midwestern United States. To this end, the participants were required to assist as interpreters at parent-teacher conferences, where some teaching/learning materials had been recently translated from English into Spanish. The subjects were also required to partake in a deep post-hoc meditation, given that “the epistemology of service learning is based on the assumption that knowledge is obtained in the interactive process of action and reflection” (^[66]Ebacher, 2013: 398 ). ^[67]Bugel (2013) observed that Spanish L2 learners greatly benefited from this experience in multiple ways. More specifically, they became better prepared to perform as interpreters, as they received ample training on finding and using online resources, such as translators and

3
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines596 - : The integrative approach to metadiscourse proposed by ^[63]Hyland (2005) includes two dimensions: the interactive and the interactional. The former includes code glosses, endophoric markers, evidentials, frame markers and transition markers. The latter involves attitude markers, boosters, engagement markers, hedges and self-mention. Readers are an integral part of specialised discourse, and authors seek to promote and guide effective interaction with their readers. The use of metadiscourse devices is, therefore, essential in this regard. In addition, these mechanisms enable to highlight the authors’ epistemological positioning and preferences while they also organise and develop information in a logical way. ^[64]Mur-Dueñas (2011) explains the relation between the interactive and the interactional dimensions of metadiscourse in the following terms:

4
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines596 - : “Thus, both interactive metadiscourse features (intended to organise and shape the material in the light of the readers' likely needs and expectations) and interactional metadiscourse features (aimed at portraying the scholars as authors and at binding writer and reader together) are a response to the interpersonal component of writing” (^[65]Mur-Dueñas, 2011: 3069 ).

Evaluando al candidato interactive:


1) metadiscourse: 5 (*)
3) markers: 4 (*)
4) interpreters: 3 (*)
5) authors: 3

interactive
Lengua: eng
Frec: 69
Docs: 45
Nombre propio: / 69 = 0%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 3
Puntaje: 3.701 = (3 + (1+4) / (1+6.12928301694497)));
Candidato aceptado

Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término

(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)
interactive
: Brown, A.L., Palincsar, A.S. & Armbruster, B.B. (1994) "Instructing comprehension-fostering activities in interactive learning situations", en M. Ruddell, R. Ruddell y H. Singer (Eds. ) Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, Newark, Delaware: I.R.A.
: Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (3^rd ed.). New York: Pearson ESL.
: Brown-Schmidt, S. (2009). Partner-specific interpretation of maintained referential precedents during interactive dialog. Journal of memory and language, 61(2), 171-190.
: Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2016). A contrastive study of interactive metadiscourse in academic papers written in English and in Spanish. In F. Almeida, L. Cruz García & V. González Ruiz (Eds.), Corpus-based studies on language varieties. Bern: Peter Lang.
: Foltz, P., Gilliam, S. & Kendall, S. (2000). Supporting content-based feedback in on-line writing evaluation with LSA. Interactive Learning Environments, 8, 111-128.
: Graesser, A., Wiemer-Hastings, P., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Harter, D., Person, N. & Tutoring Research Group (2000). Using latent semantic analysis to evaluate the contributions of students in AutoTutor. Interactive Learning Environments, 8, 129-148.
: Gumperz, J. (1991). Contextualization and understanding. En A. Duranti & Ch. Goodwin (Eds.) Rethinking Context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 229-252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Herring, S. C. (2015). New frontiers in interactive multimodal communication. En A. Georgopolou & T. Spilloti (Eds.), The Routledege handbook of language and digital communication (en prensa). Londres: Routledge .
: Hewett, B. (2000). Characteristics of interactive oral and computer-mediated peer group talk and its influence on revision. Computers & Composition, 17, 265-88.
: Jacoby, L. L. (1983). Remembering the data: Analyzing interactive processes in reading. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 22, 485-508.
: Kintsch, E., Steinhart, D., Stahl, G. & LSA research group (2000). Developing summarization skills through the use of LSA-Based feedback. Interactive Learning Environments, 8(2), 87-109.
: Landauer, T. K. & Psotka, J. (2000). Simulating text understanding for educational applications with latent semantic analysis: Introduction to LSA. Interactive Learning Environments, 8(2), 73-86.
: Nystrand, M. (1989). A social interactive model of writing. Written Communication, 6, 66–85.
: Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing gender.Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, 11, 335-358.
: O’Halloran, K. L., Tan, S., Smith, B. A. & Podlasov, A. (2011). Multimodal analysis within an interactive software environment: Critical discourse perspectives. Critical Discourse Studies, 8, 109-25.
: RUMELHART, D. (1977), Toward an Interactive Model of Reading, en Attention and performance NY, Academy Press.
: Rumelhart, D. & McClelland, J. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception. Psychological Review, 88, 375-407.
: Stanovich, K. (1993). Toward and interactive compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32-71.
: Turkstra, L., Ciccia, A. & Seaton, C. (2003). Interactive behaviors in adolescent conversation dyads. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 34(2), 117-142.
: VanLehn, K, Graesser, A., Jackson, G., Jordan, P., Olney, A. & Rose, C. (2005). When is reading just as effective as one-on-one interactive human tutoring? Actas de the Annual Cognitive Science Society. Stressa, Italia.
: Wade-Stein, D. & Kintsch, E. (2004). Summary Street: Interactive computer support for writing. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 333-362.
: Zimmerman, C. B. (1997). Do reading and interactive vocabulary instruction make a difference? An empirical study. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 121-140.