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

1) Candidate: listeners


Is in goldstandard

1
paper corpusSignostxt283 - : The present study attempts to explore expressions of interpersonal meaning more systematically, drawing on SFL theory. The metafunctional nature of this theory not only provides a systematic means for differentiating interpersonal meaning from ideational and textual meanings, but also for exploring how they relate to each other. Within SFL, Appraisal offers the theorization of interpersonal meaning choices in discourse (see Martin, 2000; Martin & Rose, 2003, 2007; Hood, 2004; Hood & Martin, 2005; Martin & White, 2005). A central concept of Appraisal theory is that speakers of a language use evaluative resources "for negotiating our social relationships, by telling our listeners or readers how we feel about things and people (in a word, what our attitudes are)" (Martin & Rose, 2003:19 ). The focus of analysis of this study deals with one of the Appraisal systems outlined by these authors -Engagement, which includes "all the resources by which the textual or authorial voice is positioned

2
paper corpusSignostxt380 - : El término deixis se refiere a “the way speakers orient themselves and their listeners in terms of person, time and space in relation to the immediate situation of speaking” (McCarthy & Carter, 1994: 178 ). Es una herramienta lingüística de ‘orientación’ que permite ubicar al remitente en relación con el destinatario de su mensaje (Simpson, 1993). Palabras como ‘aquí’ y ‘allí’, ‘ahora’ y ‘después’, ‘nuestro’ y ‘suyo’ cobran significado en cada situación particular, por lo tanto, no pueden ser comprendidas fuera del contexto de su emisión.

3
paper corpusSignostxt579 - : The analysis of the rhetorical organization of lecture introductions can provide models of their structure that students non-native to English can be familiarized with, resulting in their creation of “mental maps” which can assist the listeners in processing the lecture content (^[26]Lee, 2009: 43 ). Four genre analyses of lecture introductions have been produced to date - ^[27]Thompson (1994), ^[28]Lee (2009), ^[29]Shamsudin and Ebrahimi (2012) and ^[30]Yaakob (2013). The former three used relatively small corpora, consisting of 18, 10 and 6 lectures respectively, and the only study employing a more sizeable corpus was that of ^[31]Yaakob (2013), who analyzed 89 lecture introductions from the BASE corpus . Just one of these studies - that of ^[32]Shamsudin and Ebrahimi (2012), used a discipline-specific corpus (engineering), but, as noted above, consisting of just 6 lectures.

4
paper corpusSignostxt579 - : The information that students are given in lecture introductions concerns the lecture topic and its structure, scope, aims and general context. By providing students with both a structural and contextual framework for the remainder of the lecture, lecturers can “aid listeners in processing the information” (^[75]Lee, 2009: 44 ).

5
paper corpusSignostxt282 - : The present study attempts to explore expressions of interpersonal meaning more systematically, drawing on SFL theory. The metafunctional nature of this theory not only provides a systematic means for differentiating interpersonal meaning from ideational and textual meanings, but also for exploring how they relate to each other. Within SFL, Appraisal offers the theorization of interpersonal meaning choices in discourse (see Martin, 2000; Martin & Rose, 2003, 2007; Hood, 2004; Hood & Martin, 2005; Martin & White, 2005). A central concept of Appraisal theory is that speakers of a language use evaluative resources "for negotiating our social relationships, by telling our listeners or readers how we feel about things and people (in a word, what our attitudes are)" (Martin & Rose, 2003:19 ). The focus of analysis of this study deals with one of the Appraisal systems outlined by these authors -Engagement, which includes "all the resources by which the textual or authorial voice is positioned

6
paper corpusSignostxt426 - : that “based on the cohesive ties among the various utterances of the discourse, there are several potential referents of the indexicals” and “hearers may choose to include themselves as members of the class of referents” (Zupnik, 1994: 340). Thus, it may facilitate the achievement “of the main goal of political speech: to persuade listeners of the speaker’s viewpoint” (Zupnik, 1994: 340 ).

Evaluando al candidato listeners:


1) martin: 10
2) lecture: 7
4) interpersonal: 6
5) appraisal: 6 (*)
6) resources: 4
7) rose: 4
8) textual: 4 (*)
10) introductions: 4 (*)
11) hood: 4
12) speakers: 3 (*)
13) discourse: 3 (*)
14) corpus: 3 (*)

listeners
Lengua: eng
Frec: 69
Docs: 39
Nombre propio: / 69 = 0%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 6
Puntaje: 6.965 = (6 + (1+5.88264304936184) / (1+6.12928301694497)));
Candidato aceptado

Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término

(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)
listeners
: Bradlow, A. R., Pisoni, D. B., Akahane-Yamada, R. & Tohkura, Y. (1997). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: IV. Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101(4), 2299-2310.
: Flege, J. E. (1984). The detection of French accent by American listeners. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 76, 692-707.
: Gardner, R. (2001). When listeners talk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Gardner, R. (2002). When listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
: Lively, S. E., Logan, J. S. & Pisoni, D. B. (1993). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/. II: The role of phonetic environment and talker variability in learning new perceptual categories. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 94, 1242-1255.
: Logan, J. S., & Pruitt, J. S. (1995). Methodological issues in training listeners to perceive non-native phonemes. En W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: issues in cross-language research (pp. 351-378). Baltimore: York Press.
: Schwab, S., & Dellwo, V. (2017). Intonation and talker variability in the discrimination of Spanish lexical stress contrasts by Spanish, German and French listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 142(4), 2419-2429.
: SungHee, K., Frisina, R. D., y Frisina, D. R. (2006). Effects of age on speech understanding in normal hearing listeners: Relationship between the auditory efferent system and speech intelligibility in noise. Speech Communication, 48(7), 855-862. doi: 10.1016/j.specom.2006.03.004
: Tremblay, A. (2009). Phonetic variability and the variable perception of L2 word stress by French Canadian listeners. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(1), 35-62.
: Tucker G. y Lambert W. (1969). White & Negro listeners reactions to various American English dialects. En Social Forces, 47, 463-468
: Vásquez, G., & Vivanco, H. (2015). Aural perception mistakes made by native listeners of Chilean Spanish in decoding an English spoken text. Lenguas Modernas, 44, 115-131.
: Wang, Y., Spence, M. M., Jongman, A. & Sereno, J. A. (1999). Training American listeners to perceive Mandarin tones. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106(6), 3649-3658.