/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) readers (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística
1) Candidate: readers
Is in goldstandard
1
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines144 - : This paper focuses on "Diario para un cuento", text compiled in Deshoras, the last collection of Cortázar's short stories published before his death. "Diario para un cuento" confronts its readers with a constant ambiguity: it is impossible to discover whether it is an autobiographical text or fiction . The question of its genre will be take up as far as it concerns many problems which refer to writing in general: who writes?, why does he write?, how to say it?, how to say it without words? Two approaches have been chosen, which using terminology taken from the domain of music have been called "takes", we claim an autobiographical fallacy. This would have as a textual consequence the detachment proposed and followed by Cortázar.
2
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines192 - : It also follows from (13x) that there exists a relationship between the researchers (ob1), the results (ob7), the article (ob8), and its potential readers (ob9). The researchers communicate the results of their study to potential readers in an article: communicate (ob1, ob7, ob8, ob9 ).
3
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines282 - : 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
4
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines283 - : 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
5
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines323 - : “[…] the cover term for the self-reflective expressions used to negotiate interactional meanings in a text, assisting the writer (or speaker) to express a viewpoint and engage with readers as members of a particular community” (Hyland, 2005: 37 ).
6
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines453 - : tool called ‘FunGramKB Navigator. Readers can freely access the Navigators via the following URL: [168]http://www .fungramkb.com/nlp.aspx.
7
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines463 - : This paper is part of a comprehensive study on the psycholinguistic processing of causality and counter-causality in discourse. The particular aim is to analyze the articulation between the semantic and syntactic information during this process. That is, how the syntactic complexity is related to the processing complexity when readers have to understand pieces of discourse that express particular semantic relationships: causal and counter-causal . One of the main objectives will be to study how the performance pattern changes when the possibility / impossibility to involve world knowledge conditions the process. We present a psycholinguistic experiment, which aims at analyzing the comprehension of causal and counter-causal relations, expressed by sentences with different syntactic structure -coordinates and subordinates- and in two conditions regarding the type of information: every-day items -the speaker may involve their world knowledge- and technical items -this intervention of previous
8
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
9
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines594 - : First two expository essays Ideational meaning: This included the students’ use of colloquial words (culture-specific unelaborated lexical choices). For example, when they mentioned Gao Kao, they did not provide an additional explanation to tell the readers that it is a high-stakes university entrance examination in China . The students also inappropriately used genre-specific choices of process (e.g., I think). Logical fallacies also occurred when the students were presenting information. Ideational meaning: Are these lexical choices appropriate to the field in the expository essay? Are the two parts (i.e., claim and support) logically connected to each other?
10
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines596 - : “Metadiscourse functions on a referential, informational plane when it serves to direct readers on how to understand the author's purposes and goals, and the primary message by referring to its content and structure. The referring can be on a global or local level. Metadiscourse functions on an expressive or attitudinal plane when it serves to direct readers how to 'take' the author, that is, how to understand the author's perspective or stance toward the content or the structure of the primary discourse” (^[55]Crismore, 1984: 282 ).
Evaluando al candidato readers:
1) martin: 10
3) interpersonal: 6
4) appraisal: 6 (*)
6) choices: 5
7) textual: 5 (*)
8) resources: 4
9) rose: 4
10) discourse: 4 (*)
11) hood: 4
12) ideational: 4
14) complexity: 3 (*)
15) structural: 3
16) meanings: 3
19) syntactic: 3 (*)
20) expressions: 3 (*)
readers
Lengua: eng
Frec: 125
Docs: 64
Nombre propio: 1 / 125 = 0%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 6
Puntaje: 6.888 = (6 + (1+6.08746284125034) / (1+6.97727992349992)));
Candidato aceptado
Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término
(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)| readers |
: “Metadiscourse is the cover term for the self-reflective expressions used to negotiate interactional meanings in a text, assisting the writer (or speaker) to express a viewpoint and engage with readers as members of a particular community” (^[62]Hyland, 2005: 37-38). : Anderson, R. (1984). Role of the reader's schema in comprehension, learning, and memory. En R.C. Anderson, J. Osborn, & R.J. Tierney (Eds.), Learning to Read in American Schools: Basal Readers and Content Text (pp. 469- 495). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. : Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 463-494. : Block, E. (1992). See how they read: Comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2 readers. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 319-343. : Burani, C., Marcolini, S., de Luca, M. & Zoccolotti, P. (2008). Morpheme-based reading aloud: Evidence from dyslexic and skilled Italian readers. Cognition, 108, 243-262. : CARREL, P. (1983) "The effects of the rhetorical organization", ESL readers, TESOL QUATERLY, Col.18 N 13:441-469. : Carr, J. F., Carr, S. L. & Schultz, L. (2005). Archives of instruction: Nineteenth-Century rhetorics, readers, and composition books in the United States. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. : Coiro, J. & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214-257. : Cremin, T., Mottram, M., Collins, F., Powell, S. & Safford, K. (2009). Teachers as readers: Building communities of readers. Literacy, 43, 11-19. : Crismore, A. & Farnsworth, R. (1989). Darwin and his readers: Exploring interpersonal metadiscourse as a dimension of ethos. Rhetoric Review, 8, 91112. : Crismore, A. & Vande Kopple, W. (1997a). The effects of hedges and gender on the attitudes of readers in the United States toward material in a science textbook. En A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles of academic discourse (pp. 223-247). Berlin: W. de Gruyter. : Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers. Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York: Lang. : Davey, B. (1988). Factors affecting the difficulty of reading comprehension items for successful and unsuccessful readers. Journal of Experimental Education, 56(1), 67-76. : Flottum, K., Kinn, T. & Dahl, T. (2006). We now report on Versus Let us now see how: Author roles and interaction with readers in research articles. In K. Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines (pp. 203-224). Bern: Peter Lang. : Gernsbacher, M.A., Goldsmith, H.H. & Robertson, R.R.W. (1992). Do readers mentally represent characters' emotional states? Cognition and Emotion, 6, 89-111. : Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S. & Louwerse, M. M. (2003). What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text? En A. P. Sweet & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 82-98). Nueva York: Guilford. : Granado, C. (2014). Teachers as readers: A study of the reading habits of future teachers / El docente como lector: Estudio de los hábitos lectores de futuros docente. Cultura y Educación, 26(1), 44-70. : Hansen, J., & Pearson, P. (1983). An instructional study: Improving the inferential comprehension of good and poor fourth-grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 821-829. : Hyland, K. (2010). Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 116-127. [210]https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.003 : Kintsch, W. (1995). How readers construct situation models for stories: the role of syntactic cues and causal inferences. En M.A. Gernsbacher & T. Givón (Eds.), Coherence in spontaneous text (pp.139-160). Amsterdam: Benjamins. : Lázaro, M., García, C. & Burani, C. (2015). How orthographic transparency modulates morphological processing in young readers with and without reading disability. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. DOI: 10.1111/sjop.12213 : Magliano, J. P., Millis, K. K., Miller, J., & Schleich, M. C. (1999). Revealing differences between good and poor readers based on thinking aloud. Ponencia presentada en the Society for Text and Discourse, Vancouver, BC. : Nation, K. & Snowling, M. J. (2000). Factors influencing syntactic awareness skills in normal readers and poor comprehenders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 229-241. : Nystrand, M. (1986). The structure of written communication: Studies in reciprocity between writers and readers. Orlando, Fl.: Academic Press. : Oakhill, J. & Cain, K. (2012). The precursors of reading ability in young readers: Evidence from a four-year longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16(2), 91-121. : Otero, J. & Kintsch, W. (1992). Failures to detect contradictions in a text: What readers believe versus what they read. Psychological Science, 3, 229-235. : Perea, M., Soares, A. P. & Comesaña, M. (2013). Contextual diversity is a main determinant of word identification times in young readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psycholog y, 116(1), 37-44. : Rayner, K., Li, X. & Pollatsek, A. (2007). Extending the E-Z Reader Model of Eye Movement Control to chinese readers. Cognitive Science, 31, 1021-1033. : Scanlon, D. &Vellutino, F. (1997). A comparison of the instructional backgrounds and cognitive profiles of poor, average, and good readers who were initially identified as at risk for reading failure. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 191-216. : Straub, R. & Lunsford, R. (1995). Readers reading. Responding College Student Writing, Cresskill: Hampton. : Tsai, Y. R., Ernst, C. & Talley, P. C. (2010). L1 and L2 strategy use in reading comprehension of Chinese EFL readers. Reading Psychology, 31(1), 1-29. : Wolfe, M. B.; Schreiner, M. E.; Rehder, B.; Laham, D.; Foltz, P. W.; Kintsch, W. y Landauer, T. K. (1998). Learning from text: Matching readers and text by Latent Semantic Analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 309-336. : Yamashita, J. (2002). Reading strategies in L1 and L2: Comparison of four groups of readers with different reading ability in L1 and L2. Review of Applied Linguistics, 135-136, 1-35. |