/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) taxonomy (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística
1) Candidate: taxonomy
Is in goldstandard
1
paper CL_LiteraturayLingüísticatxt286 - : The literature presents a fairly ample array of attempts to classify LLSs (Wenden and Rubin 1987; O'Malley et al. 1985; Oxford 1990; Stern 1992; Ellis 1994, amongst others). In this study, I shall follow Oxford's taxonomy (1990), whose classification -broadly speaking- can be divided up into two different macro-types: direct or indirect, where the former encompasses memory, cognitive and compensation strategies, and the latter comprises metacognitive, affective, and social strategies . It must be pointed out, however, that LLSs -together with their ensuing classification- have been largely conceived as oriented towards language competence development in rather holistic terms (ibid.: 8), and not as skill-specific strategies, as is the case of this study. Consequently, the relationship between Oxford's taxonomy and L2 accent development is not altogether a straightforward one.
2
paper CO_ColombianAppliedLinguisticsJournaltxt235 - : ^1Iowa State University introduces the basics of Bloom’s taxonomy concisely and practically: http://www .celt.iastate.edu/teaching/effective-teaching-practices/revised-blooms-taxonomy, retrieved April 22, 2017.
3
paper CO_ColombianAppliedLinguisticsJournaltxt138 - : The objective of changing the nouns to verbs is to mean continuity of thought, that is, its constant activity in each category. The revision of Bloom's taxonomy implies meaningful changes in three aspects: terminology, structure and emphasis . The taxonomy reflects different forms of thinking using active verbs that more accurately reflect the active nature of thinking. Another aspect was to consider the process of synthesis with a broader view and relate it to creating (assuming that all synthesis is in itself a creation).
4
paper CO_ColombianAppliedLinguisticsJournaltxt85 - : Finally, the human factor is an essential element to be taken into consideration: the success of this innovation would depend on the commitment, compromise and perseverance of the academics in charge of taking this boat to secure ports and of other actors involved providing support for such enterprise. All these actors will play a myriad of roles, some of which, following Lambright and Flynn's taxonomy (in Kennedy 1988: 334 ), are adopters (e.g. government officials), implementers (e.g. teachers), clients (e.g. students), suppliers (e.g. materials writers), entrepreneurs (e.g. 'change agents'), and/or resisters (e.g. any of the examples above). Wedell (personal communication) has mentioned that for such a project to be successful in the first years of implementation there needs to be at least one or two people carrying the spirit of the project and lobbying for it at levels where support is needed.
5
paper CO_ColombianAppliedLinguisticsJournaltxt53 - : In these two studies which are part of the BAF project at the University of Barcelona, the researchers analyzed their data on the basis of James's classification of errors (1998) creating a very useful taxonomy to classify lexical transfer into four categories: misspelling, borrowing, coinage and calque^[27]2 . Thus, I have found Celaya and Torras' work on lexical transfer very illuminating for the development of this paper as they have studied lexical transfer in the context of the writing production of low proficiency learners of English as a foreign language in instructional settings.
6
paper CO_ColombianAppliedLinguisticsJournaltxt74 - : conveyed clearly on paper. Grabe and Kaplan's model (1996) of the taxonomy of language knowledge clearly shows the importance of three different types of language knowledge:
7
paper CO_ColombianAppliedLinguisticsJournaltxt82 - : During the 1990's, Anderson, a former student of Bloom's, led a new assembly which met for the purpose of updating the Bloom's taxonomy, hoping to add relevance for 21st century students and teachers. The revision of Bloom's taxonomy included significant changes in three aspects: terminology, structure, and emphasis . [26]Graphic 1 shows the differences between the original Bloom's taxonomy and the revised version.
8
paper CO_ColombianAppliedLinguisticsJournaltxt243 - : The taxonomy presented by ^[59]Oxford (1990) fits the principles and components of self-regulated learning explained by ^[60]Zimmerman (2000) which include: setting specific goals, adopting strategies to attain them, monitoring one’s performance, restructuring one’s time and context, self-evaluating, and adapting future methods . Additionally, it agrees with the views of ^[61]Ridley, Schutz, Glanz, and Weinstein’s (1992) regarding self-regulation. Even though their approach is psychological and not necessarily pedagogical, both Ridley et al. (1992) and Oxford’s (1990) proposals share the focus on the individual as an active agent in his/her own learning process metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally. Ridley et al. (1992) studied how goal-setting and metacognitive awareness relate to students’ performance. The authors found a close relation between these self-regulatory processes. Regarding this relationship, they suggest that a student who effectively self-regulates is one who
9
paper CO_Lenguajetxt183 - : ^[48]Weinstein and Mayer (1986) base their taxonomy on three main types of strategies: rehearsal strategies, elaboration strategies and organizational strategies . Furthermore, they differentiate between basic or complex learning tasks and define the strategies by combining the three main categories with the nature or complexity of the task: basic or complex. Basic tasks involve “rote or verbatim memorization or learning” and complex learning tasks involve “higher-level conceptual or content learning” (^[49]Weinstein et al., 2000, p. 731). This produces a total of six learning strategy categories. Another two complementary groups are added to this typology: comprehension monitoring strategies and affective & motivational strategies. These two groups support the completion of a learning task and complement the first six groups (^[50]Weinstein & Hume, 1998; ^[51]Weinstein et al., 2000).
10
paper CO_Íkalatxt107 - : It is important to reflect upon the linguistic aims of a given educational system which are likely the result of the state political decisions. According to those purposes, a system may be interested in having its students fully competent in both languages or just in one of them leaving the other to a lower level of competence. It is also important to consider the place assigned to the use of the languages within the curriculum. It is likely a balanced distribution of subjects or that one of the languages receives a special attention whereas the other one is left in a secondary place. Fishman and Lovas (cited in Moreno, 2009) propose a four- level taxonomy of bilingual education:
11
paper CO_Íkalatxt260 - : [69]Table 1 summarizes the code glosses taxonomy and includes some examples of their typical markers:
12
paper CO_Íkalatxt41 - : [134]13 This taxonomy has 5 categories: receiving (being willing to receive or to attend to new values ), responding (gaining satisfaction from working with new values), valuing (seeing worth in respecting new values), organization (beginning the building of a consistent value system) and characterization by value set (acting consistently in accordance with a set of internalized values).
13
paper CO_Íkalatxt109 - : This study follows the Corder (1971) error analysis model. The model consists of a comparison between the utterances made by a learner of the target language and the same utterances made by an adult native speaker of that target language and establishes a set of steps to carry out error analysis. In this study, categories are established following Dulay, Burt and Krashen's surface taxonomy (1982). This taxonomy classifies errors into four categories: omission, addition, misformation and misordering .
14
paper CO_Íkalatxt109 - : Once errors have been identified, the next step is describing learners' errors. To do so, it is necessary to have descriptive categories to classify and record the frequency of the errors that have been identified. There are different categories for describing errors. Corder (1981) classifies errors into two categories: overt and covert errors. ''Overtly erroneous utterances are unquestionably ungrammatical at the sentence level. Covertly erroneous utterances are grammatically well-formed at the sentence level, but are not interpretable within the context of communication'' (Brown, 2000, p. 220). Dulay, Burt and Krashen's (1982) surface structure taxonomy is based on the ways surface structures are altered in erroneous utterances/sentences. According to this taxonomy, there are four principal ways in which learners modify target forms: omission, addition, misformation and misordering . Errors of omission refer to an element which should be present but has been omitted. Addition is the
15
paper corpusRLAtxt217 - : structures and uses of politeness formulas. To identify their disagreement strategies, a qualitative analysis focused on the content of the main text was performed using MaxQDA. Data was analysed individually by each author and then constrasted once completed in order to validate the results. After the data was identified and validated, the taxonomy from ^[74]Xuehua's (2006) study was applied, which classifies disagreement in five different strategies: Strategy 1 (direct strategy ), Strategy 2 (negative politeness strategy), Strategy 3 (positive politeness strategy), Strategy 4 (hinting strategy) and Strategy 5 (avoidance strategy). However, because this study differs from Xuehua's in that students were asked to reply and to disagree with their lecturer directly, Strategy 5 was removed. This paper does not intend to cite evidence that represents Chinese interactional behavior. Rather, it shows how Spanish-major Chinese students use disagreement strategies in the academic field.
16
paper corpusRLAtxt217 - : 6. DISCUSSING XUEHUA'S TAXONOMY: WHAT IS LEFT OUT ?
17
paper corpusSignostxt414 - : The taxonomy proposed by Dörnyei and Körmos (1998: 356 ) was used for the analysis of the data. This classification follows a psycholinguistic approach based on Levelt’s L2 model of speech production hence it is focused on the management of the four primary problem areas and how they relate to “the various phases of speech processing”. These problem areas of L2 communication are classified into Problem-solving mechanisms (PSM) related to L2 resource deficit, which includes lexical, grammatical and phonological-articulatory PSM; PSM related to processing-time pressure (repetitions and pauses); PSM related to own-output problems (self-corrections, asking check-questions), and PSM related to other-performance problems (meaning negotiations CSs). Figure 1 below presents these main categories with their corresponding descriptions. However, only those CSs most observed in this study, within each of the categories, will be presented and described to be subsequently illustrated and analysed in the
18
paper corpusSignostxt414 - : Figure 1. Dörnyei and Kormos’ Taxonomy (1998: 169-178 ).
19
paper corpusSignostxt600 - : While most researchers on authorial references base their studies on either Tang and John’s or Hyland’s typologies (^[121]Lorés-Sanz, 2011a), others slightly modify and/or adapt them to fit their own needs, depending on their corpus of analysis. This is the case of ^[122]Lafuente-Millán (2010) who carries out a study on disciplinary variation in order to suggest a refined categorization of the main discourse functions of self-mention strategies. His taxonomy, driven by the analysis of his corpus, includes the following functions:
Evaluando al candidato taxonomy:
1) strategy: 12 (*)
2) strategies: 11
3) categories: 10
4) learning: 8
6) bloom: 6
7) errors: 6 (*)
11) weinstein: 5
14) lexical: 4 (*)
16) utterances: 4
17) strategies.: 4
20) classify: 3
taxonomy
Lengua: eng
Frec: 196
Docs: 98
Nombre propio: 1 / 196 = 0%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 3
Puntaje: 3.836 = (3 + (1+6.20945336562895) / (1+7.62205181945638)));
Candidato aceptado
Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término
(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)| taxonomy |
: 1. Anderson, L.W. y Krathwohl, D.R. (coords.). (2001). a taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Blooms taxonomy of educational objectives. Nueva York: Longman. : 12.Prince, Ellen. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. En Peter Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 223-255. Nueva York: Academic Press. : 15. Knapp, M. L. et al. (1984). Compliments: A Descriptive Taxonomy. Journal of Communication, 34 (4), 12-31. : 29. Karthwohl, D., Bloom, B. & Masia, B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook H: Affective domain. New York: David McKay Company. : 3. Bloom, B.S. (coord.). (1956). taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals Handbook i: cognitive domain. Nueva York: McKay. : 32. Prince, E. (1981) Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. En Peter Cole (Ed). Radical Pragmatics. New York, Academic press. : 36.Winston, M. E., Chaffin, R. y Herrmann, D. (1987). A taxonomy of part-whole relations. Cognitive Science, 11: 417-444. : 49. Sanders, Ted; Wilbert Spooren y Leo Noordman. 1992. Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes 15. 1-35. : 8. Prince, Ellen. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. En Peter Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 249-264. Nueva York: Academic Press. : Al Salkhi, M. (2012). Analysis of the evaluating questions given in the revised textbook of the Islamic education for the 7th Elementary Class in View of the Bloom's Taxonomy of Cognition Levels. The Educational Journal, 27(106), 237- 281. : Anderson, L. & Krathwohl, D. (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for Learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Nueva York: Longman. : Anderson, L. W., & Krathworhl, D. R. (Eds). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing. New York, NY: Longman. : Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P., Raths, J. & Wittrock, M. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. : Anderson, L., y Krathwohl, D. (Eds.) (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman. : Barret, T. C. (1972). Taxonomy of reading comprehension. Reading 360 Monograph. Lexington, MA: Ginn & Co. : Baynham, M. (1995). Literacy practices: Investigating literacy in social contexts. New York, NY: Longman. Bloom's revised taxonomy. Retrieved June 5, 2011, from [27]http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html. : Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Cortés, V. (2003). Lexical bundles in speech and writing: An initial taxonomy. En A. Wilson, P. Rayson, & T. McEnery (Eds.), Corpus linguistics by the lune: A festschrift for Geoffrey Leech (pp. 7192). Frankfurt: Peter Lang. : Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay. : Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: Longmans, Green. : Bloom, B. y Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals (Handbook 1: cognitive domain). Longman, Green and Co Ltd. : Champeau de López, C., Marchi, G. y Arreaza-Coyle, M. (1997). A taxonomy. Evaluating reading comprehension in EFL. Forum, 35(2), 30-45. : Chan, A.Y.W (2010). Toward a Taxonomy of Written Errors: Investigation into the Written Errors of Hong Kong Cantonese ESL Learners. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 2, 295-319. : Cuseo, J. (1992). Collaborative and cooperative learning in higher education: A proposed taxonomy. Cooperative Learning and College Teaching, 2(2), 2-4. : During the 1990's a new group of cognitive psychologists, led by Lorin Anderson (a former student of Bloom's), updated the taxonomy reflecting relevance to 21st century work. In the new version, verbs instead of nouns describe the different levels of the taxonomy. : Gläser, Rosemarie. (1988). The grading of idiomaticity as a presupposition for a taxonomy of idioms. In Werner Hüllen & Rainer Schulze (eds.), Understanding the lexicon (264-79). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. : Gökhan-Ulum, O. (2016). A descriptive content analysis of the extent of Bloom’s taxonomy in the reading comprehension of the Course Book Q: Skills for Success 4 Reading and Writing. The Qualitative Report, 21(9), 1674-1683. : Haladyna, T. & Downing, S. (1989). A taxonomy of multiple choice item writing rules. Applied measurement in education 1(2), (pp. 37-50). : In addition to the former categorization derived from business websites, Hammerich and Harrison (2002) suggest the following taxonomy of links that has to do with the kind of information they provide, though they observe that: : In addition, reading comprehension can be divided into three levels of textual comprehension with respect to Barret's Taxonomy, which are explained by ^[85]Gordillo and Flórez (2009) in [86]Table 2: : Jiang, J. & Conrath, D. (1997). Semantic similarity based on corpus statistics and lexical taxonomy. Ponencia presentada en el International Conference on Research in Computational Linguistics. Taiwán. : Knapp, M., Hopper, R. y Bell, R. (1984). Compliments: A descriptive taxonomy. Journal of Communication, 34(4), 12-31. : Kong, K. 2006. "A taxonomy of the discourse relations between words and visual", en Information Design Journal 14 ( 3), pp. 207-230. : Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218. : Lowry, P., Curtis, A., & Lowry, M. (2004). Building a taxonomy and nomenclature of collaborative writing to improve interdisciplinary research and practice. Journal of Business Communication, 41(1), 66-99. : Lund, R. (1990). A taxonomy for teaching second language listening. Foreign Language Annals, 23(2), 105-115. [177]https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1990.tb00348.x : Martínez-Flor, A. (2005). A theoretical review of the speech act of suggesting: Towards a taxonomy for its use in FLT. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 18, 167-187. : Marzano, R. & Kendall, J. (2007). The new taxonomy of educational objectives. California, EE.UU.: Corwnin Press. : Merino, M. E., Mellor, D., Saiz, J. & Quilaqueo, D. (2009). Perceived discrimination amongst indigenous people in Chile. An application of the Australian taxonomy. Journal of Ethnic and Racial Studies, 32(5), 802-822. : Nazar, R. & Renau, I. (2016). A taxonomy of Spanish nouns, a statistical algorithm to generate it and its implementation in open source code. Ponencia presentada en el 10 th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'16). European Language : PRINCE, E. F. (1981). Toward a Taxonomy of Given-New Information. En P. Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. 223-255). New York: Academic Press. : Resnik, P. (1995). Using information content to evaluate semantic similarity in a taxonomy. Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 448-453). Montreal. : Rosenthal, D. (1994). First person operationalism and mental taxonomy. Philosophical Topics, 22, 319-350. : Sanders, T., Spooren, W. & Noordman, L. (1992). Toward a Taxonomy of Coherence Relations. Discourse Processes 15, 1-36. : Schenkein, J. 1980. "A taxonomy for repeating action sequences in natural conversation". En: B. Butterworth (comp.), Language production, Vol. 1, 21-47. Londres: Academic Press. : Searle, J. (1979) A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts. En J. Searle, Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts (pp.1-29). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. : Snow, R., Jurafsky, D. & Ng, A. (2006). Semantic taxonomy induction from heterogeneous evidence. En Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Sydney: Association for Computational Linguistics. : Table 1 ^[47]Weinstein and Mayer’s (1986) Taxonomy of Learning Strategies : [162]Prince, Ellen F. 1981a. Toward a taxonomy of given/new information, en P. Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics, New York, Academic Press: 223-255. : Ädel, A. (2010). Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going: A taxonomy of metadiscourse in spoken and written academic English.Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 69-97. |