/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) wording (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística
1) Candidate: wording
Is in goldstandard
1
paper CO_ColombianAppliedLinguisticsJournaltxt157 - : Next, the writer introduces Nana's utterances by the use of a verbal process "said," which could be regarded as uninformative without a performative gloss. This choice in wording to present the authorial stance for labelling the speaker's act increases tension since her first utterance is in sharp contrast with "said":
2
paper CO_Íkalatxt12 - : The primary criterion for rating both requests and apologies was an ''overall success'' score, which was based on the native speakers' gut intuition about how they would react to the student's response if they were the hearer in each vignette. The ''overall success'' rating criterion for requests is shown below. The criterion for rating ''overall success'' of apologies was similar, but with slightly different wording: ''Please judge the overall success of the apology made by the respondent . Think about whether you would feel satisfied with the apology if you were in the position of the hearer.'' For both requests and apologies, the ratings were on a five-point scale, with five being the highest possible rating (see the request example below). The scale for apologies was similar but with slightly different wording. For example, a score of 5 for an apology was described in the following way: ''I would feel satisfied with the speaker's apology.''
3
paper corpusLogostxt69 - : Local Wording, correctness, Local structure Extra-textual comments Indirect requests Closed questions: problem posing, heuristic Open questions: problem posing, heuristic Reflective statements: interpretation, explanatory, experience, remarks, response, reaction .
4
paper corpusSignostxt368 - : Native Spanish (n = 45) or native English speakers (n = 40) were randomly assigned to one of four conditions of literal wording in each respective language: 1) agentive: the main character in the scenario broke the vase ; 2) somewhat agentive: the vase was broken by the main character in the scenario; 3) somewhat non-agentive: the vase was broken; 4) non-agentive: the vase broke. The experiments thus used a 2 (language) x 4 (agentive) mixed factorial design. There were approximately 10 participants per group. The two independent variables, language and agentive wording, were treated as between-subjects factors.
Evaluando al candidato wording:
1) overall: 4
2) rating: 4 (*)
3) apologies: 4
5) agentive: 4
6) vase: 4
7) requests: 4 (*)
8) apology: 3 (*)
9) native: 3
11) criterion: 3 (*)
wording
Lengua: eng
Frec: 54
Docs: 28
Nombre propio: 1 / 54 = 1%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 4
Puntaje: 4.898 = (4 + (1+5.08746284125034) / (1+5.78135971352466)));
Candidato aceptado
Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término
(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)| wording |
: Loftus, E. F. & Zanni, G. (1975). Eyewitness Testimony: The Influence of the Wording of a Question. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, (5), 86-88. : Rumsey, A. (1990). Wording, meaning and linguistic ideology. American Anthropologist, 92(2), 346-61. |