/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) written communication (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística
1) Candidate: written communication
Is in goldstandard
1
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines74 - : All written communication should consider at least three basic elements: audience the target readership of the text ; topic the specific subject matter about which the text is written; and purpose the objective toward which the intentions of the producer of the text are directed and their effect on the audience. These three elements shapethe rhetorical problem, or rhetorical situation, that has both characteristics and complexities different from the situational context of speech. This article gathers important considerations, taken from the works of several compositionists, rhetoricians, and language specialists, about these three elements. Moreover, grounds for supporting, on the one hand, that the rhetorical situation is a matter to be considered prior to writing an effective written message and, on the other, that it should be explicitly established in any writing task to be developed by the student writer are held.
Evaluando al candidato written communication:
2) rhetorical: 3 (*)
written communication
Lengua: eng
Frec: 47
Docs: 27
Nombre propio: / 47 = 0%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 1
Puntaje: 1.456 = (1 + (1+2) / (1+5.58496250072116)));
Candidato aceptado
Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término
(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)| written communication |
: Bazerman, C. (2001). Nuclear information: One rhetorical moment in the construction of the information age. Written communication 18:3, 259-295. : Berkenkotter, C. & Huckin, T. (1993). Rethinking genre from a sociocognitive perspective. Written Communication, 10(4), 475-509. : Cherry, R. D. (1988). Ethos versus persona: Self-representation in written discourse. Written communication, 5, 251-276. : Coffin, C. (2004). Learning to write history: The role of causality. Written communication, 21(3), 261-289. : Concha, S. & Paratore, J. (2011). Local coherence in persuasive writing: An exploration of Chilean students’ metalinguistic knowledge, writing process, and writing products. Written Communication, 28(1), 34-69. : Crismore, A., Markkanen, R. & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10, 39-71. : Crossley, S. A., Roscoe, R. & McNamara, D. (2014). What is successful writing? An investigation into the multiple ways writers can write successful essays. Written Communication, 31(2), 184-214. : Crossley, S. A., Weston, J. L., Sullivan, S. T. M. & McNamara, D. S. (2011). The development of writing proficiency as a function of grade level: A linguistic analysis. Written Communication, 28(3), 282-311. Doi: 10.1177/0741088311410188 : Crossley, S., Muldner, K. & McNamara, D. (2016). Idea generation in student writing: Computational assessments and links to successful writing. Written Communication, 33(3), 328-354. : Finn, S. (1995). Measuring effective writing. Cloze procedure and anaphoric “This”. Written Communication, 12(2), 240-266. : Flower, L. & Hayes, J. (1984). Images, plans, and prose. The representation of meaning in writing. Written Communication, 1, 120-160. : Flower, L. y J. Hayes (1981b) Plans that guide the composing process. En C. Fredriksen y J. Dominic (eds.), Writing: The nature, development, and teaching of written communication, Vol. 2. Hove, Sussex and Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 39-58. : Flower, L. y J. Hayes (1984) Images, plans and prose: The representation of meaning in writing. Written Communication, 1, 120-60. : Geisler, Ch., Kaufer, D. S. & Steinberg, E. R. (1985). The unattended anaphoric “This”. When should writers use it? Written Communication, 2(2), 129-155. : Hanauer, D. I. (2015). Measuring voice in poetry written by second language learners. Written Communication, 32(1), 66-86. : Haswell, R. H. (2005). NCTE/CCCC's recent war on scholarship. Written Communication, 22(2), 198-223. : Higgins, L., Flower, L. & Petraglia, J. (1992). Planning text together: The role of critical reflection in student collaboration. Written Communication, 9(1), 48-84. : Hyland, K. (1996b). Talking to the academy forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Communication, 13(2), 251-281. : Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader. Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication, 18(4), 549-574. : Luzón, M. J. (2013). Public communication of science in blogs: Recontextualizing scientific discourse for a diversified audience. Written Communication, 30(4), 428-457. [216]https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313493610 : McDonald, S. P. (1992). A method for analysing sentence-level differences in disciplinary knowledge making. Written Communication, 9(4), 533-569. : McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A. & McCarthy, P. M. (2010). Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication, 27(1), 57-86. Doi: 10.1177/0741088309351547 : Nystrand, M. (1986). The structure of written communication: Studies in reciprocity between writers and readers. Orlando, Fl.: Academic Press. : Nystrand, M. (1989). A social interactive model of writing. Written Communication, 6, 6685. : Nystrand, M. Greene, S. & Wiemelt, J. (1993) Where did Composition Studies Come From? Written Communication, 10, 3, 267-333. : Ratteray, O. (1985). Expanding roles for summarized information. Written Communication, 2(4), 457-472. : Rundbald, G. (2007). Impersonal, general, and social: The use of metonymy versus passive voice in medical discourse. Written Communication, 24(3), 250-277. : Russell, D. (1997). Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity Theory Analysis. Written Communication, 14(4), 504-54. : Uccelli, P. Dobbs, C. L. & Scott, J. (2013). Mastering academic language: Organization and stance in the persuasive writing of high school students. Written Communication, 30(1), 36-62. DOI: 10.1177/0741088312469013 : Witte, S. (1992) Context, text, intertext: Toward a constructivist semiotic of writing. Written Communication, 9, 237-308. : vande Kopple, W. (1998). Relative clauses in spectroscopic articles in the physical review. Written Communication,15(2), 170-202. |