Categories
MOOCs scientific writing

Writing in the Sciences free @stanford MOOC starts Sept 1

Link here.

This course teaches scientists to become more effective writers, using practical examples and exercises. Topics include: principles of good writing, tricks for writing faster and with less anxiety, the format of a scientific manuscript, and issues in publication and peer review. Students from non-science disciplines can benefit from the training provided in the first four weeks (on general principles of effective writing).

In the first four weeks, we will review principles of effective writing, examples of good and bad writing, and tips for making the writing process easier. In the second four weeks, we will examine issues specific to scientific writing, including: authorship, peer review, the format of an original manuscript, and communicating science for lay audiences. Students will watch video lectures, complete quizzes and editing exercises, write two short papers, and edit each others’ work.

COURSE SYLLABUS

Week 1 – Introduction; principles of effective writing (cutting unnecessary clutter)
Week 2 – Principles of effective writing (verbs)
Week 3 – Crafting better sentences and paragraphs
Week 4 – Organization; and streamlining the writing process
Week 5 – The format of an original manuscript
Week 6 – Reviews, commentaries, and opinion pieces; and the publication process
Week 7 – Issues in scientific writing (plagiarism, authorship, ghostwriting, reproducible research)
Week 8 – How to do a peer review; and how to communicate with the lay public

New session starts September 1

Categories
CALICO CALL CALL links CFP

CFP Learner Autonomy and Web 2.0 deadline 31/08

 

Through the EUROCALL list
Provisional Book Title: Learner Autonomy and Web 2.0

Call for Abstracts

The 2017 CALICO Monograph, published by Equinox, aims to explore how the notion of learner autonomy is being reshaped within Web 2.0 environments. In early definitions, dating from the 1980s, learner autonomy was largely conceived of in terms of individuals working in ‘self-access’ mode, selecting the learning resources and methods they saw as effective, in pursuit of personal goals, perhaps with the aid of a learning adviser (Holec 1981). Other theorists of learner autonomy – such as Dam (1995), Little (2012) or Trebbi (1989) – viewed the concept as having a social dimension, rather than being purely individualistic. This second view of learner autonomy is more and more relevant given the advent of social media, where students have unprecedented opportunities for collaborative learning (Lamy & Zourou 2013). Consequently, social theories of learning (e.g. sociocultural theory, communities of practice, connectivism) have increasingly informed research into learner autonomy in foreign language learning (see Murray 2014). Of equal importance is the opportunity afforded by Web 2.0 of using multiple modes for making meaning, in learning to communicate online. This has enabled some to suggest a possible recasting of learner autonomy in the digital world as ‘the informed use of a range of interacting resources in context’ (Palfreyman, 2006; Fuchs, Hauck and Müller-Hartmann, 2012). Others may feel that being digitally literate alone does not constitute learner autonomy in the online world.

The question is: ‘What does?’ In this monograph, we welcome chapters grounded in sound theoretical frameworks and/or analyzing empirical data which investigate how learner autonomy intertwines with the social and/or the modal affordances of Web 2.0 environments. The questions raised for educational users of Web 2.0 environments about the relationship between CALL and learner autonomy include, but are not restricted to:

-Do online learners require or acquire learner autonomy in practising CMC?

-What affordances of CALL environments, and more particularly Web 2.0 environments, could help develop the different facets of learner autonomy?

-How do (a) digital literacy and (b) L2 proficiency relate to learner autonomy in online environments?

-What space exists for individuals to exercise learner autonomy in Web 2.0? How does individual autonomy relate to group autonomy in Web 2.0?

-How can online learning tasks be designed to foster both individual and group autonomy?

-How can individual learning gain be monitored and assessed in Web 2.0?

-With such questions at stake, what is the expected role of language centers?

-Which (new, or existing) forms of counselling may foster students’ learning-to-learn skills within Web 2.0 environments?

 

Interested authors should send a chapter abstract (200-300 words, plus references) and an author biography (100 words) to calico2017monograph@gmail.com before the end of August 2015.

 

Timeline

Notification of contributors 31 August 2015

First draft of papers to be submitted 1st Dec 2015

Second draft of papers to be submitted 15 Apr 2016

Special Issue to be published April 2017

 

Editors

Tim Lewis, Open University

Annick Rivens Mompean, Lille3 University

Marco Cappellini, Lille3 University

Categories
applied linguistics Biber 1988 corpus linguistics Corpus Linguistics Conference 2015

Multi-dimensional analysis of oral proficiency interviews #cl2015

 

IMG_20150723_113417

Shelley Staples; Jesse Egbert; Geoff LaFlair

A multi-dimensional comparison of oral proficiency interviews to conversation, academic and professional spoken registers

MELAB : Michigan Engish Language Battery 989 OPIs in 2013

OPI used for academic and profesional purposes

Only transcribed the first 5 minutes

55 linguistic features

TagCount

FA

6 factor solution

Dimensions interpreted functionally

Dimension scores

Differences across registers (ANOVAs and post hocs)

 

6 dimension

1. Explicit stance: private verbs, that deletion, lower rates of implicit stance that the Longman corpus

3. Speaker-centered informational vs listener centered involvement: pro1, subject-conj.causative, nn, amplifiers,

4. Extended informational discourse: word length, prep, jj atr, that rel, negative features: all pronouns

6. Implicit stance: higher rates of implicit stance that the Longman corpus

 

 

Categories
analysis of language applied linguistics corpora corpus linguistics Corpus Linguistics Conference 2015

Non-obvious meaning in CL and CADS #cl2015

IMG_20150723_100414

Plenary session: Alan Partington
Non-obvious meaning in CL and CADS: from ‘hindsight post-dictability’ to sweet serendipity

Chair: Amanda Potts

http://www3.lingue.unibo.it/blog/clb/

Introspection & intuition

Processes of inference from the linguistic trace left by speakers/writers

Shared meaning

Idiom principle

Complexity of common grammatical items

Colligation: every word primed to occur in or avoid certain grammatical positions and functions (Hoey, 2005: 13)

SiBol (Siena-Bologna) corpus of newspapers, judicial inquiries, press briefings. Link.

Rapid language change

Corpus methodology is useful in detecting absence, not only presence

Language looks rather different when you look at a lot of it at once (Sinclair 1991)

Qualitative: anaphoric, historic, past behaviour

Quantitative anaphoric and cataphoric; enough data with which to infer

If primed >> psychologically fixed >> reproduced

Evaluation as prototypicality: inner circle obvious, outer circle non-obvious

Prosody can depend on grammar (Louw 1993), pov, literal vs figurative use and on field of register

Embedding is an important factor to interpret prosody

The added value of CL in discourse studies

Looking at language at different levels of abstraction: overview & close reading

Data are not sacred

Much of textual meaning is accretional

Positive cherry-picking: find counter examples

Almost all explanation in DA is informed speculation: in human science this is the closest you get to explanation

Moral panics have evolved over the years (globesity in 2015)

 

 

 

Categories
CFP

A linguistic taxonomy of registers on the searchable web #cl2015

 

IMG_20150723_092947

Doug Biber; Jesse Egbert; Mark Davies
Panel: A linguistic taxonomy of registers on the searchable web: Distribution, linguistic descriptions, and automatic register identification

Abstract book pp 52-54

Doug Biber

Oral-literate dimensions & Narrative dimension remain constant in all MDA across languages and registers

Oral-literate dimensions

3 dimensions here

Pronouns & questions, verbs, dependent clauses crucial in interactivity

These analyses show that there are major linguistic differences among the eight major user-defined register categories.

Can we automatically id web registers?

Start point 150+ linguistic features as predictors

90% was training corpus and 10% test corpus

Each document was assigned to a single category

Stepwise discriminant analysis to select the strongest predictive  features

10-feature model 0.34 precision

44-feature model 0.44 precision

 

 

Categories
analysis of language applied linguistics corpus linguistics Corpus Linguistics Conference 2015

Representation of benefit claimants in UK media #cl2015

 

Ben Clarke
The ideological representation of benefit claimants in UK print media

2010 – 2014

2.3 M corpus

benefits clsimant(s) search criteria

Adjectival constructions

Adjective lemmas are ranked

hard number 40

tough number 53

enTenTen13 score

Tough on is significant in the corpus

Tough patterns

Benefit claimants: scroungers

tougher conditions, curbs on

Prepositions and ideology: on here as a Goal PR in a Material PT (impacted/affected entity)