Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
- 2007 (133)
- 2009 (100)
- 2014 (95)
- 2008 (87)
- 2010 (77)
- 2011 (75)
- 2013 (63)
- 2017 (61)
- 2018 (57)
- 2005 (51)
- 2016 (45)
- 2006 (43)
- 2002 (34)
- 2003 (34)
- 2000 (27)
- 2015 (26)
- 2020 (26)
- 2001 (25)
- 2004 (25)
- 2012 (22)
- 2022 (15)
- 1999 (14)
- 2019 (14)
- 1995 (13)
- 1998 (12)
- 2021 (12)
- 1994 (11)
- 1997 (8)
- 1996 (7)
- 1985 (5)
- 1989 (5)
- 1992 (5)
- 1988 (4)
- 1993 (4)
- 2023 (3)
- 1929 (2)
- 1979 (2)
- 1980 (2)
- 1982 (2)
- 1983 (2)
- 1984 (2)
- 1987 (2)
- 1990 (2)
- 1991 (2)
- 1868 (1)
- 1889 (1)
- 1891 (1)
- 1913 (1)
- 1957 (1)
- 1958 (1)
- 1967 (1)
- 1969 (1)
- 1974 (1)
- 1975 (1)
- 1977 (1)
- 1978 (1)
- 1986 (1)
Document Type
- Article (1269) (remove)
Language
Has Fulltext
- yes (1269)
Keywords
- Deutsch (222)
- Kroatisch (63)
- Englisch (57)
- Linguistik (49)
- Deutsch als Fremdsprache (48)
- Fremdsprachenlernen (44)
- Fremdsprachenunterricht (44)
- Phraseologie (42)
- Metapher (37)
- Übersetzung (37)
Institute
- Extern (186)
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS) Mannheim (90)
- Sprachwissenschaften (26)
- Neuere Philologien (15)
- Medizin (2)
- SFB 268 (2)
- Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaften (2)
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (1)
- Informatik (1)
- Universitätsbibliothek (1)
This special issue on L1 Teacher Education has generated considerable enthusiasm – it represents the first issue emerging from a new Special Interest Group on L1 Teacher Education in the International Association of Mother Tongue Education. As editors, we found that the articles fall into two groups: Teacher preparation at the university (three articles) followed by teacher practices in the schools. Researchers from three regions – Europe, Australia and the Middle East – wrote the articles that highlight the international and global diversity of L1 educators and education, while nevertheless conducting reflexive dialogue about L1 teaching and learning across national boundaries.
The currency of writing research includes terms with which we believe we are all familiar. But frustration can quickly dominate cross-cultural exchange when the meanings of these apparently obvious terms seem to be just beyond our collective reach. The contribution uses translation theory, linguistic analysis, and educational theory to present key terms apparently shared by academic writing researchers and teachers in France and the United States, but in fact serving as obstacles to understanding because of their culture-specific, discipline-specific or institution-specific uses.
The writing program at Cornell University involves professors from across the disciplines teaching writing courses at each level of students' undergraduate careers. This program undertook an assessment of its effectiveness in the years 2002-2004. The process of creating and carrying out an assessment developed by professors involved in the program is reported, and the assessment results are presented. These results lead the writer to argue for the assessment process itself as a key experience in developing the disciplinary awareness of participating professors, who became involved in deep questioning of what 'good' student writing might be in higher education, and in what relationship to the language practices of each discipline. The assessment project's challenges and benefits support the value of assessment of students' work across disciplines as fundamentally owned by each discipline.
Any overview of the topic of American Research on College Composition for the forty-five year period 1960-2005 is bound to be at a high level of generality and not comprehensive. What follows is a quick guide to some of the main themes that animated this era of composition research, with particular emphasis on the gap between college professors in newly-formed and rapidly growing composition programs who focused upon college-level writers, and more traditional researchers based in colleges of education who focused upon primary and secondary school students. As my survey will show, these two groups of researchers once talked to each other, but over forty-five years gradually drew apart, much to their mutual loss. The college professors of composition studies have tended to conduct qualitative research, while scholars in colleges of education have tended to conduct quantitative research. In one sense, then, my survey is of a loss of coherence, a parting of the ways in which two rich traditions of research flourished but inevitably grew apart.
The study of the role of language activity in higher education in France has been evolving, in the past few years, out of the larger field of ‘la didactique du français,' the field of L1 teaching and theory across all grade levels. This larger frame has provided several themes that are now being explored in higher education writing: language activity as a mode of co-construction of knowledge in school settings rather than a transparent medium, writing, reading and speaking as intimately disciplinary activities, writing as a recursive process, speaking and writing as complementary, and the reconfiguration of the discipline of L1 French as a result of these explorations.
This issue offers a preliminary yet in-depth introduction to research about the teaching and learning of literate activity across the disciplines in higher education in France and the United States: its academic values, educational principles, and genres. The contributing authors represent the forefront of research in each culture; the contributions identify history and evolution, current frames and questions, and a glossary of relevant terms. The issue thus foregrounds convergences across the cultures in terms of the rejection of a "transmission" model of literate activity and a symbiosis between language and disciplinary content. It foregrounds divergences in terms of theoretical frames, disciplines informing the research, and degree of attention paid specifically to higher education. The contributions lay out valuable future research paths.
This paper presents a small-scale study that examines the relationship between spoken and written discourse among master's level teacher candidates at an urban American university. It analyzes the writing of teacher candidates before and after the introduction of a student-centered, group interaction methodology, the Nominal Group Technique. Some of the specific areas assessed are the relationship between what students said in their groups and what they wrote in essays, interaction dynamics among teacher candidates in groups, observer perceptions of group behaviors, and teacher candidates' perceptions of writing performance before and after the intervention. The study also assesses teacher candidates' essays (N = 9) and compares them to the essays of a control group (N = 8). A significant increase in scores is noted from pretest to posttest after the treatment. Reaction to the class experience was largely positive. Pedagogic implications arising from findings are considered together with some tentative pointers toward future research.
This paper describes the current approach to the instruction of Hebrew as a mother-tongue (L1) language based on technological developments and on the relationship between technology and pedagogy. As such, we rely on well-known models of integrating computerized tools and distance learning in the educational system, while emphasizing the potential contribution of these environments to L1 education. At the core of this paper is the combination of linguistic and didactic approaches to L1 teaching that bring together both theoretical and functional aspects of learning and teaching language via a computer. The focus here is on technologically-based L1 learning environments that combine different types of computerized tools within a comprehensive language-learning/teaching system that is designed for facilitating and improving language skills. This system is cognitively motivated, and is modeled on a combination of elements, such as principles of constructivist, social, and active learning. The structural-conceptual framework of this environment complies with principles of both local and global connectivity and hierarchy. For example, at the local level, learning materials are connected through a hypertext structure; at the global level, the entire system is inter-connected, with assignments linked to dictionaries and relevant websites, and the learners themselves connected through email and forums. The teaching/learning processes that take place within this L1 environment are illustrated by examples of both online and offline computerized courses.
This article presents a research project conducted in a class of secondary school (first year) which linked reading, writing and acting. In this project, the teacher attempted to provide a support system for both first and second language acquisition. The idea was to use Greek tales published in a simplified version to look for ideas, vocabulary, routines, in other words what students were able to use when they acted then wrote the text of their own play. This constant back and forth between the oral and written format under the guidance of the expert formed the backbone of the system designed to help them discover a language beyond the daily contacts and a deep displeasure at school. With the help of the adults and of the mediating tools such as literature and acting they were able to collectively write a play that integrated many aspects of written French. In books they discovered worlds beyond their own that they can access when they open and use them. These crucial lessons, not only for students who are considered unable to study with a standard curriculum but also for teachers who are to work with them or similar students, serve to question notions such as creative drama and literacy.
This study conducted in Hong Kong used multiple regression procedures to investigate the relationship between primary school children's reading test scores and the frequency with which forty-two instructional practices were used by their literacy teachers. Analyses were conducted separately for reading in English language and in Chinese (Modern Standard Written Chinese). Subjects comprised 4,329 Cantonese-speaking students (2,157 girls; 2,172 boys) aged approximately 9+ years, and their 256 teachers (129 teachers of English; 127 teachers of Chinese). Results suggest that no single instructional practice was highly correlated with students' reading achievement in English or Chinese, and in fact some practices demonstrated a negative association. However, certain practices, particularly related to the use and nature of resource materials and to assessment strategies, did demonstrate a positive association with reading performance. Similarities and differences between Chinese and English data are discussed.