MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2044401463 · doi:10.1353/lan.2001.0175

<b>English: One language, different cultures.</b> Ed. by Eddie Ronowicz and Colin Yallop. London &amp; New York: Cassell, 1999. Pp. 269.

2001· article· en· W2044401463 sur OpenAlex
Iman Makeba Laversuch

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueLanguage · 2001
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueSecond Language Learning and Teaching
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésWorld EnglishesSociocultural evolutionLinguisticsLanguage assessmentEnglish languageForeign languageEnglish studiesLinguistic competenceSociologyHistoryPsychologyPedagogyAnthropology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: English: One language, different cultures ed. by Eddie Ronowicz, Colin Yallop Iman Makeba Laversuch English: One language, different cultures. By Eddie Ronowicz and Colin Yallop. London & New York: Cassell, 1999. Pp. 269. In the past there has been some reticence to include cultural studies in foreign language instruction, the rationale being that it was too far outside the traditional scope of language instruction and would therefore constitute too great a distraction. Today, however, it is generally understood by the modern language instructor that cultural knowledge may also serve as a powerful motivator for improving student linguistic competence, particularly on the advanced levels when students are no longer hampered by linguistic barriers. The book under review is meant as a tool for integrating cross-cultural instruction into advanced classes for English as a foreign or second language. The demand for high quality English instruction has increased exponentially all over the world as English continues to spread as a world language. Nevertheless, as the authors are careful to remind, the prevalence of English does not mean that all Englishes are alike. This book focuses on presenting some of the major linguistic and cultural differences among some of the world’s major varieties of English today—Great Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. Each chapter begins with a general history of the sociocultural development of the country in question. The second section is devoted to a discussion of some of the more important distinguishing linguistic features. The third and final section presents useful suggestions for student tasks and exercises. There is a great deal of variety in the quality and accuracy of the information presented. As far as the historical presentations are concerned, for example, the historical review of Great Britain was sometimes in danger of bordering on the nationalistic, while the chapter on the sociocultural development of the United States was at times surprisingly ill-informed, inaccurate, and contradictory. For example, it is regrettable that at the same time the author stressed the need to confront sexism in language, this chapter in particular contained so many blatant instances of sexist writing. This having been said, the historical presentations for the chapters dealing with Australia, Canada, and New Zealand were very well-written, filled with interesting and pertinent information for the advanced English student. The same variation was to be found in the exploration of linguistic features. Again, the introductory chapter started out somewhat disappointingly with the well-worn topics such as spelling differences between the UK and the US; but it went on to completely redeem itself with humorous and informative discussions of pragmatic differences found around the world. Here again, the chapter entitled ‘British shibboleths’ was exemplary. The contrastive presentations on Canadian English and the dialectal features of the United States were also similarly helpful for the advanced student. It is unfortunate, however, that not more was done in these areas. Indeed, the sociolinguistic focus of the book would have lent itself rather well to discussing major linguistic issues confronting the particular countries examined. For example, it would have been useful to have discussions of the following topics: the struggle between French and English in Canada, the ongoing debate over making English the official language of the United States, and the fight to preserve minority languages in Great Britain (e.g. Welsh, Scots, Gaelic vs. English in Great Britain). However, for whatever reason, the authors seemed to generally shy away from tackling such issues. [End Page 620] The tasks and exercises presented in each chapter also showed considerable variation in quality. While some chapters focused almost exclusively on simple retention, other chapters, such as the two on Australia and Great Britain, succeeded in providing refreshingly effective exercises and activities to encourage critical thought and lively discussion. Overall, then, this reference was found to be a potentially useful aid for instructing advanced level English students. Indeed, given a creative and energetic teacher who is in the position to supplement information with their own materials, the book could be a helpful supplement to classroom instruction. Iman Makeba Laversuch Freiburg University Copyright © 2001 Linguistic Society of America

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,454
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0100,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,019
Tête enseignante GPT0,242
Écart entre enseignants0,222 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle