How should EIL adapt to the electronic era?---- From the perspective of ELT in Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English, as an international language(EIL), has occupied an irreplaceable position among all languages in the world. With the rapid development of call & online education, English has become one of the most notable topics in the fields of both SLA(Second Language Acquisition) and TEFL(Teaching English as a Foreign Language). This paper aims at a more profound and comprehensible understanding towards the concept of EIL and offers some new argumentations for a better performance and application of this language. The following key issue will be focused on: How to evaluate and contribute to the formation of a real international language? Constructive policies and practices will be discussed as the author introduces some of the typical cases of ELT(English Language Teaching) in Japan, and factors English Language teachers are supposed to take into account during their process of teaching will be elaborated. References Allwood & Schroeder(2000). “Intercultural Communication in a Virtual Environment”. Intercultural Communication, Issue(4) at http://www.immi.se/intercultural/ . Aoki, H.(2001). Intercultural Understanding. Tokyo, Japan: Iwanami. Beamer, Linda & Iris Varner. (1995). Intercultural Communication in the Global Workplace. Toronto: Irwin. Candlin, C. & Hall, D. (2005). Teaching and Researching Computer-assisted Language Learning. Beijing, China: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Debski, R. & Gassin, J. & Smith, M.(eds). (1997). Language learning through social computing. Melbourne: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia. Dudeney,G.(2000). The internet and the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English? The British Council. Funabashi, Youichi(2000). English -a Common Language in Japan (Japanese version) . Tokyo: Bungeishunju Ltd. Funabshi, Youichi(1999). English in Asia— new leadership in international society (Japanese version) . Tokyo: Space ALC. Honna, Nobuyuki (2003). An insight of world Englishes(Japanese version) . Tokyo, Japan: Shueisha. Kachru, Y. (2006). World Englishes in Asian contexts. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Lustig, M. W. and Koester, J. (1999). Intercultural Competence: Interpersonal communication across cultures (3 ed.). New York: Addison-Wesley Longman. Matsuda, A.(2002). “Representation of users and uses of English in beginning Japanese EFL textbooks”. JALT Journal, 24(2), 80-98. Matsuda, A.(2003). “Incorporating world Englishes in teaching English as an international language”. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 719-729. MEXT(2001). Practical Handbook for Elementary School English Activities. MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology), Japan. Neustupny, J.V.(2000). Foreigners and communication. Tokyo: Iwanami. Samovar, L.A. & Porter R.E. & Stefani, L.A.(1998). Communication between cultures. USA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. MEXT(1998). Middle School Course of Study. Retrieved September 5, 2006 from http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shuppan/sonota/990301.htm MEXT(1999). High School Course of Study. Retrieved September 5, 2006 from http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shuppan/sonota/990301.htm MEXT(2006). Cultural affairs. Retrieved September 5, 2006 from http://www.mext.go.jp/english/org/eshisaku/ebunka.htm MEXT(2006). REX Program. Retrieved September 5, 2006 from http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/rex/english/001.htm Oda, M. (2005). Internationalization or Self-colonization: The dis course of student recruitment at Japanese private universities. Peterson, M. (1988). The English of Japanese people (Japanese version). Tokyo: Iwanami. Phillipson, Robert.(1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Samovar, Larry & Porter, Richard(eds). (2003). Intercultural Communication: A Reader. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Son, J.(ed)(2004). Computer-assisted language learning: concepts, contexts and practices. Shanghai, China: iUniverse, Inc. Suzuki,Takao(2000). The Possibility of Japanese to become a Lingua Franca (Japanese version). Tokyo: Kodansha. Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies: Language, culture, and power in online education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Warschauer, M. & Shetzer H. & Meloni C. (2000). Internet for English Teaching. USA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. Weiss,E. (2005). The elements of International English Style. New York: M.E.Sharpe. WierzBicka, A. (2006). English: Meaning and Culture. New York: Oxford University Press. Yamada, Yuichirou(2005). English Language Education in Japan (Japanese version) . Tokyo: Iwanami.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".