Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘assignment teaching learning’ Category

語言學研究論文評估標準
Grade
Criteria
A+
4.5
Outstanding
General: The student’s work is outstanding. It exceeds the intended subject learning outcomes in all regards.
Specific: The work has original perspectives.  It either manifests in-depth thinking on interesting issues or makes original theoretical proposals, or offers new discoveries in self-collected language data analysis. The work reaches publishable quality. The language is clear and fluent, conforming to academic standards in style and bibliographical format.
論文立意新穎,對相關問題有很深入的思考,或是提出了有原創性的見解,或是在自主收集的語料及分析上有原創性的發現,達到出版發表的水平。行文流暢簡練,符合學術規範,在引文和參考書目的編輯上也完全符合學術慣例。
A
4.0
Excellent
General: The student’s work is excellent. It exceeds the intended subject learning outcomes in nearly all regards.
Specific:  The work has original perspectives.  It either manifests in-depth thinking on interesting issues or makes original theoretical proposals, or offers new discoveries in self-collected language data analysis. But it has room of improvement either due to the less than optimal organization of novel and known content, or due to the need for more precise thinking or finer-tuned argumentation. The language is clear and fluent, conforming to academic standards in style and bibliographical format.
論文立意新穎,對相關問題有深入的思考,或是提出了有原創性的見解,或是在自主收集的語料及分析上有原創性的發現,但新舊內容的組織尚需調配,或全局上尚需更縝密的思考和組織觀點思路。行文流暢簡練,符合學術規範,在引文和參考書目的編輯上也基本符合學術慣例。
B+
3.5
Very Good
General: The student’s work is very good. It exceeds the intended subject learning outcomes in most regards.
Specific:  The work has some original aspects.  It either manifests some sophisticated thinking on interesting issues or makes some rather original theoretical proposals, or offers some new discoveries in self-collected language data analysis. But it has room of improvement either due to the obvious lack of good organization of novel and known content, or due to the need for precise thinking. The language is clear and fluent, generally conforming to academic standards in style and bibliographical format.
論文立意有一定新意,對相關問題有較深入的思考,或是提出了一兩點有原創性的見解,或是在自主收集的語料及分析上有少數原創性的發現,但文章的組織和論證方面尚有較明顯的不足。行文流暢簡練,基本符合學術規範,在引文和參考書目的編輯上也基本符合學術慣例。
B
3.0
Good
General: The student’s work is good. It exceeds the intended subject learning outcomes in some regards.
Specific: The work has a balanced organization and sound argumentation, although it does not have original observations. Although it does not manifest sophisticated thinking on interesting issues, it has a clear line of development.  Though lacking in innovative ideas, it nevertheless presents accepted views in good order or exhibits effort in collecting interesting data. The language generally conforms to academic standards in style and bibliographical format, although further improvements are possible.
論文基本無新意但在組織較為平衡和論證上基本合理,對相關問題的思考不夠深入,但總體思路清楚。文章雖無原創見解或發現,但能較好地組織既有觀點或是著力收集了一些語料。行文大體符合學術規範,在引文和參考書目的編輯上也大體符合學術慣例,有繼續改進的餘地。
C+
2.5
Satisfactory
General: The student’s work is satisfactory. It meets all the intended subject learning outcomes.
Specific: The work presents content relevant to the original design and title. It meets the minimal requirement in length.  It either does not have original ideas nor new discoveries and contains some misunderstandings, or the collected data and analysis, though complete, are not up to good standards. The language generally conforms to academic standards in style and bibliographical format, although further improvements are possible.
論文基本切題,字數達到最低要求。文章無原創見解或發現,且有某些誤解。或是語料收集和分析尚算完整但質量上乏善可陳。行文大體符合學術規範,在引文和參考書目的編輯上也大體符合學術慣例,有繼續改進的餘地。]
C
2.0
Marginally Satisfactory
General: The student’s work is marginally satisfactory. It minimally meets the intended subject learning outcomes.
Specific: The work presents content that is partially relevant to the original design and title. It meets the minimal requirement in length.  It either does not have original ideas nor new discoveries and contains many misunderstandings, or the collected data and analysis are not well organized and contain quite some errors. The language does not conform well to academic standards in style and bibliographical format.
論文部份切題,字數達到最低要求。文章無原創見解或發現,且有多處誤解。或是語料收集和分析錯誤較多或十分草率。行文不夠符合學術規範,在引文和參考書目的編輯上也不符合學術慣例,有許多需要改進之處。]
D+
1.5
Approaching Satisfactory
General: The student’s work is barely satisfactory. It hardly meets the intended subject learning outcomes.
Specific: The work presents content that is generally not so relevant to the original design and title, or it does not meet the minimal requirement in length.  It either does not have original ideas nor new discoveries and contains many, sometimes rather serious, misunderstandings, or the collected data and analysis are not well organized and contain quite some errors. The language does not conform well to academic standards in style and bibliographical format. The reference list is incomplete. And the language contains some glaring grammatical mistakes.
論文不夠切題或是字數未達到最低要求。文章無原創見解或發現,且有多處誤解,其中有些是嚴重誤解。或是語料收集和分析錯誤較多較大或十分草率。行文不夠符合學術規範,且有一些低級語病。在引文和參考書目的編輯上既不符合學術慣例,又有一些遺漏,有許多需要改進之處。
D
1.0
Barely Adequate
General: The student’s work is barely adequate. It meets the intended subject learning outcomes only in some regards.
Specific: The work presents content that is generally not relevant to the original design and title, or it does not meet the minimal requirement in length.  It either does not have original ideas nor new discoveries and contains many, sometimes rather serious, misunderstandings and self-contradictions, or the collected data and analysis are not well organized and contain quite some errors. The language does not conform well to academic standards in style and bibliographical format. The reference list is incomplete. And the language contains some glaring grammatical mistakes.
 論文不夠切題或是字數未達到最低要求。文章無原創見解或發現,且有多處誤解,其中有些是嚴重誤解和自相矛盾之處。或是語料收集和分析錯誤較多較大或十分草率。行文不夠符合學術規範,且有許多低級語病。在引文和參考書目的編輯上既不符合學術慣例,又有許多遺漏,有許多需要改進之處。
F
0
Inadequate
General: The student’s work is inadequate. It fails to meet many of the intended subject learning outcomes.
Specific: Either of the cases presented below will lead to a failure: 1. The work is a plagiarized one, and the copied part exceeds three sentences. 2. The work shows a total lack of understanding of the topical area of the dissertation. 3. The major part of the work is generally irrelevant to the topical area of the dissertation. 4. The work does not meet the requirement in length and is 50% below the word requirement. 5. Although no known evidence is found to prove that the work is a plagiarized one, markers have good reasons to suspect that the work is not done by the student independently. And the student exhibits minimal familiarity to the content of the dissertation.
以下任何一點均可導致論文不及格。1. 論文是抄襲他人之作,且抄襲部份的長度達到三個句子或以上。2.論文顯示作者對課題內容幾乎完全沒有掌握。3. 論文基本文不對題。4. 論文字數極少,占規定最少字數的百分之五十以下。5.雖無證據顯示文章是抄襲之作,但教師有足夠理由懷疑作業並非同學獨立完成,且同學在其後的口試中顯示出對論文內容完全陌生。
Advertisements

Read Full Post »

語義與語用
第二份功課
長度要求:1500中文字起,最長不超過3000字。
交卷時間:不晚於129日。
題型:設想您要為一本語言學百科全書寫一篇文稿,討論一個語義學問題。文稿不需要提供研究綜述,只需要解釋一些基本概念,理清概念之間的關係,同時提供自己的例子來說明概念,並對例子做分析和解釋。例子須以漢語為主,但可以提供其他語言的例子作為與漢語例子的比較。
不可缺少的組成部分【否則扣分!】:姓名、學號、聯繫方式、題目、正文、參考書目、學習報告
注意:一定要用自己的話來表述;提供的聯繫方式一定要保持暢通【!!!】;同學不得把其他科目的作業或及其相似的作業拿來交卷,與本科基本無關的選題和內容一律作零分處理,後果自負!!!上次作業已有先例.
題目:從以下題目中選擇一個,也可以在與教師交流後自設題目。
I.                    語義標記現象semantic markedness和語義結構(semantic structures)的分析
II.                  語義指向(semantic indexicality)及其揭示的核心語義問題
III.                論指稱意義(referential meaning)與涵義(sense)的區別及其各自的研究價值
IV.                論指稱(reference)與指謂(denotation)的區別及其各自的研究價值
V.                  從命題邏輯語義學(semantics of propositional logic)到謂詞邏輯語義學(semantics of predicate logic)到自然語言的語義學(natural language semantics),它們各自的特點是什麼?
VI.                論自然語言的語義(natural language meaning)與真(truth)、真值(truth-values)及真值條件(truth-conditions)的關係
VII.              論語義學(semantics)與語用學(pragmatics)的區別和聯繫
多餘的話:出題的目的是鼓勵同學在選擇題目後做一些額外的跟進閱讀,在自學的基礎上有所提高,然後寫成報告。所以,開始時不完全知道如何寫作業是正常的。問題在於要先自學、再思考,在獨立研究的基礎上完成作業。No pains, no gains. 一分心力,一分收穫!
就自己的題目,同學可以先自己找些參考材料,在網上問教師這些材料是否合適,教師可以幫助同學圈定材料,然後同學再繼續閱讀。

Read Full Post »

Applicable only to the students taking my two subjects below:

CBS303: Linguistic Meaning and Contextual Use [in English], B.A. (Honours) in Chinese & Bilingual Studies
CBS500: Semantics & Pragmatics [in English or in Chinese], M.A. in Chinese Linguistics
 
1. Writing a summary of a theory, using some minimal examples. Bad choice.
2. Writing an introduction to a theory and some concepts, then patch it up with your own examples. Not so good.
3. Find any stretch of data, present it, and use some theoretical notions and process to analyze it. Meeting the minimal requirements.
4. Try to acquire some really interesting data, something that you know is unusual, something that is not well-known nor well-documented, some in-language. Write an in-depth analysis, using theoretical concepts and processes at appropriate places. Focusing on one or two worthy aspects. The best choice.
5. Analyze a piece of data, using concepts and theories that have nothing to do with pragmatics. The worst choice!!!

Experience the difficulties & Enjoy the experience !

Read Full Post »