Linguistics
I consider myself a linguist in the sense that I speak many languages. I believe that the world is full of potential linguists of this kind. Successful linguists of this kind need to be curious, confident realists, in other words practical optimists. They need to to have the energy to commit to a concentrated period of effort at acquiring the words and phrases of a new language through lots of input, lots of reading and listening. They are best advised to have an efficient method of saving the words and phrases they learn for deliberate and focused review. (The Linguist is such a system).
On the other hand I cannot see any useful connection (or transfer as the linguistic term would have it) between academic linguistics and language learning. I googled some linguistics terms and found the following. I either do not understand this stuff or consider it largely irrelevant to the acquisition of language, a task which can most easily described as "just keep listening and reading and imitating, a lot, do not give up, enjoy it and believe in yourself".
.
How Are Metacognitive Strategies Transferred?
The application of metacognitive strategies in contexts other than those in which they were learned is the primary goal of teaching thinking. Transfer is the educational term for this reuse of strategies. Research supports a positive correlation between instruction in metacognitive strategies and transfer. A distinction is usually made between near transfer and far transfer, the former being when learning is applied in circumstances similar to initial learning, and the latter occurring when connections are made to dissimilar contexts. In If Minds Matter Perkins and Salomon (1992) talk about the fuzziness of near-far transfer and the difficulty in measuring the extent of transfer. In reporting on research in metacognition in "Metacognition Research andTheory: Analysis and Implications for Instructional Design" Osman and Hannafin (1993) manage to defuzz the issue of transfer by classifying metacognitive training strategies into four types, each of which promote transfer somewhat differently. These additional benchmarks allow educational practictioners to gauge transfer more accurately and design instruction which exploits the transfer potential of different metacognitive strategies.
It is this classification scheme that has repeatedly drawn me back to this particular article, an article that at once clarifies both metacognition and transfer, and has practical application to instructional design. It is this perspective that serves as a backdrop for the remainder of this report, a report which presents my interpretation of this article.
As criteria for their classification of metacognitive training strategies Osman and Hannafin (1992) used "training approach" and "relationship to lesson content". They describe metacognitive training strategies that may be embedded, or integrated within a criterion lesson and strategies which may be taught separately - detached - from academic subjects. With respect to the role of lesson content strategies may be dependent on, or independent of, content. Content-dependentstrategies focus explicitly on concepts that promote learning of particular content. Conversely, content-independent strategies are content-free, general strategies not specific to particular academic subjects. The four resultant strategies are described below.
Embedded Content-Dependent Strategies
Embedded content-dependent strategies emphasize near transfer. They are useful in understanding unfamiliar lesson material. They are specific strategies that support particular content and as such require explicit manipulation of lesson content and structure.
Embedded Content-Independent Strategies
Embedded content-independent strategies are general strategies that support particular content but are transferable to content of other lessons. Specific content is used to learn strategies but once learned executive control shifts from the lesson to the student.
Detached Content-Dependent Strategies
Detached content-dependent strategies are general strategies taught separately from content but meant to be applied within particular content. The intention is to improve facility with strategies before using them in context. They hold more potential for transfer than embedded content-dependent strategies.
Detached Content-Independent Strategies
Detached content-independent strategies are taught separately from content and are generic in nature. As such they support a variety of learning tasks and academic subjects. They help students to manipulate lesson material as well as to develop and maintain learning strategies. These strategies often focus more on procedural than conditional knowledge but the goal is strategy generalization and promotion of independent learning. They provide the greatest potential for transfer, that of far transfer.
Definition | |
|
A morpheme is the smallest meaningful unit in the grammar of a language. |
Discussion | |
|
Current approaches to morphology conceive of morphemes as rules involving the linguistic context, rather than as isolated pieces of linguistic matter. They acknowledge that |
|
|
I. Introduction
Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology is a complete set of lexeme-based morphological theories and hypotheses including the following:
1. The Separation Hypothesis, that lexical and inflectional derivation are distince from affixation (phonological realization);
2. The Universal Grammarical Function Theory, whereby the functions of inflectional and lexical derivation are one and the same;
3. The Base Rule Hypothesis, that universal functions must originate in a base component if we are to explain both lexical and syntactic (inflectional) derivation;
4. Stephen Anderson's General Theory of Affixation, which predicts the placement of all affixs and clitics;
5. The Defective Adjective Hypothesis, which claims that adpositions are adjectival pronouns in a class with case endings and hence grammatical morphemes rather than lexemes.
6. A morphological performance theory which includes:
§ a theory of lexical stock expansion processes
§ a theory of normal speech errors
§ a theory of pathological speech errors (morphological agrammatism)
In human language, a phoneme is a set of phones (speech sounds or sign elements) that are cognitively equivalent. It is the basic unit that distinguishes between different words or morphemes — changing an element of a word from one phoneme to another produces either a different word or obvious nonsense, whereas changing an element from one phone to another, when both belong to the same phoneme, produces the same word (sometimes with an odd or incomprehensible pronunciation).
Phonemes are not the physical segments themselves, but mental abstractions of them. A phoneme could be thought of as a family of related phones, called allophones, that the speakers of a language think of, and hear or see, as being categorically the same.
In sign languages, the phoneme was formerly called a chereme (or cheireme), but usage changed to phoneme when it was recognized that the mental abstractions involved are essentially the same as in oral languages.
Interlanguage refers to the separateness of a second language learner’s system, a system that has a structurally intermediate status between the native and target language
Interlanguage is neither the system of the native language nor the system of the target language, but instead falls between the two; it is a system based upon the best attempt of learners to provide order and structure to the linguistic stimuli surrounding them. By a gradual process of trial and error and hypothesis testing, learners slowly and tediously succeed in establishing closer and closer approximations to the system used by native speakers of the language.
You have a very interesting blog here with some very interesting links I will will be definately bookmark and come back later.
good luck
Posted by: sanami/morrill | July 14, 2008 at 08:11 PM