sjsu$annual$program$assessment$form $ … ·...

SJSU Annual Program Assessment Form Academic Year 2016-‐2017

Department: Linguistics And Language Development

Program: MA Linguistics

College: Humanities and the Arts

Program Website: http://www.sjsu.edu/linguistics/

Link to Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) on program website: http://www.sjsu.edu/linguistics/academic_programs/linguistics/ba_linguistics/ba_goals/index.html

Program Accreditation (if any): none

Contact Person and Email: Roula Svorou [email protected]

Date of Report: February 28, 2017

Part A 1. List of Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs)

(PLOs should be appropriate to the degree and consider national disciplinary standards, if they exist. Each outcome should describe how students can demonstrate learning.)

MA LINGUISTICS PLOs PLO 1A: Transcribe, using the International Phonetic Alphabet, and produce speech sounds of the

world’s languages. Apply concepts of acoustic theory in analyses of speech data; PLO 1B: Analyze linguistic sound patterns in terms of their function, their structure, and the

pressures that influence their change over time; PLO 1C: Analyze sentence structure of typologically diverse languages using current formalism and

explain how syntactic and semantic structures interface. PLO 1D: Analyze the meaning of linguistic expressions, elaborate on the role of linguistic,

pragmatic, and cultural context in the interpretation of meaning, and understand the role of theories in the analysis of semantic data.

PLO 1E: Show an understanding of current linguistic theories; compare and evaluate different theoretical approaches.

PLO 2A: Extract patterns from complex data sets, motivate categorization procedures, and apply learned analytical principles over such patterns.

PLO 2B: Carry out independent empirical, experimental or theoretical research involving formulating a research project, presenting a literature review, using appropriate methodology, collecting data pertinent to the project, and interpreting the data.

PLO 2C: Use library and electronic research sources effectively;

PLO 2D: Use reading and writing and oral skills effectively;

PLO 2E: Demonstrate proficiency equivalent to a two-‐year of an Indo-‐European or a one-‐year of a non-‐ Indo-‐European college level study in a language other than their native language.

PLO 3A: Discuss issues in speech synthesis, speech recognition, natural language processing, and develop speech recognition, speech synthesis and natural language processing programs;

PLO 3B: Evaluate theories of first and second language acquisition, and second language teaching;

PLO 3C: Apply linguistic knowledge to address societal issues related to language variation and diversity, and intercultural communication.

PLO 3D: Recognize the relation between language and cognition and evaluate theories of their interaction

PLO 3E: Identify phonological, morphological, syntactic and semantic changes in the history of a language, discuss the contribution of social factors to language variation and change, explain the genetic and typological classification of languages, and use the comparative method to reconstruct ancestors of related languages.

2. Map of PLOs to University Learning Goals (ULGs) (Please indicate how your PLOs map to the University Learning Goals below by listing the PLO under each relevant ULG, or including this map in table form (see examples here). Use the link above for a full description of each ULG.)

PLOs University Learning Goals

Specialized Knowledge

Broad Integrative Knowledge

Intellectual Skills

Applied Knowledge

Social and Global Responsibilities

1A 2A 2B 2C 3A 3B 4A 4B 4C 5A 5B

1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 2A 2B 2C 2D 2E 3A

3B

3C

3D

3E

3. Alignment – Matrix of PLOs to Courses

(Please show in which courses the PLOs are addressed and assessed. The curriculum map should show increasing levels of proficiency and alignment of curriculum and PLOs. See examples here)

MA LINGUISTICS PLOs COURSES ASSESSMENT

PLO 1A: Transcribe, using the International Phonetic Alphabet, and produce speech sounds of the world’s languages. Apply concepts of acoustic theory in analyses of speech data;

LING 101 (Introduced) LING 111 (Reinforced) LING 213 (Advanced)

Transcription exercises, transcription project, midterm exam, final exam, term paper

PLO 1B: Analyze linguistic sound patterns in terms of their function, their structure, and the pressures that influence their change over time;

LING 101 (Introduced) LING 113 (Reinforced) LING 201 (Reinforced) LING 213 (Advanced)

Initial assessment, data analysis problems, midterm exam, final exam, research papers

PLO 1C: Analyze sentence structure of typologically diverse languages using current formalism and explain how syntactic and semantic structures interface.

LING 101 (Introduced) LING 112 (Reinforced) LING 202 (Advanced) LING 213 (Advanced)

Data analysis problems, mini projects, midterm exam, final exam, research paper

PLO 1D: Analyze the meaning of linguistic expressions, elaborate on the role of linguistic, pragmatic, and cultural context in the interpretation of meaning, and understand the role of theories in the analysis of semantic data.

LING 101 (Introduced) LING 114 (Reinforced) LING 203 (Advanced) LING 213 (Advanced)

Semantic analysis problems, mini projects, midterm exam, final exam, research paper

PLO 1E: Show an understanding of current linguistic theories; compare and evaluate different theoretical approaches.

LING 201 (Advanced) LING 202 (Advanced) LING 203 (Advanced)

Research papers, comprehensive exam, master’s thesis

PLO 2A: Extract patterns from complex data sets, motivate categorization procedures, and apply learned analytical principles over such patterns.

LING 112 (Introduced) LING 113 (Introduced) LING 114 (Introduced) LING 201 (Advanced) LING 202 (Advanced) LING 203 (Advanced) LING 213 (Advanced)

Data analysis problems, mini projects, midterm exam, final exam, research papers, comprehensive exam, master’s thesis

PLO 2B: Carry out independent empirical, experimental or theoretical research involving formulating a research project, presenting a literature review, using appropriate methodology, collecting data pertinent to the project, and interpreting the data.

LING 201 (Introduced) LING 202 (Introduced) LING 203 (Introduced) LING 298 (Reinforced) LING 299 (Advanced)

Research proposal, annotated bibliography, term paper Master’s thesis

PLO 2C: Use library and electronic research sources effectively;

LLD 250W (Introduced) All 200-‐level courses (Reinforced)

Homework assignments, annotated bibliographies

PLO 2D: Use reading and writing and oral skills effectively;

LLD 250W (Introduced) All courses (Reinforced)

Part of the evaluation of every written assignment exam, or term paper

PLO 2E: Demonstrate proficiency equivalent to a two-‐year of an Indo-‐European or a one-‐year of a non-‐ Indo-‐European college level study in a language other than their native language.

Foreign language courses at any college; English proficiency for native speakers of a language other than English

College transcript

PLO 3A: Discuss issues in speech synthesis, speech recognition, natural language processing, and develop speech recognition, speech synthesis and natural language processing programs;

LING 115 (Introduced) LING 124 (Introduced) LING 165 (Introduced) LING 298 (Advanced)

Homework problems, midterm exam, final exam, parser, speech synthesizer

PLO 3B: Evaluate theories of first and second language acquisition, and second language teaching;

LING 161 (Introduced) LLD 270 (Advanced)

Midterm exam, final exam, mini project, term paper

PLO 3C: Apply linguistic knowledge to address societal issues related to language variation and diversity, and

LING 125 (Introduced) LING 166 (Introduced)

Sociolinguistic data collection and analysis reported in a term paper, midterm exam,

intercultural communication. LLD 271 (Reinforced) final exam PLO 3D: Recognize the relation between language and cognition and evaluate theories of their interaction

LING 161 (Introduced) Midterm exam, final exam, term paper

PLO 3E: Identify phonological, morphological, syntactic and semantic changes in the history of a language, discuss the contribution of social factors to language variation and change, explain the genetic and typological classification of languages, and use the comparative method to reconstruct ancestors of related languages.

LING 101 (Introduced) LING 125 (Reinforced)

Data analysis problems, midterm exam, final exam, term paper

4. Planning – Assessment Schedule

(Please provide a reasonable, multi-‐year assessment plan that specifies when a PLO will be assessed (A), when you might plan to implement changes as a result of your assessment (I), and, if applicable, when you might reassess a given PLO (R) to gauge the impact of the change. All PLOs should be assessed at least once during each program planning cycle (usually 5 years). Add rows and columns as necessary.)

PLO F14 S15 F15 S16 F16 S17 F17 S18 F18 S19 F19 S20 F20 S21 1A LING

101 LING

213 LING 111

✓

1B LING101

LING 213

LING 113

LING 201

✓

1C LING101

LING 112

LING 213

LING 202

✓

1D LING101

LING 213

LING 114

LING 203

✓

1E LING 203

LING 202

LING 201

✓

2A LING 112

LING 213

LING 114

LING 113

LING 203

LING 202

LING 201

✓

2B LING 203

LING 202

LING 201

✓

2C LING 213

LING 203

LLD 250W LING 202

LING 201

✓

2D LING 101

LING 112

LING 115 LING 213

LING 114 LING 111

LING 113

LLD 250W LING 202 LING 125

LING 201

LING 166

LING 161

✓

2E FILES 3A LING

124 LING 165

✓

3B LLD 270

LING 161

✓

3C LLD 271

LING 125

LING 166

✓

3D LING 161

✓

3E LING 101

LING 125

✓

For the first nine semesters, we will conduct assessment by course, assessing all PLOs relevant for each. For the last two semesters, we will conduct assessment by PLO, considering data from all courses relevant. Adjustments will be implemented as needed and their effectiveness will be reassessed accordingly, thus “closing the loop.”

5. Student Experience (PLOs should be described with student-‐friendly terms. Provide a weblink that points to your PLOs. The weblink should be one-‐click away on your department/program homepage. Quick links on the right side panel, menu items on the top or side panel, or explicit links on your department/program homepage are one-‐click away links.)

a. How are your PLOs and the ULGs communicated to students, e.g. websites, syllabi, promotional material,

etc.? PLOs are accessible ‘one-‐click away’ on the side bar of the front page of the departmental website. They are also listed on the appropiate page under Academic Programs http://www.sjsu.edu/linguistics/academic_programs/linguistics/ba_linguistics/ba_goals/index.html. Relevant PLOs also appear in course syllabi and in some courses (LING 114, 202, 203) are mapped onto CLOs and assignments. We are working to map PLOs to CLOs for all courses in the program.

b. Do students have an opportunity to provide feedback regarding your PLOs and/or the assessment

process? If so, please briefly elaborate. Towards the middle and end of each semester, in reviewing for exams, students are encouraged to read and reflect upon the CLOs of each course. We are continuously exploring ways to elevate this exercise to the program level, especially for graduating students.

Part B 6. Assessment Data and Results

(Please briefly describe the data collected for this report (e.g., student papers, posters, presentations, portfolios, assignments, and exams). The instruments used to evaluate student achievement (e.g., rubrics or other criteria) and actual data (e.g., assignment description or instructions) should be attached as appendices.) In Fall 2016 we collected data from LING 114.

LING 114 Introduction to Semantics and Discourse addresses the following PLOs for MA students. It introduces skills that are later advanced in LING 203, for which LING 114 is a prerequisite.

• PLO 1D (Analyze the meaning of words and sentences, elaborate on the role of linguistic and pragmatic context in the interpretation of meaning, and understand the role of theories in the analysis of semantic data),

• PLO 2A (Extract patterns from complex data sets, motivate categorization procedures, and apply learned analytical principles over such patterns),

• PLO 2C (Use library and electronic research sources effectively), and • PLO 2D (Use reading and writing skills effectively).

The instructor, Dr. Svorou, used two short research projects to assess student achievement of the PLOs. Project 1 involved conducting research on the relation of hyponymy and reflecting upon their findings commenting on the nature of hyponymy and on the structure of categories. Students were

instructed to investigate the English expression KITCHEN UTENSIL, first, by utilizing existing categorization by various Internet sites and, second, by analyzing consultants’ rankings of goodness of category membership of one site’s categorization. They were also instructed to discuss their findings in terms of categorization and prototype theory. In Project 2 on imperatives, students were instructed to collect data of English imperative sentences from a corpus, the Internet, television, radio, or news media and to analyze the data in terms of how context contributes to the interpretation of the speech act communicated. Focusing on specific examples from their data set, they were instructed to discuss each speech act communicated along with the contextual factors that contribute to the construction of that speech act. Both projects were evaluated using four criteria and a rubric. (See attached for details) Of the 30 students in the class, 5 were MA LING students. One student did not complete the project and did not finish the class. The data reported here are for 4 students only. The results are summarized in two tables below. It is worth observing that, graduate students as a group perform better than the class average, as can be seen in the attached assessment report for LING 114. Project 1 results of 4 graduate students

Criterion PLO addressed Rubric Average Success rate Quality of data collected 2C 4.87/ 5 97.5% Depth of comparison of Internet data 1D 5.62/6 93.7% Depth of analysis of consultants’ rankings 2A 5.75/6 96% Elegance of presentation 2D 2.87/3 96% Overall 19/20 95.6% Project 2 results of 4 graduate students

Criterion PLO addressed Rubric Average Success Rate Quality of data collected 2C 4.62/5 92.5% Accuracy of analysis 1D 5.62/6 94% Depth of analysis 2A 5.37/6 90% Elegance of presentation 2D 3/3 100%

Overall 18.5/20 92.5%

7. Analysis

(Please discuss the findings and evaluate the achievement of PLOs and/or progress on recommended actions.)

The results lead to the conclusion that graduate students are well prepared to go to the next class, LING 203, for which LING 114 is a prerequisite. Their performance shows that expectations of achievement of the PLOs or the parts of PLOs that LING 114 addresses were by and large met, in many cases exceeded. Considering that the factors that contribute to these results are not all accessible through this assessment, certain areas of improvement have been identified. With regards to Project 2, the outcomes for PLO 2A Extract patterns from complex data sets, motivate categorization procedures, and apply learned analytical principles over such patterns, might need some attention.

8. Proposed changes and goals (if any) (Given your findings, please list the proposed changes and goals for the next academic year and beyond – that is, how will you “close the loop”?)

The recommended action is to expand the in-‐class student experience in LING 114 to include more demonstrations and practice in data analysis, which would presumably lead to better performance in individual projects involving such data analysis.

Part C (This table should be reviewed and updated each year, ultimately providing a cycle-‐long record of your efforts to improve student outcome as a result of your assessment efforts. Each row should represent a single proposed change or goal. Each proposed change should be reviewed and updated yearly so as to create a record of your department’s efforts. Please add rows to the table as needed.) Proposed Changes and Goals Status Update From 2014-‐15: Strategies to discourage class absenteeism and encourage more class participation in LING 112 must be identified and implemented, in accordance with University policy.

In Spring 2016, the instructor of LING 112 (R. Svorou) implemented some changes to the classroom experience by including more class exercises for every class session. It became quite obvious to many of the students that class attendance and class participation was crucial for completing other assignments successfully and class attendance improved. This practice will become now the new norm.

From 2015-‐16: Identify best practices in helping students choose good research topics for their papers

LING 115 in which this action item originated, is only taught in Spring semesters. We will reconsider this item in next year’s report

From 2016-‐17: Expand in-‐class critical evaluation of data analysis in classes that address PLO 2B

Assessment of LING 114 Introduction to Semantics and Discourse

Fall 2016 Submitted by Roula Svorou

Feb. 24, 2017 LING 114 is a required course for BA and MA Linguistics majors and is also an elective for the minor and for MA TESOL students. This course’s Course Learning Objectives, together with other courses in the linguistics programs, address the following Program Learning Outcomes:

Course Learning Outcomes Program Learning Outcomes CLO1: Use acquired basic concepts to identify and explain lexical relations, such as synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, homonymy, ambiguity, polysemy.

PLO 1E: Analyze the meaning of words and sentences, elaborate on the role of linguistic and pragmatic context in the interpretation of meaning, and understand the role of theories in the analysis of semantic data. PLO 2A: Analyze phonetic, phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic, and historical linguistics data.

CLO2: Use acquired basic concepts to identify and explain sentence relations such as entailment, presupposition, synonymy, and contradiction. CLO3: Identify the role that semantic distinctions, such as situation type, tense, aspect, modality, and evidentiality, play in the construction of sentence meaning and state their types. CLO4: Identify thematic roles, discuss various theories of thematic roles, and evaluate their relation to grammatical relations. CLO5: Analyze discourse in terms of the role context plays in its interpretation by identifying types of deixis, categories of information structure, and types of inference, including Gricean implicatures. CLO6: Use elements of speech act theory to analyze discourse. CLO7: Critically evaluate theories of meaning, such as referential versus conceptual approaches to lexical semantics, necessary and sufficient conditions versus prototype approaches and formal versus functional approaches.

PLO 2B: Critically evaluate competing approaches to the analysis of linguistic data.

CLO8: Report on the analysis of linguistic data using appropriate language.

PLO 2D: Use English reading and writing skills effectively to report on research or problem analysis.

CLO9: Use library and electronic research sources effectively

PLO 2C: Use library and electronic research sources effectively.

Assessment of CLOs is achieved with homework problems, two research projects, a midterm and a final exam, each contributing to a student’s final grade as follows:

Assignment Course Learning Outcomes Grades

Homework Problems 1 CLO1, CLO7, CLO8 2%

Homework Problems 2 CLO7, CLO8 2%







Project 1 CLO1, CLO7, CLO8, CLO9 20%

Project 2 CLO5, CLO6, CLO8, CLO9 20%

Midterm Exam CLO1, CLO2, CLO3, CLO7, CLO8 22%

Final Exam CLO4, CLO5, CLO6, CLO7, CLO8 22%

In Fall 2016, 30 students were enrolled in the class of which 25 completed the class. Five students dropped out for various reasons. The average class grade of these 25 students is 88%, B+. The success rate in the various assignments for the class is as follows:

Assessment Tool Average success rate Homework 83% Midterm Exam 84% Final Exam 90% Project 1: Hyponymy 91% Project 2: Imperatives 87% Total 88%

For the assessment of the two research projects, I used rubrics that spell out expectations for each project. The instructions for each project are in the Appendix. Below the rubrics and the results using them are explained. PROJECT 1: HYPONYMY Project 1 addresses CLOs 1, 7, 8 and 9. In summary, it involved conducting research on the relation of hyponymy and reflecting upon the research findings commenting on the nature of hyponymy and on the structure of categories. Students were instructed to investigate the English expression KITCHEN UTENSIL, first, by utilizing existing categorization by various Internet sites and, second, by analyzing consultants’ rankings of goodness of category membership of one site’s categorization. They were also instructed to discuss their findings in terms of categorization and prototype theory. In assessing the project, the following rubric was used:

Project 1: Hyponymy Assessment Rubric

Results The average success rate in each criterion is as follows. What we glean from these data is that students were able to collect ‘good’ hyponymy data from Internet sites and rankings from subjects. This relates to PLO 2C. They were able to compare the hyponymic relations across sites ‘well’ and provided a ‘good’ discussion of the potential factors for the differences and similarities in sites. This relates to PLOs 1E and 2A. They were able to provide a ‘good’ comparison of the ratings of one Internet site’s by consultants and discussed potential factors in differences and similarities in ratings but only few were able to further reflect on categorization theory. This related to PLO 2B. And finally, in terms of organization and writing, in average the papers showed coherent writing devoid of grammatical and spelling errors but rather few showed good organization into relevant sections, even though the instructions included specific information on organization. This relates to PLO 2D.

Criterion D C B A Maximum points

Quality of data collected You have collected hyponymy data from three internet sites. You have collected rankings from 5 consultants.

Below expectations 3.5 points

Adequate data and presentation 4 points

Good data and presentation 4.5 points

Excellent data and presentation 5 points

5

Depth of comparison of Internet data You have compared the hyponymic relations across sites and have discussed potential factors for the differences and similarities

Rudimentary comparison and discussion of contributing factors 4.5 points

Basic comparison and discussion of contributing factors 5 points

Good comparison and discussion of contributing factors 5.5 points

Excellent comparison and discussion of contributing factors 6 points

6

Depth of analysis of rankings You have compared the rankings of one site’s hyponymic network by the consultants, have identified potential factors in differences and similarities, and have discussed them in light of Rosch’s claims.

Some comparison of ratings 3 points

Good comparison of ratings, but no further discussion on factors nor reflection on categorization theory 4 points

Good comparison of ratings, identification of factors but no further reflection on categorization theory 5 points

Excellent comparison, identification of factors and reflection on categorization theory 6 points

6

Elegance of presentation The paper is organized into relevant sections with an introduction and conclusion; the writing is coherent; it is devoid of spelling errors

The paper has poor organizationand there are grammatical and spelling errors 1 point

The paper has poor organization; the writing is coherent; it is devoid of spelling errors 1.5 points

The paper has some organization; the writing is coherent; it is devoid of spelling errors 2 points

The paper is organized into relevant sections with an introduction and conclusion; the writing is coherent; it is devoid of spelling errors 3 points

3

TOTAL POINTS 20

Criterion PLO

addressed Rubric Average

Success rate

Quality of data collected 2C 4.66/ 5 93% Depth of comparison of Internet data 1E, 2A 5.56/6 93% Depth of analysis of consultants’ rankings

2B 5.42/6 90%

Elegance of presentation 2D 2.61/3 87% Overall 18.25/20 91%

The graph below provides more detail on individual student performance.

Hyponymy Project Rubric Results Graph PROJECT 2: IMPERATIVES In Project 2 on imperatives, students were instructed to collect data of English imperative sentences from a corpus, the Internet, television, radio, or news media and to analyze the data in terms of how context contributes to the interpretation of the speech act communicated. Focusing on specific examples from their data set, they were instructed to discuss each speech act communicated along with the contextual factors that contribute to the construction of that speech act. Project 2 specifically address CLOs 5, 6, 8, and 9. In assessing student performance, the following rubric was used: Project 2: Imperative Project Assessment Rubric

Criterion D C B A Maximum points

Quality of data collected You have identified and collected data containing imperatives; the data is representative of different uses




Excelent data and presentation 5 points

5

0 5 10 15 20 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

Quality of data collected

Depth of comparison of Internet data

Depth of Analysis of rankings

Elegance of presentation

of the imperative Accuracy of analysis You have considered the data and accurately categorized them according to the speech act each expresses

Rudimentary categorization of your data according to speech acts 4.5 points

Basic categorization of your data according to speech acts 5 points

Good categorization of your data according to speech acts 5.5 points

Excellent categorization of your data according to speech acts 6 points

6

Depth of analysis You have analyzed and discussed the role of pragmatic and linguistic context in the construction of each speech act category

Rudimentary discussion of any contributing factor 3 points

Basic discussion of the role of pragmatic but no discussion of linguistic context 4 points

Good analysis and discussion of the role of pragmatic and linguistic context 5 points

Excellent analysis and discussion of the role of pragmatic and linguistic context 6 points

6






3

TOTAL POINTS 20 Results The average success rate in each criterion is as follows. What I learned from the rubric results is that, on average, students had some difficulty recognizing imperatives and consequently collecting the right kind of data. The analysis of the imperative data in terms of speech acts was rather ‘good’ but students were only able to go into ‘basic’ discussion of the role of the pragmatic and linguistic context in constructing each speech act category. In terms of presentation and writing, they performed better than in Project 1 in that more students had provided a good organization of the paper in addition to exhibits coherent writing devoid of grammatical and spelling errors.

Criterion PLO addressed Rubric Average Success Rate Quality of data collected 2C 4.46/5 89.2% Accuracy of analysis 1E, 2A 5.44/6 90% Depth of analysis 2B 4.88/6 81%

Elegance of presentation 2D 2.7/3 90% Overall 17.48/20 87%

The graph below provides more detail on individual student performance.

Imperatives Project Rubric Results Graph RECOMMENDATIONS To address some of the gaps that surfaced in terms of student ability to recognize imperatives and their ability to think and talk about the effect of contextual factors in the construction of speech acts, I will organize an in-‐class practice session to demonstrate what is being expected. I will also scaffold the assignment to have students bring their data to class to have them discuss in groups whether the data is in fact imperatives.

0 5 10 15 20 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

Quality of data collected

Accuracy of analysis

Depth of analysis


LING 114 R. Svorou The Hyponymy Project

Due October 3, 2016

Some background The lexical relation of hyponymy, a kind/sort/type of relation, figures prominently in actual language use, as well as in other cognitive activities, such as in searching and in decision-making. For example, we may be unable to retrieve the most accurate term for an item; or, we may know the most accurate term, but because of the communicative situation, we may choose a more general term (red for magenta). In either case, the relation of hyponymy allows us to establish reference for the given term. Lexemes in hyponymic hierarchies constitute lexical categories exhibiting certain structure. Eleanor Rosch and her colleagues in a number of articles (see list below) reporting on experimental work have claimed that lexical categories have prototype structure. Aim of the project The aim of this project is to conduct research on this relation, hyponymy, and to reflect upon your research findings commenting on the nature of hyponymy and the structure of categories. You will investigate the English expression KITCHEN UTENSIL by utilizing existing categorization by various Internet sites and by analyzing consultants’ rankings of category membership. Think of the categorization of the expression by a particular Internet site as a representation of the categorization by a certain group of speakers. This project addresses the following Course Learning Objectives: CLO1: Use acquired basic concepts to identify and explain lexical relations, such as synonymy,

antonymy, hyponymy, homonymy, ambiguity, polysemy. CLO7: Critically evaluate theories of meaning, such as referential versus conceptual approaches

to lexical semantics, necessary and sufficient conditions versus prototype approaches and formal versus functional approaches.

CLO8: Report on the analysis of linguistic data using appropriate language. Your tasks

1) Select three Internet shopping sites, such as Amazon.com, Macys.com, Williams-Sonoma.com, Surlatable.com, Bedbathandbeyond.com, etc.

2) Search each site for KITCHEN UTENSIL and record its hyperonym (e.g., IKEA classifies Kitchen Utensil under COOKING), its taxonomic sisters (e.g., cookware, knifes & chopping boards, bakeware, ovenware, etc.), and its hyponyms (funnel, grater, ice-cream scoop, pasta server, etc.) Create a map of the network of the expression for each site.

3) Compare your findings and comment on similarities and differences in categorization. Consider and comment on factors that may account for categorization differences. Based on the denotation of ‘kitchen utensil,’ do all sites have the same definition of ‘kitchen utensil’?

4) Choose one of your Internet shopping sites and create a list of all the hyponyms of KITCHEN UTENSIL. Comment on your choice. You will now explore the structure of this lexical category by conducting a survey of goodness of exemplars of the expression ‘kitchen utensil’.

5) Prepare an elicitation sheet with a table that lists the hyponyms in one column followed by 6 additional columns, one for each ranking, 1-5. Make five copies.

6) Collect judgments from five non-linguists for the members of the category KITCHEN UTENSIL. Ask them to rank each entry for how good an example of a kitchen utensil each is on a 1 (good example) to 5 (bad example) scale.

7) Compare your consultants’ responses as to the rankings of goodness of exemplar. Comment on the similarities and differences you observe in your data. What factors do you think might have influenced the ratings? What do they reveal about the eating/cooking habits of the consultants?

8) Discuss your findings in light of Rosch’s claims. Focus on features that highly rated hyponyms share and propose a prototype based on those characteristics.

9) Your report should be written with an audience in mind other than your professor who assigned this study to you. Explain in detail what the study is about. It should consist at a minimum of the following sections: a. Introduction b. The Hierarchical Organization of Kitchen Utensil

i. Internet Shopping Site data ii. Comparison of data

iii. Discussion of data c. The Kitchen Utensil Prototype

i. List of Kitchen Utensil hyponyms ii. Profile of your consultants

iii. Summary of rankings iv. Discussion of data

d. Conclusion and suggestions for further study Evaluation This project contributes 20% to the final grade. It will be evaluated based on the following:

• Quality of the data collected, (i.e., whether you’ve collected the right kind of data and in sufficient amounts)

• Depth of analysis (i.e., how much thought you have put into interpreting differences in Internet sites and individuals)

• Elegance of presentation (i.e., general style and organization of your paper) I will use the following rubric. If you are unclear about expectations, I expect that you will contact me with questions.

Criterion D (60%) C (72.5%) B (85%) A (100%) Maximum points

Quality of data collected You have collected hyponymy data from three internet sites.

Below expectations

Adequate data and presentation

Good data and presentation

Excellent data and presentation

5

References (available on Canvas) Rosch, Eleanor. 1975. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: General, 104, 192-233. Rosch, Eleanor. 1978. Principles of categorization. In B. Lloyd and E. Rosch (Ed.) Cognition

and Categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Rosch, Eleanor & Caroline Mervis. 1975. Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure

of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7, 573-605.

You have collected rankings from 5 consultants.

3.5 points

4 points

4.5 points

5 points

Depth of comparison of Internet data You have compared the hyponymic relations across sites and have discussed potential factors for the differences and similarities

Rudimentary comparison and discussion of contributing factors 4.5 points

Basic comparison and discussion of contributing factors 5 points

Good comparison and discussion of contributing factors 5.5 points

Excellent comparison and discussion of contributing factors 6 points

6

Depth of analysis of rankings You have compared the rankings of one site’s hyponymic network by the consultants, have identified potential factors in differences and similarities, and have discussed them in light of Rosch’s claims.

Some comparison of ratings 3 points

Good comparison of ratings, but no further discussion on factors nor reflection on categorization theory 4 points

Good comparison of ratings, identification of factors but no further reflection on categorization theory 5 points

Excellent comparison, identification of factors and reflection on categorization theory 6 points

6

Elegance of presentation The paper is organized into relevant sections with an introduction and conclusion; the writing is coherent; it is devoid of spelling errors





3

Checklist __ I have made used of organizational charts and tables to present my data __ I have commented on the reasons for my choice of three sites. __ I have isolated a list of common items among the three websites __ I have commented on possible reasons for differences among sites __ I have chosen carefully and interviewed 5 consultants __ I have compared the consultant data and have discussed differences __ I have written a conclusion in which I reflect upon my findings and the lexical relation of hyponymy in general.

LING 114 – Fall 2016 R. Svorou

THE IMPERATIVE PROJECT Due: November 30

Background Imperative sentences in English, such as Close the window!, are characterized by a second person subject that is generally missing, a verb in its bare form and, in oral language, a specific intonation. They canonically express the direct speech act of an order, but in certain contexts they may also communicate other speech acts. Aim of the project The aim of this project is to get you to think about the interaction of grammatical structure and context in communicating speech acts. This project addresses the following Course Learning Objectives: CLO5: Analyze discourse in terms of the role context plays in its interpretation by identifying

types of deixis, categories of information structure, and types of inference, including Gricean implicatures.

CLO6: Use elements of speech act theory to analyze discourse. CLO8: Report on the analysis of linguistic data using appropriate language. Your task Your task has several subtasks: data collection, data analysis, and reporting. Data collection You will collect data from a variety of sources on the use of imperatives. You may choose to use a corpus (corpus.byu.edu), the Internet, television, radio, or news media. The amount of data to be collected depends on the types of different uses of imperative sentences you will identify upon initial exploration. For each type you identify, you will find several different examples. Record the examples, together with any contextual information you deem appropriate. Data analysis You will consider your data with an eye on how context contributes to the interpretation of the speech act communicated. Focusing on specific examples from your data set, you will discuss each speech act communicated along with the contextual factors that contribute to the construction of that speech act. Report You will report on your findings in a paper to be turned into Canvas. Your report should contain information about your data and data collecting. It will be further organized according to the kinds of speech acts identified. For each speech act there should be a discussion of the contextual

factors. An introduction explaining the project and the issues and a conclusion summarizing and pointing out imporant findings are also expected. Evaluation Your project contributes 20% to the final grade. It will be evaluated based on:

• Quality of your data (i.e., whether you’ve collected imperatives correctly and have collected representative examples of different uses)

• Accuracy of your analysis (i.e., whether you’ve identified speech acts accurately) • Depth of analysis (i.e., how much thought you have put into identifying the role context

in the construction of each speech act) • Elegance of presentation (i.e., general style and organization of your paper)

I will use the following rubric. NOTE: If you are unclear about expectations, I expect that you will contact me with questions.

Criterion D (60%) C (72.5%) B (85%) A (100%) Maximum points

Quality of data collected You have identified and collected data containing imperatives; the data is representative of different uses of the imperative




Excelent data and presentation 5 points

5

Accuracy of analysis You have considered the data and accurately categorized them according to the speech act each expresses

Rudimentary categorization of your data according to speech acts 4.5 points

Basic categorization of your data according to speech acts 5 points

Good categorization of your data according to speech acts 5.5 points

Excellent categorization of your data according to speech acts 6 points

6

Depth of analysis You have analyzed and discussed the role of pragmatic and linguistic context in the construction of each speech act category

Rudimentary discussion of any contributing factor 3 points

Basic discussion of the role of pragmatic but no discussion of linguistic context 4 points

Good analysis and discussion of the role of pragmatic and linguistic context 5 points

Excellent analysis and discussion of the role of pragmatic and linguistic context 6 points

6


The paper has poor organizationand there are grammatical

The paper has poor organization; the writing is coherent; it is

The paper has some organization; the writing is coherent; it is

The paper is organized into relevant sections with an

3

and spelling errors 1 point

devoid of spelling errors 1.5 points

devoid of spelling errors 2 points

introduction and conclusion; the writing is coherent; it is devoid of spelling errors 3 points

TOTAL POINTS 20

sjsu$annual$program$assessment$form $ … ·...

Documents