User:Emily.finley/sandbox
 | This is a user sandbox of Emily.finley. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section. |
Article Evaluation: Scalar Implicature
- Questions to think about (from Training):
- Content, Tone, Sources Talk Page
- Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic?
- Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
- What else could be improved?
- Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
- Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
- What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- Questions to Answer
- Give the name of the article that you are evaluating: Scalar Implicature
- Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Everything is relevant, but the awkward/inconsistent use of italics threw me off. It was also odd that they mentioned the logical connection between 'some' and 'not all', as that would be more semantics. The paragraph about the experiment would come better after the paragraph about Griceans. Also, this paragraph could be expanded upon, maybe to include other theories as well.
- Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The only framework that it referenced is Gricean theory, which is fairly uneven considering the amount of theories that are out there.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Again, there is only reference to Gricean Theory. Interestingly, in the source that would open, multiple authors are cited.
- Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? The links do not work for all of the sources. The only one that does load doesn't seem to have a clear to connection to what is being cited. It also is a presentation and not a journal article or book, which leads me to believe it isn't the most credible source to be used here.
- Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? It seems as though all of the facts are given a citation, but as previously discussed not all of these sources are available. It is difficult to evaluate whether or not they are reliable references or if they are neutral.
- Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? Nothing seems outdated, but there is plenty that could be added. In addition to this, I think it could be reorganized to better the presentation of information.
- Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is parts of the WikiProjects for Philosophy and Linguistics. Its rated as Start-class quality and low-importance.
- How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? I'm not really sure how to answer this question.
Backchannel edit ideas
1) Using headings and having multiple sections
2) Moving who it was coined by to after the initial introduction
3) Finding better sources and sources for areas that have none
copy/pasted from David's sandbox
Backchannel edit ideas - Emily
1) Using headings and having multiple sections - I'm noticing there's really no enough information for this, but does the one break I proposed seem nice enough to split up the information?
2) Moving who it was coined by to after the initial introduction - moved
3) Finding better sources and sources for areas that have none - I tried finding a source for the first when, but I was unable to find one discussing what make sup a backchannel. Will continue looking tomorrow.
What exactly is the above research being included for? I'm a bit confused of the purpose of it
In
The term was coined by Victor Yngve in 1970, in the following passage: "In fact, both the person who has the turn and his partner are simultaneously engaged in both speaking and listening. This is because of the existence of what I call the back channel, over which the person who has the turn receives short messages such as 'yes' and 'uh-huh' without relinquishing the turn."
Definition and Use[edit]
The term "backchannel" was designed to imply that there are two channels of communication operating simultaneously during a conversation. The predominant channel is that of the speaker who directs primary speech flow. The secondary channel of communication (or backchannel) is that of the listener which functions to provide continuers or assessments, defining a listener's comprehension and/or interest.
Due to research development in recent years,[
Backchannel communication is present in all cultures and languages, though frequency and use may vary. Confusion or distraction can occur during an intercultural encounter if participants from both parties are not accustomed to the same backchannel norms.
Recent Research[edit]
More recent research has pushed back on the notion of back channels, in which the listener's role is merely to receive information provided by the speaker. Bavelas, Coates, and Johnson put forth evidence that listeners' responses help shape the content of the speaker. They grouped acknowledgment tokens into two categories: generic and specific. Generic responses could be considered back channels and would include mm hm and yeah, while specific responses would involve a reaction to the given context. Examples might include Oh! or a facial display of concern.
They transcribed students telling a fellow participant about a close call experience that they had had. With one group of participants, they had the listener perform another task to distract them from the story being told. The researchers asked independent reviewers to code the verbal and visual responses of the narration events as generic or specific. They also asked other independent reviewers to gauge the quality of the narration in each case.
They concluded that the responses from the distracted listeners included significantly fewer specific responses than from the undistracted listeners. But perhaps their most interesting finding was that quality of the narration was dramatically lower when the listener was distracted. Their basic contention was that listeners are co-narrators and help the storyteller in his or her narration.