Swearing insertion In linguistics, we study all kinds of language, and that includes swearing. Swearing isn’t appropriate in every situation, but it’s defnitely appropriate in a linguistics class because swear words show some interesting syntactic behaviour that other words don’t. So if you’re curious about the syntax of swearing, this might be the question for you. “****** Shit Up” is a Chrome extension that judiciously inserts ****** and ******ing into whatever webpage you’re reading. But are there rules for ******ing insertion? Take a look at the output on the extension’s page (or better still, install it yourself). • Does there seem to be any pattern to how the program decides to insert ****** and ******ing? Do some analysis with regard to syntactic patterns (think in terms of parts of speech). • Are there any places where the program inserts ****** or ******ing that don’t sound quite right? • How would you help the developer to improve the program? Give a recipe for ******ing insertion. Marking Criteria for Part B questions I hesitate to give explicit marking criteria for the Part B questions. Every question is kind of different, some especially so. I like to encourage creativity in the range of topics you can tackle, and a one-size-fts-all grading metric may not be the most appropriate for every question. On the other hand, you need to know what to expect when you answer a question. So while this won’t be an overly-specifc criteria set, here are some things you should cover in your Part B questions. You could not cover these explicitly, and still do a good job, but these items should be on your mind as you're writing. Obviously this won’t ft for some of the questions. Treat these areas as a guide. Te research question. Give some background. What are you looking at? How does it relate to sociolinguistics? Does this relate to anything we’ve discussed in class? Te literature. Has anyone else written anything about this before? What did they say? Are you taking this question farther, or tackling it in a different way? Your method. A discussion of how you’re going to examine the question. Why is this a good way of dealing with it? Are there any limitations, or things you’re not going to cover? Your results. What did you fnd? In some cases, showing your statistical work would be appropriate here. Some analysis and discussion would defnitely be appropriate. How did it go? Would you do anything differently if you were to try this question again? Sometimes it’s appropriate to discuss how this relates to your teaching. A good answer (about 14 points) will handle these questions capably. It uses terms and concepts we’ve discussed in class. Where there are claims, they’re backed up by evidence. It goes about as far as we did in class, but not much farther. Te basic idea is there. Te author shows a command of Standardised English, and is able to explain their view. A great answer (16 points or more) will look at the issue in a new and interesting way. It’s fresh and insightful, and it raises more interesting questions in this area. It seems aware of what’s going on in linguistics, and cites relevant work as support. It advances the topic a little bit, and says something smart. Tere are sometimes different ways of explaining things, and the author seems to get this, discussing multiple points of view. In some cases, the work could be publishable if it were expanded a bit. A poor answer (12 points or less) gets it a bit wrong sometimes, skates over some of the issues involved, and seems unaware of concepts we’ve discussed. It seems lacking in thought and refection. Tere are some obvious plot holes, or questions that haven’t been answered. Assertions are made without evidentiary support.