Suchergebnisse

Introduction -- What is native advertising? -- Native advertising: where it began, where it's going -- When is native advertising ok and when is it not ok? -- Disclosures, compliance, and legal issues -- How journalists are adapting -- A look at brands that have gone native -- Consumer reaction -- Best practices and recommendations

This professional interest study analyses the near-synonymous verb pairings 'move' and 'go' and 'fire' and 'shoot' as employed in a military English context. Reference data was provided via a specialized military English corpus, which was compiled and measured against the Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English using the Sketch Engine lexicographical tool. In the case of 'move' and 'go,' findings suggest that differences in lexical behavior patterns may be explained primarily in terms of pronoun subject/object sentence structures. While 'move' predominantly features pronouns that act as sentence objects, 'go' is shown to incorporate subject pronouns. Moreover, both verbs are shown to collocate with themselves, conceivably evidencing their use as a motivational tool, a position echoed in a number of Sketch Difference categories. The behavioral differences between the verb-object collocational patterns of 'fire' & shoot,' meanwhile, suggests that the verb form of 'fire' is associated predominantly with the action and directional application of weapons, while 'shoot' primarily serves to indicate specific targets that have/are to be fired upon. The conclusions of the Sketch Difference phase are strengthened by the findings of collocational and concordancing analyses, which also highlight the importance of contextual knowledge in regard to idiomatic language and verb usage.

In recent years, educational research describing the sociological impact of the English language has drawn increasingly on the theories of Pierre Bourdieu to account for the mechanisms by which ELT imbricates in social stratification. Accordingly, this critical study takes as its analytical focus the Bourdieusian concepts of "habitus," "capital," and "field" in an effort to illustrate the structural and cognitive pressures that drive English language education and thus intergenerational social inequality. Specifically, Bourdieu's model is employed to foster a theoretical comprehension of the post-globalization developmental strategies of the Republic of Korea during a period of sustained political and social reform. It has been shown that the interplay between Korea and internationalization has resulted in the identification of English as a resource crucial to the accumulation of capital within the transnational arena. This conflation of internationalization and Englishization acts not only as an instrument for responding to global pressures but a vehicle for elite privilege reinforcement, sustaining circular forms of socioeconomic inequality on the basis of language proficiency – to the advantage of the agentive forces behind the local dissemination of English and the disadvantage of broader subaltern populations. As a consequence, EFL instrumentalization within the Korean sociolinguistic field is illustrative of the measures by which dominant classes propagate self-aggrandizing values and norms via the manipulation of cultural capital, thereby achieving the hegemonic subjugation of subordinate groups via structural and ideological mechanisms.

This article offers a `cognitive map' of interpretations of chance, within the Weberian paradigm, as revealed by twentieth-century writers from the United Kingdom, the United States and France. It notes the tension between the opposing definitions of chance as `residue' and chance as an important explanatory element in social development models. It describes how the predominant view of chance as `residue' between the 1940s and the 1960s was challenged from the 1950s and has been replaced, for many writers since the 1980s by the acceptance of the importance of chance for understanding the indeterminate nature of reality. While chance remains undertheorised in sociology the writings of a number of key authors have been used to suggest crucial features which distinguish social chance from other forms of chance and enable the former to be defined more carefully. Social chance, it is suggested is `unforeseen chance'. It consists of two main categories: `chance impacts' and `chance outcomes of interaction', the latter category, itself, made up of two sub-types: `agonistic chance' and `aggregated chance'. The article concludes with brief references to developing agreements among sociologists over appropriate levels of analysis, conditions and outcomes associated with the analysis of social chance.