Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-8wtlm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-14T15:09:55.152Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Linguistics in General Education: Expanding Linguistics Course Offerings through Core Competency Alignment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Katie Welch  and
Marco Shappeck
Katie Welch*
Affiliation:
University of North Texas at Dallas
Marco Shappeck*
Affiliation:
University of North Texas at Dallas
*
[katie@welcheducation.com]
[marco.shappeck@untdallas.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Currently, linguistics (LING) courses are underrepresented in general education at most US universities. As general education requirements undergo reform in higher education, the field of linguistics has an opportunity to assume a more central role. We argue that linguistics courses aligned with the key competencies of critical thinking, information literacy, and inquiry and analysis are well positioned to augment general education curricula, particularly at institutions that utilize common student learning objectives. An innovative The Language of Now core course and its signature assignment, a learner-centered research project on the use of the text-messaging discourse marker lol, illustrate how the methods used in linguistic inquiry are amenable to a range of standards that support general education goals.

Keywords

general educationcore curriculumcommon SLOscourse alignmentundergraduate linguistics coursesLOLsociolinguistics assignmentinquiry-based pedagogy

Information

Type
Teaching Linguistics
Information
Language , Volume 96 , Issue 2 , June 2020 , pp. e59 - e76
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adamic, Lada, Devlin, Mike; and Weinsberg, Udi. 2015. The not-so-universal language of laughter. FACEBOOK Research, August 6, 2015. Online: https://research.fb.com/the-not-so-universal-language-of-laughter/.Google Scholar
Council, American Trustees, of and Alumni, . 2010. What will they learn? A survey of core requirements at our nation's colleges and universities. Washington, DC: American Council of Trustees and Alumni. Online: https://www.goacta.org/images/download/what_will_they_learn_2010-11.pdf.Google Scholar
Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). 2009a. Critical thinking VALUE rubric. Online: https://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/critical-thinking.Google Scholar
Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). 2009b. Information literacy VALUE rubric. Online: https://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/information-literacy.Google Scholar
Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). 2009c. Inquiry and analysis VALUE rubric. Online: https://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/inquiry-analysis.Google Scholar
Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). 2016. Recent trends in general education design, learning outcomes, and teaching approaches: Key findings from a survey among administrators at AAC&U member institutions. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges & Universities. Online: https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/2015_Survey_Report2_GEtrends.pdf.Google Scholar
Bailey, Thomas, Jaggars, Shanna Smith; and Jenkins, Davis. 2015. Redesigning America's community colleges: A clearer path to student success. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674425934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, Naomi S. 2004. See you online: Gender issues in college student use of instant messaging. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 23. 397–423. DOI: 10.1177/0261927X04269585.10.1177/0261927X04269585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, Doyle. 2017. VALUE rubrics: Valuable tools for improving teaching and learning. Part 1: Guiding questions to consider. Online: http://leaptx.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/White-Paper_VALUE-Rubrics-Valuable-Tools-for-Improving-Teaching-and-Learning-Part-1.pdf.Google Scholar
Carter, Ronald, McCarthy, Michael, Mark, Geraldine; and O'Keeffe, Anne. 2011. Discourse markers (so, right, okay). English grammar today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cassuto, Leonard. 2018. Finally, a model for disciplines to track Ph.D. career outcomes. The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 31, 2018. Online: https://www.chronicle.com/article/Finally-a-Model-for/244952.Google Scholar
Chowdhry, Amit. 2015. Facebook says ‘haha’ is popular and ‘LOL’ is outdated. Forbes, August 17, 2015. Online: https://www.forbes.com/sites/amitchowdhry/2015/08/17/facebook-haha-lol/#18cfba367ff4.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth, and van Bergen, Geertje. 2018. Discourse markers as turn-transition devices: Evidence from speech and instant messaging. Discourse Processes 55(1). 47–71. DOI: 10.1080/0163853X.2016.1198136.10.1080/0163853X.2016.1198136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derks, Daantje, Bos, Arjan E. R.; and Grumbkow, Jasper von. 2007. Emoticons and social interaction on the internet: The importance of social context. Computers in Human Behavior 23. 842–49. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2004.11.013.10.1016/j.chb.2004.11.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glenn, Phillip, and Holt, Elizabeth (eds.) 2013. Studies of laughter in interaction. London: Bloomsbury.10.5040/9781472542069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanstedt, Paul. 2018. What can go wrong when everything is right? PeerReview 20(3). Online: https://www.aacu.org/peerreview/2018/Summer/RealityCheck.Google Scholar
Holt, Elizabeth. 2010. The last laugh: Shared laughter and topic termination. Journal of Pragmatics 42. 1513–32. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.01.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, Elizabeth. 2011. On the nature of ‘laughables’: Laughter as a response to overdone figurative phrases. Pragmatics 21(3). 393–410. Online: https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/elanguage/pragmatics/article/view/3649.html.Google Scholar
Holt, Elizabeth. 2012. Using laugh responses to defuse complaints. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(4). 430–48. DOI: 10.1080/08351813.2012.726886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaschik, Scott. 2016. Distribution plus. Inside Higher Ed, January 19, 2016. Online: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/01/19/survey-colleges-finds-distribution-requirements-remain-popular-new-features.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1984. On the organization of laughter in talk about troubles. Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, ed. by Atkinson, J. Maxwell and Heritage, John, 346–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Larson, Sarah. 2015. Hahaha vs. hehehe. The New Yorker, April 30, 2015. Online: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/hahaha-vs-hehehe.Google Scholar
Linguistic Society of America. 2017. The state of linguistics in higher education: Annual report 2016. 4th edn. Online: http://www.linguisticsociety.org/sites/default/files/Annual_Report_2016.pdf.Google Scholar
Macaluso, Beth Anne. 2015. RIP ‘lol‘? Facebook data suggests the expression is on its way out. Mental Floss, August 10, 2015. Online: http://mentalfloss.com/article/67209/rip-lol-facebook-data-suggests-expression-its-way-out.Google Scholar
McWhorter, John. 2013a. Txtng is killing language. JK!!! TED Talk, February 2013. Online: https://www.ted.com/talks/john_mcwhorter_txtng_is_killing_language_jk.Google Scholar
McWhorter, John. 2013b. Opinion: LOL isn't funny anymore. CNN, April 30, 2013. Online: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/30/opinion/mcwhorter-lol/index.html.Google Scholar
Morgan, James. 2011. Why did LOL infiltrate the language? BBC News, April 8, 2011. Online: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-12893416.Google Scholar
National Association of Colleges and Employers. 2018. Job outlook 2018. Online: https://www.naceweb.org/about-us/press/2017/the-key-attributes-employers-seek-on-students-resumes/.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 2012. Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century, ed. by Pellegrino, James W. and Hilton, Margaret L.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. DOI: 10.17226/13398.Google Scholar
O'Neill, Brittney. 2010. LOL! (laughing online): An investigation of non-verbal communication in computer mediated exchanges. Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria 20. 117–23. Online: https://journals.uvic.ca/index.php/WPLC/article/view/5675.Google Scholar
Petitjean, Cécile, and González-Martínez, Esther. 2015. Laughing and smiling to manage trouble in French-language classroom interaction. Classroom Discourse 6(2). 89–106. DOI: 10.1080/19463014.2015.1010556.10.1080/19463014.2015.1010556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petitjean, Cécile, and Morel, Etienne. 2017. ‘Hahaha’: Laughter as a resource to manage WhatsApp conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 110. 1–19. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.001.10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Provine, Robert R., Spencer, Robert J.; and Mandell, Darcy L.. 2007. Emotional expression online: Emoticons punctuate website text messages. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 26(4). 299–307. DOI: 10.1177/0261927X06303481.10.1177/0261927X06303481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, Terrel (ed.) 2009. Assessing outcomes and improving achievement: Tips and tools for using the rubrics. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.Google Scholar
Sharp, Marybeth Drechsler, Komives, Susan R.; and Fincher, Justin. 2011. Learning outcomes in academic disciplines: Identifying common ground. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice 48(4). 481–504. DOI: 10.2202/1949-6605.6246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A., and Denis, Derek. 2008. Linguistic ruin? Lol! Instant messaging and teen language. American Speech 83(1). 3–34. DOI: 10.1215/00031283-2008-001.10.1215/00031283-2008-001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. 2018. Texas core curriculum. Online: http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/PDF/10751.PDF?CFID=92043165&CFTOKEN=37837595.Google Scholar
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. 2019. Table of foundational component areas. Online: https://reportcenter.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/data/waar-table-of-foundational-component-areas/.Google Scholar
Wiggins, Grant, and McTighe, Jay. 2005. Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, Ray. 2007. Managing linguistic incompetence as a delicate issue in aphasic talk-in-interaction: On the use of laughter in prolonged repair sequence. Journal of Pragmatics 39(3). 542–69. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.010.10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, Simeon J. 1996. Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing: A corpus based study. Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives, ed. by Herring, Susan C., 29–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.39.05yatCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Welch and Shappeck supplementary material

Welch and Shappeck supplementary material
Download Welch and Shappeck supplementary material(File)
File 532.8 KB