Linguistics at School: The uk linguistics Olympiad

1. What is a linguistics olympiad?

The LO movement follows the path which has already been established for mathematics and some of the physical sciences, and which is embodied at the international level by a dozen competitions ranging from the International Mathematical Olympiad to the International Astronomy Olympiad (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Science_Olympiad). Generally, the competition tests the mental skills and knowledge found in the corresponding school subject, but some subjects, including linguistics, are not taught at school so the olympiads cannot assume any ‘technical’ knowledge. In the case of linguistics, this principle rules out not only questions on the grand issues that divide us at a research level, but also technical notations and tools of analysis such as syntactic trees or the International Phonetic Alphabet. Although these exclusions are important, they actually leave a vast amount of relatively concrete but challenging material which is perfect for a school-level competition.

The best way to explain LOs is through examples of past test questions, such as those in the 2012 test paper for the Foundation level of the UKLO. (See also Derzhanski and Payne 2010 for more examples. The notion of ‘levels’ of difficulty will be explained in the next section.) This paper can be found on the UKLO website together with the complete version of all the Foundation-level questions, their authors, their solutions and (in some cases) a commentary (see http://www.uklo.org/?page_id=1213). In every question, the starting point is a collection of raw data, typically (though not necessarily) from a very unfamiliar language. The tasks require students to go beyond these raw data by working out the underlying patterns and then performing some kind of test of their understanding. We start with Question 1, on Yolmo.
1. Being with it in Yolmo (5 marks)

Yolmo is a Tibeto-Burman language spoken in Nepal by around 10,000 people. The sentences below come from a small dialect spoken by around 500 people in the district of Lamjung. The characters  and  represent sounds like ‘t’ or ‘d’ but with the tongue-tip curled back. Below is a list of sentences in Lamjung Yolmo with their English translations.

ngà ngàki ádzi nyímu lú lènke	I sing a song with my sister
ngà ngàki kéeki lú lènke	I sing a song with my voice
ngà ángaki kwèla nyòke	I buy clothes with money
ngà ngàki áma nyímu kwèla nyòke	I buy clothes with my mother
ngà ngàki kángbaki òke	I walk with my legs
ngà ngàki khí nyímu òke	I walk with my dog
ngà ngàki làkpaki tó sake	I eat rice with my hand

b. áma

d. kwèla nyòke

e. ngàki kéeki
Translate the following into Yolmo:
f. I eat rice with my sister.

g. I buy clothes with my dog. (Hint: Assume that I exchange my dog for the clothes.)

Question 2 is about a much less ‘exotic’ language, Danish, but requires a fairly sophisticated semantic analysis in which competitors must realize that Danish counts some numbers on the base of twenty rather than ten, and names some numbers as ‘halfway’ to the next twenty-based number. For example, they have to analyze syvoghalvtreds (meaning ‘57’) as ‘7 plus halfway to 3 x 20’. Once again the task for competitors is to go beyond the basic data by translating in both directions.

Here are some examples of Danish numbers:

4 = fire

6 = seks

20 = tyve

30 = tredive

40 = fyrre

57 = syvoghalvtreds

60 = tres

78 = otteoghalvfjerds

80 = firs

b. seksoghalvtreds

c. fireogtres

d. femoghalvfjerds

e. syvoghalvfems
What is the Danish for these figures:
f. 8

g. 27

i. 65

Below is a leaflet in Welsh, with English translations, about the library service in the Welsh county Gwynedd. Use the leaflet to answer the questions about Welsh.

What is the Welsh for the following?

1. 
   books
   
2. 
   library (give two alternatives)
   
3. 
   libraries
   
4. 
   Wales
   
5. 
   Gwynedd (give two alternatives)
   
6. 
   within
   
7. 
   large
   
8. 
   computers (give two alternatives)
   
9. 
   requests
   
10. 
    book
    
11. 
    free books
    
12. 
    large magazine
    
13. 
    within Gwynedd
    
14. 
    on computers
    
15. 
    any books
    

(INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE)

Haitian Creole is a language spoken by about 10 million people in Haiti. It is based largely on French and some African languages. In the spelling, the combinations an, en, and on denote nasal vowels. The table below contains nouns in Haitian Creole combined with definite articles, meaning ‘the’. The English translation is just for the noun itself; so kòl la means ‘the necktie’, and kòl means ‘necktie’.

kòl la	necktie
jaden an	garden
lanp lan	lamp
kouto yo	knives
mayi a	maize
lanmou an	love
ri a	street
pant lan	slope
manman an	mother
kabann nan	bed
sant yo	odours
lèt la	letter
sans lan	sense
telefòn nan	telephone
kò a	body
mi an	wall
fanm nan	woman
joumou an	pumpkin
ban an	bench, ban
kay la	house
fanmi an	family
pon an	bridge
liv yo	books
dam nan	lady

1	lalin ?	the moon
2	pitimi ?	the millet
3	muzik ?	the music
4	maldamou ?	the love-sickness
5	kap ?	the kite
6	radyo ?	the radio
7	vant ?	the belly
8	tan ?	the time
9	?	the knife
10	?	the bodies
11	?	the odour
12	?	the book

The last question is about the inflectional morphology of Esperanto. This requires a very sophisticated semantic analysis in which a ‘past-present-future’ contrast applies both to the deictic time and to a secondary time, each realized at a different place in the verb’s morphology. Another complication is that these tense contrasts combine with a voice contrast between active and passive. Like many of the harder questions, this favours language-literate students who have some experience thinking about tense and voice; but in principle it can be solved from scratch by good pattern-spotters who can think independently. As mentioned earlier, the LO only tests analytical thinking skills, so it only presupposes the knowledge of language that may be expected of any school pupil; but in the UK, the fact is that some schools teach a lot more grammar than others do, so those who know about grammar are at an advantage.

Esperanto is an artificial language created by Ludwig Lazarus Zamenhof in 1887 and designed for international communication. Estimates of the number of active and fluent speakers range from 100,000 to 2,000,000 people all around the world, with a few hundred native speakers. The letters ‘ĝ’ and ‘ĉ’ are pronounced like ‘g’ and ‘ch’ in the words ‘gem’ and ‘chase’.

1. La kapro manĝintas.	The goat has eaten.
2. La hundo ĉasis la katon.	The dog chased the cat.
3. La kapro manĝis.	The goat ate.
4. La kapro manĝitos.	The goat will have been eaten.
5. La kapron ĉasintis la hundo.	The dog had chased the goat.
6. La kapro manĝas.	The goat eats.
7. La kapro manĝotas.	The goat is going to be eaten.
8. La kato manĝantas.	The cat is eating.
9. La kapro manĝontis.	The goat was going to eat.
10. La kapro manĝintos.	The goat will have eaten.
11. La kato ĉasas la hundon.	The cat chases the dog.

2. La kapro manĝitas.

3. La kato ĉasitis.
Translate the following sentences into Esperanto:
4. The goat was eating.

5. The dog is being eaten.

6. The dog will chase the goat.
The problems can be very much harder than this. For one thing, as the difficulty across competition levels increases, more emphasis is put on providing not only correct answers, but also a correct and clear formulation of the underlying rules; and for another, the solutions become increasingly hard to find. For instance, the hardest question in the 2012 UK competition was undoubtedly the Advanced-level one about the script called Phags-pa created on the orders of the Mongol Emperor Kublai Khan and exemplified in a two-page extract of a poem (shown in Figure 2 below). This was accompanied by a transcription of the same poem, which is less helpful than might at first be assumed because the poem in Phags-pa script is just part of the transcribed poem. Worse still, it’s not at all clear how the lines and rows of the two versions match up. Very few of even the brightest of the UK competitors found their way into this problem.
(INSERT FIGURE 2 HERE)
These examples illustrate the main characteristics of a linguistics olympiad, as a test of competitors’ ability to think analytically about raw linguistic data-sets. Both the data and the tasks will remind any linguistics lecturer of homework problems they set for their students, so there is no doubt that they involve linguistics; but the crucial difference is that the competitors are not university students, but school pupils.

2. The UK Linguistics Olympiad

We would like to focus on five distinctive characteristics of the UKLO:

• 
  its recent creation and rapid growth
  
• 
  the dominance of fee-paying schools
  
• 
  the wide age-range of competitors
  
• 
  the use of university students to mark scripts
  
• 
  the use of sponsors rather than state funding.
  

One of the distinctive characteristics of UKLO is our very rapid growth. In our first year (2010) we had 562 competitors – a number which surprised us – but this rose to 1165 in 2011 and to 1912 in 2012. Clearly the competition is meeting a need. We have also been able to use a number of existing professional networks to advertise the LO, and to build a list of school teachers who have expressed an interest in it and who act as our links to schools that provide our competitors (for registered schools, see http://www.uklo.org/?page_id=596). The main value of this list is to provide a channel for emails through which we can not only announce organisational details, but also invite feedback from teachers; indeed, it is through this list that we have recruited some of our committee members.

What kind of teachers do we attract? The largest single category consists of foreign-language teachers in state-funded schools, and there is no doubt that we have benefited from the fact that such teachers are well networked, thanks to an effective professional association (Association for Language Learning; see http://www.all-languages.org.uk/) and a government-funded network (see https://www.routesintolanguages.ac.uk/), both of which have been supportive of the LO. However, we have also benefited from the equally effective networking for foreign-language teachers in fee-paying schools, as well as a large email list for teachers of the examination in English Language taken at ‘Advanced level’, i.e., in the last two years before university. In addition to teachers of foreign languages and English Language, we have recruited smaller numbers of teachers from classics, mathematics and a handful of other subjects.

The 300 schools that these teachers represent are equally varied, ranging from large and distinguished fee-paying (‘public’) schools such as Manchester Grammar School and Eton College to state-funded inner-city comprehensive schools and sixth-form colleges. The split between fee-paying and state-funded schools is significant in a number of ways. On the one hand, we could be concerned about the dominance of fee-paying schools at every level in the competition: competitors from fee-paying schools outnumber those from state-funded schools three to one, even though fee-paying schools educated only 7% of all pupils in 2010 (The Independent Schools Directory 2012). On the other hand, the pattern we see is broadly replicated in other science olympiads. It does appear that teachers in fee-paying schools are allowed, or encouraged, to range beyond the confines of the curriculum, while teachers in state-funded schools have less freedom, not least because of the pressures of ‘league tables’ (on which schools compete with each other). Moreover, we certainly would not have expanded as fast as we have done without the enthusiasm of fee-paying schools, and without their concrete support both in terms of time and money. The fact is that fee-paying schools are very significant players in the UK’s educational scene, and are highly relevant to the LO in the UK.

Another peculiarity of our LO is the broad age-range of students that we attract thanks to an early decision to offer the competition at different levels of difficulty. The two levels that we offered in the first two years expanded in 2012 to three levels: Foundation, Intermediate and Advanced. Any school student may be entered at any level, but we recommend Foundation level for Key Stage 3 (that is, Years 7-9, i.e. age 12 to 14), Intermediate for Key Stage 4 (Years 10 and 11) and Advanced for Key Stage 5 (Years 12 and 13, the last years before university). Our youngest groups of competitors are in Year 7, which is the first year of secondary education – i.e. age 11-12; and in 2012 we had 93 competitors in this age group. Many of these competitors work in groups rather than singly, and according to our statistics they only achieve quite modest scores (see http://www.uklo.org/?page_id=1257), but this isn’t important. What matters is that (according to their teachers) they enjoy the challenge and are keen for more, so if these youngsters take part in the LO every year until they leave school (in Year 13), they will have experienced the full olympiad seven times, not to mention any relevant training they receive in between.

In Round 1 of our LO, competitors at different levels take different tests, but the questions overlap considerably. From a pool of nine questions (counting the Welsh/Dutch alternatives as a single question), each paper contains five: questions 1-5 for the Foundation paper, 3-7 for Intermediate and 5-9 for Advanced. This means that competitors at lower levels get a taste of the next level up, and, of course, the overlap reduces the number of questions needed – an important consideration. Another benefit for us is that we can leave schools to mark all their own scripts (with detailed guidance on marking) for the Foundation and Intermediate levels, leaving just the Advanced papers for us to mark centrally – as we have to because this level selects the national winners, the sixteen competitors who will be invited to attend Round 2, a residential weekend where we combine some training with a further test to select the team of four to represent the UK at the International Linguistics Olympiad (see http://www.ioling.org/).

Marking is a serious issue for us because the scripts are handwritten so they have to be marked by hand. The marking operation has to be financially cost-free so all our markers are volunteers, mostly located in university linguistics departments. Some markers volunteer as individuals, but many are students who take part in events called ‘markathons’, where a member of staff recruits student volunteers (and in some cases departmental colleagues) for an afternoon’s supervised marking, typically fueled by pizzas funded by the department. This activity is not merely an effective way of marking large numbers of scripts; it also has the important benefit of involving university students and teachers in the olympiad, thereby generating a great deal of enthusiasm which may pay off in the future.

The final issue is funding. Like the markers, the committee are all volunteers, but we do have some significant expenses which we can’t avoid. The first is the residential weekend for sixteen competitors, which is hosted by a university but heavily subsidized by UKLO; and the second is the UK team’s visit to the International Linguistics Olympiad. These recurrent expenses amount to about £5,000 per year. Since one of our main aims is to recruit state-funded schools, and especially those in poor areas, we offer the competition free to both schools and competitors, so we have to raise funds elsewhere. Given the way that the UK funds its education system, we cannot apply to central government so we have to rely on sponsors. Fortunately, this has not been a serious problem as we have found generous sponsors both in the academic world – three professional associations for linguistics and the British Academy – and among the schools, including professional associations such as the Independent Schools Modern Languages Association. We have been greatly encouraged by the level of generosity and enthusiasm shown by these bodies.

To summarise, then, the UK olympiad builds on the UK’s peculiarities – its very competitive fee-paying schools, its relatively small size (which allows a residential weekend for all competitors at Round 2), and the enthusiasm and generosity of both schools and academics. However, we have not mentioned one other important fact: that our language is English. This fact has proved crucial for solving one of the biggest challenges of the LO, which is providing suitably challenging problems. We return to this issue in the next section.

3. Historical and international context

By the early 2000s there were enough national LOs to allow international competition. The first International Linguistics Olympiad (usually abbreviated, surprisingly, to IOL) was held in 2003 in Bulgaria and attracted teams from six countries: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, The Netherlands, and Russia. Since then the IOL has expanded both numerically and geographically, so when the 2011 competition was held in the USA there were competitors from 19 countries (see http://ioling.org/history/).The UK is looking forward to hosting the 2013 IOL in Manchester.

The international history of the LO movement reveals considerable variation from country to country. As far as aims are concerned, the main variation is in the balance between language and mathematics. In some countries, linguistics is closely related to mathematics, and it is worth noting that the first LO in 1965 was guided by a distinguished mathematician. This mathematical component often surfaces as a concern for computational analyses such as the ordering of rules, and a general orientation towards the formal skills that encourage hardware and software firms to offer sponsorship. In these countries the competition’s name may include the word computational, as in the USA’s title North American Computational Linguistics Olympiad. In other countries, including the UK, the emphasis is much more strongly on language structure, so we always choose problems that illustrate some general structural characteristic of language rather than more abstract formal patterning. This choice is driven by our general aim, which is to encourage interest in language and its structure. It may be relevant that none of our sponsors are computer firms.

One international development which has proved particularly important for the UK has been the English Language Computational Linguistics Olympiad (ELCLO), which is based in the USA and organised by an American academic (with a background in Bulgaria), Dragomir Radev. This is a consortium of LOs in English-speaking countries that share problems with each other. As of 2012, the countries concerned are the USA, Canada, Australia, Ireland and the UK. Although we in the UK contribute some problems, most of the problems that we use were created by other members of ELCLO, which makes an enormous difference to our national competition. Without ELCLO, it would probably have been impossible to start a competition at all, let alone to provide the high level of stimulation and challenge that we think we offer.

4. Benefits for schools

Before focussing on linguistics, it may be worth considering why UK schools do olympiads, or any sort of academic competitions, at all. In most subjects, school students are not short of opportunities to test out their abilities through the public examination system. In fact, it is often said that school students in the UK are over-tested; public examinations, plus the league tables and value-added measures that go with them, are seen to dominate the last 4 or 5 years of secondary schooling, and some would take the view that domination by examinations is at the expense of real education. So why take on more examinations in the form of olympiads and the like?

The answer has to be that academic competitions can provide different challenges from public examinations -- different in that they are not so bound up with carefully specified syllabuses, and different in that they can be more intellectually challenging. Three decades of rising grades in the UK means that the public examinations in most subjects are widely believed to be too easy for the most able (see http://tinyurl.com/dyzzg6t). Academic competitions at a national level can provide this stretch; and at an international level they allow the very brightest school students to measure themselves against their peers from around the world.

In linguistics, of course, part of this reasoning does not hold: linguistics is not a school subject in the UK, though it appears, minimally, within some English Language specifications. Furthermore, in the UK there is little formal teaching about language and most school students know very few linguistics concepts or terminology such as ‘relative clause’ or ‘finite’; even basic notions such as ‘syllable’ and ‘preposition’ may be unfamiliar. So though the UKLO does provide a challenge for the most able, it is doing much more than that: it is providing a framework, a rationale, a reward for beginning to engage with linguistics as a discipline. Moreover, the structure that the UKLO has evolved (in a very short time) gives scope for the young and completely inexperienced in the Foundation paper, allows progress in the Intermediate level, and makes demands on the most able in the Higher level and then in Round 2.

Though there is no linguistics tradition in UK schools, the success of the UK‘s LO derives in large measure from the enthusiasm of teachers. There are clearly many teachers who see languages as exciting, and the study of language as an inherently interesting phenomenon. In particular there are many modern foreign language teachers whose interests go beyond the particular languages they teach -- and who manage to convey this to their students. Among the many positive comments from teachers received by UKLO, the words used most frequently are ‘fun’ and ‘enjoyment’. Perhaps it is the very fact that linguistics olympiad problems are so very different from what students ordinarily experience in school that makes them so appealing.

These benefits to schools are evident from the feedback that UKLO gets. More speculative are the following thoughts.

• 
  Linguistics, as the scientific study of language, may cross the gender divide, encouraging boys to take more interest in languages and girls to take more interest in science.
  

• 
  Some familiarity with linguistics, even at an elementary level, may help with recruitment of students to study languages. (The UK has a long-standing problem in this area.)
  

• 
  Knowing some linguistics may enhance students’ learning of particular languages.
  

• 
  Some knowledge of linguistics may contribute to students’ appreciation of social and cultural diversity.
  

These and other issues are being investigated during 2012 in a small project funded by the British Academy and the report will eventually be made available on the UKLO website.

5. Benefits for linguistics

Why should academic linguists support the LO movement? Indeed, why do so many UK linguists already support UKLO so generously and enthusiastically? We can identify two main reasons for this enthusiasm, one more important than the other, which we illustrate in relation to UKLO, though analogous arguments probably apply in other countries.

The less important reason is that the LO provides an excellent opportunity for recruiting university students of linguistics. What young people do in an LO is pure linguistics, exactly the kind of activity that many linguists build into their first-year teaching; so a 12-year old who struggles with the problems that we presented in section 1 not only knows that linguistics exists, but even knows quite accurately what ‘doing linguistics’ is like. Moreover, if that 12-year old comes back for more the following year (as many do), then the understanding of linguistics will deepen to the point where linguistics will eventually be included in the list of subjects that that pupil will consider studying at university. At present, linguistics is rather a small subject in UK universities; for instance, in 2011 linguistics graduates numbered only 980 (Ian Cushing, personal communication), so even at their present level, without the increases that we expect, the UKLO figures could make a significant difference to applications for degrees in linguistics.

More important, however, is the bridge building that UKLO allows. Historically, linguistics has been a strictly academic, university-based, subject, with virtually no presence at school level and only a very uncertain presence outside the world of education. Universities (and their government funders) are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with this kind of isolation, and promote ‘outreach’ activities to bridge the gap. UKLO is a perfect example of outreach by academics to schools. Not only did the initiative come from academic linguists, but the activity on offer requires the expertise that academics have; and not only do schools enjoy the service being offered, but (as explained in section 4 above) it could help them to achieve goals that are important for them.

The UK Linguistics Olympiad is not, of course, the only bridge from academic linguistics to schools that has been built even in English-speaking countries (not to mention other countries). Examples of others include:

• 
  a residential course in the UK for bright school students called ’The Language Detective’ taught by Trousdale and Clark (both of whom, incidentally, are members of the UKLO committee; Clark and Trousdale 2012).
  
• 
  the UK course mentioned above on English Language for 17 and 18 year olds, which has proved so popular that it has been replicated in Australia (Mulder 2007).
  
• 
  courses in some American schools on linguistics-as-science (Chomsky et al. 1985; Honda et al. 2010; Ginsberg et al. 2011).
  

Many other initiatives in this area are reported elsewhere (Wheeler 1999; Cenoz and Hornberger 2008; Spolsky and Hult 2008; Denham and Lobeck 2010; Ellis and McCartney 2011), but the LO provides a unique combination of direct focus on language structure, high student involvement, wide access and (potentially) minimal teacher involvement.

These bridges are fundamentally important for both linguistics and schools. They remind both sides that education urgently needs linguistics: our ideas (such as descriptivism and variation), our models (such as the IPA) and our descriptions (such as the grammar or phonological structure of English) (Hudson 2004). But if schools are potential ‘consumers’ of our research, this is important not only for them but also for the linguistics departments that could provide the research, because at present very few orientate any of their research towards schools. There are vast areas of research that are almost virgin territory, ranging from the development of language during the school years to the effects of accent variation on phonics-based teaching of basic literacy. Having potential consumers for research is important not only for personal satisfaction but also in the search for research funding and in the measurement of ‘impact’.

A bridge between linguistics and schools could have even more profound consequences. In linguistics it could mean that undergraduates know a great deal more about language, about languages and even about linguistics than they do at present. And in schools, a successful LO movement would raise a fundamental question: If linguistics is so popular with both teachers and students, why isn’t it on the curriculum? The LO will have established the academic credentials of linguistics as a subject with relevance, educational benefits and student appeal. So why not teach it in school? The main objection will clearly be the shortage of teachers with a background in linguistics, so now is the time for more linguistics graduates to train as school teachers and also, of course, for more linguistics to be included in degree courses in foreign languages and English, which will for some time produce most of the relevant teachers. But even if it starts from small beginnings, it is easy to imagine a bright future for school-level linguistics.

Works Cited

Cenoz, Jasone, and Nancy Hornberger (eds.). 2008. Encyclopedia of language and education, Vol. 6 Knowledge about language (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.

Chomsky, Carol, Maya Honda, Wayne O’Neil, and Chris Unger. 1985. Doing science: constructing scientific theories as an introduction to scientific method (Scientific Theory and Method Project technical report). Cambridge, MA: ETC, Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Clark, Billy, and Graeme Trousdale. 2012. The Language Detective: a course for young linguists. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(8). 506-516.

Denham, Kristin, and Anne Lobeck (eds). 2010. Linguistics at school: language awareness in primary and secondary education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Derzhanski, Ivan, and Thomas Payne. 2010. The linguistic olympiads: academic competitions in linguistics for secondary school students. Linguistics at school: language awareness in primary and secondary education, ed. by Kristin Denham and Anne Lobeck, 213-226.

Ellis, Sue, and Elspeth McCartney (eds). 2011. Applied linguistics and primary school teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ginsberg, Daniel, Maya Honda, and Wayne O’Neil. 2011. Looking beyond English: linguistic inquiry for English language learners. Language and Linguistics Compass 5(5). 249-264.

Gwynedd Library Service. n.d. Gwasanaeth llyfrgell/Gwynedd library service (pamphlet). Gwynedd Council, Wales.

Honda, Maya, Wayne O’Neil, and David Pippin. 2010. On promoting linguistics literacy: bringing language science to the English classroom. Linguistics at school: language awareness in primary and secondary education, ed. by Kristin Denham and Anne Lobeck, 175-188.

Hudson, Richard. 2004. Why education needs linguistics (and vice versa). Journal of Linguistics 40. 105-130.

The Independent Schools Directory. 2012. UK Independent Schools Directory.  2012. Prospects Services Ltd. Retrieved 28 September 2012 from http://www.independentschools.com/uk/.

Mulder, Jean. 2007. Establishing linguistics in secondary education in Victoria, Australia. Language and Linguistics Compass 1(3). 133-154.

Spolsky, Bernard, and Francis M. Hult (eds). 2008. The handbook of educational linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.

West, Andrew. 2006. Phags-pa script: Baijiaxing Mengguwen. Retrieved 3 October 2010 from http://www.babelstone.co.uk/phags-pa/baijiaxing.html.

Wheeler, Rebecca S. (ed). 1999. Language alive in the classroom. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Selected Websites

All Ireland Linguistics Olympiad: http://www.cngl.ie/ailo/index.html

Association for Language Learning: http:///www.all.languages.org/uk/

Committee for Linguistics in Education: http://clie.org.uk/

International Linguistics Olympiad: http://www.ioling.org/

North American Computational Linguistics Olympiad: http://www.naclo.cs.cmu.edu/

Routes into Language: https://www.routesintolanguages.ac.uk/

UK Linguistics Olympiad (UKLO): http://www.uklo.org/

Figure 1. Bilingual pamphlet for the Welsh problem (Gwynedd Library Service n.d.)

Figure 2. Extract from poem in Phags-pa script (West 2006)

Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2012
2012 -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It?
2012 -> Aa and na members Dying from Tobacco
2012 -> [Baby Crying] 01: 04 [Ching
2012 -> Unit Name / Nom de l’unité uic / ciu dates
2012 -> What We Owe Jehovah’s Witnesses
2012 -> Oceans Challenge Badge
2012 -> Canadian cycling olympians
2012 -> Greg landry, june olkowski and tom lysiak
2012 -> William goldman
2012 -> Does translocation and restocking confer any benefit to the European eel population? A review

Download 0.87 Mb.

Share with your friends: