Toward discipline-wide text-structure style rulesScientists have certain style rules for structural aspects of their research papers and monographs, which in the past were primarily set and enforced by the academic publishers.But in the 21st century, science is increasingly international and research papers spread easily even without the publishers' copy-editors and style watchers.This does not mean that there is no need for style rules anymore.It makes our research and our publication activities easier if we agree on a common set of conventions for frequently recurring structural aspects of our writings, of the sort that are commonly prescribed in journal style sheets (such conventions are called TEXT-STRUCTURE style here).But it is inefficient if these rules are set by individual journal editors or publishers, because scientists usually publish in diverse venues, and being forced to apply different style rules in different papers is an unnecessary burden on the authors.If linguists could agree on a set of rules, then linguistics publishers would probably be happy to adopt them sooner or later, because they would no longer have to worry about enforcing their house styles.For the specific case of formatting rules for bibliographical references, this has already happened: In 2007, a number of linguistics journal editors agreed on a "Unified Style Sheet for Linguistics", 1 and these rules for bibliographical reference style have been widely adopted, not just for journals, but also for linguistics books.Another aspect of form style has been widely adopted: The Leipzig Glossing Rules for interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses. 2 Quite a few journals and publishers now recommend or prescribe their use, and many authors refer to them.The Leipzig Glossing Rules are now typically taught in linguistics classes, and more and more linguists find it normal that knowing them is part of their disciplinary competence.The following style rules for formal aspects of linguistics papers were formulated in the same spirit.Linguistics papers have been converging in their text-structure style over the last 20 years anyway, and while there are still a number of things that are sometimes done differently, none of the following rules will be particularly controversial.In most cases, the rules reflect majority usage, and none of the rules represents an innovation.Where they do not appear to reflect majority usage, they are always simpler than the majority usage (e.g.eliminating poorly motivated exceptions to general rules).Textstructure style for scientific papers should primarily be practical and can often leave aside purely aesthetic considerations.The present style rules focus on special conventions for linguistics-specific aspects like numbered example sentences and the representation of expressions from other languages, but also provide guidance for many other aspects of text-structure style which should be uniform across a paper (or an edited volume), and probably also across the papers of a journal.The rules do not say anything about more specific notational conventions that are relevant only to certain subcommunities of linguists, e.g. for syntactic tree representation, transcription of spoken dialogue, optimality-theoretic tableaux, and so on.(More specific style documents would be needed for each of these.)

<p>Artikkeli käsittelee monikielisten kirjoittajien kirjoittamisprosessien sujuvuutta. Oppijakorpuksen keräämiseen ja analysointiin käytimme graafteoriaan perustuvaa näppäilyntallennusohjelmaa GenoGraphiX-Log (GGXLog), jonka visualisointityökalut tarjoavat uuden lähestymistavan kirjoitusprosessin<br>sujuvuuden analysointiin. Koko aineisto koostuu 21 yliopistoopiskelijan kirjoittamasta suomenkielisestä (L1) ja ranskankielisestä (L2) mielipidekirjoituksesta. Tässä tapaustutkimuksessa keskitymme kuitenkin vain kolmen opiskelijan kirjoitusprosesseihin ja kirjoittajaprofileihin. Tulokset osoittavat, että kirjoitusprosessien visualisoinnin avulla pystymme tunnistamaan ja havainnollistamaan sujuvaa kirjoittamista edustavia purskeita yksityiskohtaisemmin. Lisäksi kirjoittajan tuottamat purskeet ja sanastokeskittymät voivat paljastaa kirjoittajien yksilöllisiä kirjoittajaprofileja niin L1- kuin L2-kirjoituksessa. Tulokset auttavat parantamaan pedagogisia käytäntöjä eri koulutusympäristöissä. Lisäksi kirjoitusprosessien analyysi antaa oppijoille mahdollisuuden tunnistaa oman kirjoittajaprofilinsa.<br></p><p><br></p>