This article presents the longitudinal trilingual corpus of young learners of Italian, German and English called LEONIDE. The corpus consists of L1, L2 and L3 learner texts. L1 texts were written in two languages of schooling (i.e. Italian and German), L2 texts in two languages learned as second languages (i.e. German and Italian), and L3 texts in an additional foreign language (i.e. English). All texts were collected from a group of lower secondary school pupils from the multilingual Italian province of South Tyrol whose development in all three languages was observed over a period of three years. Each text comes with rich metadata as well as manual and automatic annotations.

No abstract

No abstract

Heckles are an illegitimate, yet common way of commenting directly and immediately on what is being said at the lectern. However, (non-)verbal interjections can also be used to disconcert the speaker, thus scoring points within the parliamentary arena. In these cases, female delegates are often confronted with discriminatory remarks and comments that border on sexism and even misogyny. Based on the extensive literature on gender and discourse, the following paper will focus on gender-related heckles and analyse argumentative structures and topoi that are grounded in sexist stereotypes and conservative role-models. Presuming that these incidents are not isolated instances, the paper will compare and contrast several examples from around the world that have caught public attention.

Sharing the notion of identity as a dynamic construct within social interaction (cf. Kresic 2006; Mead 1968; Tajfel 1978), the paper traces the strategic manoeuvers by which far and extreme right users try to obtain opinion leadership in online debates. Based on the concept of "communities of practice" (cf. Wenger 2010, 2000, 1998; Wenger/McDermott/Snyder 2002; Lave/Wenger 1991), the qualitative as well as quantitative analysis of 1047 user comments combines conversation analytic approaches to identity construction (cf. a. o. De Fina/Shiffrin/Bamberg 2006; Bucholtz/Hall 2005, 2003) with typical far and extreme right argumentation schemes specified by critical discourse analysis (cf. a. o. Reisigl/Wodak 2001; Wetherell/Potter 1992; Wodak et al. 1990; van Dijk 1987). The results show that within far and extreme right communities of practice, differing comments are no longer seen as legitimate contribution to the debate, but are considered as personal lack of understanding and, ultimately, as proof of the opponent's intellectual inadequacy.