Capstone project: Morphology conlang
Morphology conlang rubric
Components (12 points)
| Full marks 1 point |
Part marks 0.5 points |
No marks 0 points |
|
| Root words | 6 or more | 3 or more | 2 or fewer |
| Derivational morphemes | 2 or more | 1 or more | none |
| First inflectional category | 2 or more values | 1 value | missing |
| Second inflectional category | 2 or more values | 1 value | missing |
| Third inflectional category | 2 or more values | 1 value | missing |
| Non-concatenative morphology or reduplication | included | n/a | not included |
| Allomorphy | included | n/a | not included |
| Problem set | included | n/a | not included |
| Answer key | included | n/a | not included |
| Reflection | included | n/a | not included |
| Exchange with first classmate | Made a thorough attempt to solve a classmate’s problem set and provided reasonable feedback | Made some attempt to solve a classmate’s problem set and provided some feedback | Did not participate |
| Exchange with second classmate | Made a thorough attempt to solve a classmate’s problem set and provided reasonable feedback | Made some attempt to solve a classmate’s problem set and provided some feedback | Did not participate |
Problem set and solution (10 points)
| Excellent 2 points |
Good 1.5 points |
Satisfactory 1 point |
Needs improvement 0.5 points |
Missing 0 points |
|
| Naturalness | The patterns are natural, plausible, and reflect patterns that can be found in natural human language. | The patterns are mostly natural, plausible, and reflect patterns that can be found in natural human language. | Some patterns are natural, plausible, and reflect patterns that can be found in natural human language. | Few patterns are natural, plausible, and reflect patterns that can be found in natural human language. | None of the patterns are natural or reflect patterns that can be found in natural human language. |
| Creativity | Student incorporates many typologically diverse morphological patterns in creative ways. | Student incorporates some typologically diverse morphological patterns in creative ways. | Student incorporates few typologically diverse morphological patterns. | Morphological patterns are very similar to what is found in English and other languages the student is very familiar with. | Problem set not submitted. |
| Solvability and difficulty | There is sufficient data to solve the problem with one reasonably unique solution at an appropriate difficulty level for the class. | There is sufficient data to solve the problem with one reasonably unique solution, however the problem set is too easy or difficult for this class. | There is nearly enough data in the problem set to solve the problem with a unique solution at an appropriate difficulty level for the class. | There are many gaps in the data resulting in many possible solutions, or there is nearly enough data but the problem set is too easy or difficult for this class. | There are many gaps in the data resulting in many possible solutions and the problem set is too easy or difficult for this class. |
| Presentation of solution | The solution is presented in a clear, organized, and polished format.
Morphemes are organized in charts or lists as appropriate and fully glossed examples are provided. |
Effort to present the solution in a clear, organized, and polished format is evident, but there is room for improvement.
Morphemes are mostly organized in charts or lists as appropriate and fully glossed examples are provided. |
Some attempt to present the solution in an organized format.
Most morphemes, but not all, are appropriately classified. |
Some attempt to present the solution in an organized format.
Morphemes are not sorted into categories, or many morphemes are misclassified. |
There is little attempt to organize the solution.
Morphemes are not sorted into categories. |
| Accuracy of solution | Provided solution clearly accounts for all data in the problem set. | Provided solution accounts for all data in the problem set, but could be clearer. | Provided solution accounts for most data in the problem set. | Provided solution accounts for some data in the problem set, but there are multiple gaps. | Provided solution does not align with data. |
Reflection (12 points)
| Outstanding 3 points |
Excellent 2.5 points |
Good 2 points |
Satisfactory 1.5 point |
Needs improvement 1 point |
Missing 0 points |
|
| Description of language invention process | Student provides an in-depth and sophisticated discussion of their language invention process, discussing natural languages they used as an inspiration, how the different morphological processes interact, and the interfaces with phonology, semantics, and/or syntax. | Student provides an in-depth discussion of their language invention process, discussing natural languages they used as an inspiration, how the different morphological processes interact, and the interfaces with phonology, semantics, and/or syntax. | Student provides discussion of their language invention process, discussing natural languages they used as an inspiration, how the different morphological processes interact, and the interfaces with phonology, semantics, and/or syntax.
Some discussion may be on a surface level. |
Student provides discussion of their language invention process, but does not address all three of: natural languages they used as an inspiration, how the different morphological processes interact, and the interfaces with phonology, semantics, and/or syntax.
Some discussion may be on a surface level. |
Student provides limited discussion of their language invention process.
Discussion is on a surface level. |
Not included |
| Discussion of solving classmates’ problem sets | Student provides an insightful and sophisticated critique of peers’ problem sets, demonstrating application of morphological knowledge and problem-solving skills.
Evidence that students thoroughly engaged with each others’ problem set, perhaps with multiple rounds of exchange and revision. |
Student provides an advanced critique of peers’ problem sets, demonstrating application of morphological knowledge and problem-solving skills.
Evidence that students thoroughly engaged with each others’ problem sets in at least one round of exchange and revision. |
Student provides some advanced critique of peers’ problem sets, demonstrating some application of morphological knowledge and problem-solving skills.
Evidence that students underwent at least one round of exchange and revision. |
Student provides simple critique of peers’ problem sets, demonstrating some basic morphological knowledge and/or problem-solving skills.
Evidence that students underwent at least one round of exchange and revision. |
Student describes solving peers’ problem sets but does not provide any critique. Discussion is on a surface level.
Evidence that students underwent at least one round of exchange and revision. |
Not included |
| Discussion of revision process | Student clearly and explicitly discusses how they incorporated peer feedback, demonstrating critical reflection on the learning process and/or morphological theory. | Student explicitly discusses how they incorporated peer feedback, but could be clearer.
Student demonstrates some critical reflection on the learning process and/or morphological theory. |
Student explicitly discusses how they incorporated peer feedback, but could be clearer.
Student begins to demonstrate some critical reflection on the learning process and/or morphological theory. |
Student discusses how they incorporated peer feedback, but could be clearer.
Discussion is at a simple level. |
Student attempts to describe how they incorporated peer feedback.
Discussion is at a simple level. |
Not included |
| Understanding of course material | Discussion demonstrates a deep and sophisticated understanding of the course material. | Discussion demonstrates understanding of the course material. | Discussion demonstrates understanding of the course material, with few minor misunderstandings. | Discussion demonstrates some understanding of the course material, with many minor misunderstandings or few major misunderstandings. | Discussion demonstrates some understanding of the course material, with many major misunderstandings. | Discussion demonstrates limited understanding of the course material. |
General (8 points)
| Excellent 2 points |
Good 1.5 points |
Satisfactory 1 point |
Needs improvement 0.5 points |
No marks 0 points |
|
| Follows instructions | Student follows all instructions, including length. | A few minor errors. | A few major errors. | Many major errors. | Assignment not submitted. |
| Example formatting | Examples are properly formatted using a 3- or 4-line gloss and a key is provided for abbreviations. | A few minor errors. | A few major errors; key may be missing or interlinearization is incorrect. | Many major errors. | No examples provided. |
| Citations | Properly formatted in-text citations and bibliography are provided if need. | In-text citations and bibliography entries are almost always included where necessary but there may be minor errors in formatting. | A few missing citations or major errors in format. | Many missing citations. | Assignment includes plagiarism. |
| Spelling, punctuation, and tone | No grammar/spelling errors; appropriate academic style. | Few grammar/spelling errors; appropriate academic style. | Errors in grammar or style occasionally interfere with understanding. | Errors in grammar or style often interfere with understanding. | Assignment not submitted. |
