Volume 26 of ReCALL marks the retirement of Editor June Thompson. Although I have only been lucky enough to work with her for the last three years her hard work and commitment to the journal is evident and a testimony to her work is the health of the journal.
Blog post written by June Thompson
As this is my last opportunity to write an editorial in ReCALL, I thought it would be appropriate to reflect on the journal’s progress over the past seven years and outline its current position. In ReCALL Volume 18 (2) in November 2006 I reported on ReCALL’s early beginnings at the CTI Centre for Modern Languages at the University of Hull in 1990, its relationship with EUROCALL and eventually with Cambridge University Press.
Highlights from the last seven years include:
- ReCALL has continued to be published three times a year, with a steady increase in circulation
- Publication of five special issues involving guest editors
- Increasing number of submissions from around the world
- After starting to publish ReCALL online as well as in print, Cambridge University Press digitized all previous issues
- Another recent innovation, FirstView means that completed articles are published online well in advance of the printed issue, thus speeding up the process from submission to publication
- ReCALL achieved its first impact factor in in 2012 which improved in 2013 with the journal now ranked 29/160 in the Linguistics category
The next chapter in ReCALL’s history is a change in editorial arrangements. Last year I decided the time had come for me to step down and hand over my part of the responsibility as smoothly as possible. To that end, Alex Boulton was appointed as co-editor, along with myself and Françoise Blin, and ReCALL will soon be accepting submissions via the ScholarOne system.
For me, the best part of working on ReCALL has been the contact with such a wide range of interesting, educated and helpful colleagues: authors, reviewers, guest editors, staff at Cambridge University Press, and many long-standing EUROCALL friends. I feel very privileged to have had the support of so many people in helping to create, from scratch, a journal of which I think we can all be proud.
Read the full Editorial in the latest issue of ReCALL here
All at Cambridge and those involved in ReCALL want to place on record our thanks to June and wish her the best of luck in her retirement.
We are delighted to announce that the runner-up of this year’s prize is Alastair Henry.
We asked Alastair to provide Cambridge Extra with a summary of his winning work.
As a language teacher and language teacher educator it really is a great honour that my thesis ‘L3 Motivation’ was selected as runner-up for the 2013 Christopher Brumfit Award. In addition to my supervisors at the University of Gothenburg, and of course the panel of referees, the editor and members of the editorial board at Language Teaching, I would like to thank Professor Zoltán Dörnyei who generously agreed to review the thesis, providing guidance, advice and insights that were invaluable in enabling me to improve the work and sharpen some of the theoretical arguments.
When I started my research I hadn’t indented to write a thesis on school students’ motivation to learn additional languages such as French, German or Spanish. However I quickly realized that while there was a growing body of research on motivation to learn English, there was hardly any research on other languages. Nor did motivation researchers seem to differentiate between languages learnt as L2s or L3s. Furthermore, I began working at a time when a paradigm shift was taking place in motivation research, the new model offering opportunities to explore aspects of motivation – such as the impact of the L2 on L3 motivation – that had not previously existed.
The thesis consists of four papers (two published in System, one in the Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development and and one in the International Journal of Multilingualism). In the first two studies I drew on questionnaire-based data to track secondary school students’ motivation to learn English (the L2) and French, German and Spanish (the L3) across six school grades, analysing the differences in motivational trajectories between the L2 and L3, and in girls’ and boy’s motivation over the period. In the third study I suggested that L2 English was having a negative effect on L3 motivation, testing this hypothesis using data from a cohort of final grade students, while in the fourth study I carried out interviews with students with differing motivational profiles identified using cluster analysis techniques. Analyses of the data in these studies revealed that negative comparisons with L2 English were having a negative effect on L3 motivation, particularly among boys, and that students who were successful in maintaining L3 motivation invoked counteracting resources to offset such effects. Based on these findings, and on proposals previously made by Zoltán Dörnyei, as well as work in the multilingual field by Ulrike Jessner, I offered a number of suggestions for ways in which teachers can help students strengthen their self-concepts as multilingual speakers, and how they can refocus on L3 learning in the face of negative comparisons with English.
Many congratulations Alastair on being runner-up in this coveted international award which perpetuates the name of such a distinguished linguist.
We are delighted to announce that the winner of this year’s prize is Ellen Serafini.
We asked Ellen to provide Cambridge Extra with a summary of her prize winning work.
I am humbled to be recognized by Language Teaching and Cambridge University Press as the recipient of the 2013 Christopher Brumfit award and sincerely thank all those involved for this great honor. In the apt words of my mentor, Dr. Cristina Sanz, my thesis research attempts to look at the forest rather than the trees in its comprehensive approach to understanding the complexities of second language (L2) learning in adults.
My principal motivation was to explain variability in L2 development between adult L2 learners of Spanish by considering the role of learner individual differences (IDs) at varying levels of proficiency and at different points in time. While previous research has tended to look only at the cognitive or the affective side of the learner equation cross-sectionally, rather than longitudinally, I examined both cognitive IDs, like working memory capacity, and psychosocial IDs, like L2 motivation, in order to ascertain their relative and joint explanatory capacity over time. A secondary goal of this research was to contribute to what we know about the development and measurement of knowledge of (implicit) and about (explicit) L2 grammar at increasing proficiency.
I am currently preparing a report of the results of this study in a series of articles, four of which are currently in preparation and under review at peer-reviewed journals. The first addresses the reliable and valid assessment of implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge and considers proficiency as a key variable in our interpretation of such measurement. In the second and third papers, I report on the changing role of cognitive and psychosocial resources as learners gain further input, exposure to, and practice in the target language. These results provide much needed empirical evidence for theoretical claims made by Peter Robinson, Peter Skehan, and others that learning additional languages as an adult involves different abilities at different stages of development. In the final paper, I discuss the relationships found between different learner ID constructs and consider their dynamic influence on L2 development and implications for future research.
I believe these findings offer valuable insight to both theory and pedagogy in the field of second language acquisition. In the future, I aim to extend this study to heritage language populations who are key to understanding the complex phenomena of language learning and language maintenance. If you have any questions or comments about my research, please feel free to contact me at email@example.com.
Many congratulations Ellen on winning this coveted international award which perpetuates the name of such a distinguished linguist.
Blog post written by John Payne and Eva Berlage
Everything you ever wanted to know about the genitive alternation in English! The choice that speakers have between the s-genitive and the of-genitive (e.g. the production’s new director vs the new director of the production) has been the subject of much detailed research, starting with historical studies in the earlier part of the twentieth century and culminating in recent large-scale synchronic studies using modern statistical techniques. It is, as Anette Rosenbach suggests in the volume, “arguably the best researched of all syntactic alternations in English”.
This special edition, arising from a workshop organised by John Payne (Manchester) and Eva Berlage (Hamburg) at the ISLE conference in Boston in 2011, collects together four new papers. The first, by Anette Rosenbach, is above all an authoritative and masterly synopsis of all previous work on the alternation, and will be an invaluable resource for both those who are interested in the methodologies which exist for analysing syntactic variation, and for those who have a specific interest in the genitive alternation itself. However, beyond this, it also raises interesting and controversial questions which should be addressed by future research.
Factors such as the animacy, weight and definiteness of the “possessor” (e.g. the production in the production’s new director), as well as the nature of the semantic relation holding between the possessor and “possessee”, are well-known to play an important role in speaker choice. The remaining three papers add new dimensions by undertaking detailed quantitative studies of previously under-investigated aspects of the alternation. Ehret, Wolk and Szmrecsanyi, using historical data from the ARCHER corpus, expand the discussion of weight by comparing different methods of assessing weight, in particular the use of word and character counts. Their research shows that length does not have a linear effect on the distribution of the s- and of-genitive. The authors also break new ground including a detailed study of the role that rhythmic effects might play. While the so-called Principle of Rhythmic Alternation (following Schlüter 2005: 18) so far only comes out as minor determinant of the variation, the paper raises the question of whether to include other operationalisations of phonological variables for a fuller understanding of the variation. In Jankowski & Tagliamonte’s contribution, there is an innovative focus on sociolinguistic factors. In particular, the authors investigate the distribution of the s-genitive and of-genitive in vernacular Canadian English, basing their research on socially stratified corpora that represent data from speakers of all age groups. Their research shows that use of the s-genitive has been growing with possessors that represent collectives or organisations, a trend that might also be spreading to place possessors. The volume concludes with a paper by Payne and Berlage on the “niche” role that the less frequently used oblique genitive, the construction we see in examples such as a friend of the director’s, plays in the alternation, providing a new quantitative analysis of the factors which make this construction either a forced (or preferred) choice in comparison with the two main constructions. A qualitative comparison of the s-genitive, of-genitive and oblique genitive finally reveals that the semantic relations represented by the oblique genitive are as subset of those covered by the s-genitive which, again, are a subset of those available to the of-genitive.
Explore the entire special issue of English Language and Linguistics here
Blog post written by Diane Pecorari based on an article from the latest issue of Language Teaching
Everyone has a view on plagiarism, and it’s often a strong one, as seen by the frank and free commentary on cases which attract public attention. For example, after the revelation that a prominent German politician had plagiarised in his doctoral thesis, the theses of other politicians in Germany and elsewhere have been subjected to scrutiny. This has led, in a number of cases, to further accusations of plagiarism, sharp criticism of the politicians involved and to responses ranging from embarrassed apology to resignations. These high-profile cases have received significant attention in the news, in blogs like Shake, Copy and Paste, and in staff-room discussions.
Plagiarism is also the object of academic research within a number of disciplines which have taken rather divergent approaches. Within fields such as ethics, higher education theory and policy, pedagogy and bibliometry, the tendency has been to approach plagiarism as a transgressive phenomenon within a regulatory framework. However, in first- and (especially) second-language writing, attention has been paid to plagiarism as a feature of textual production.
In our state-of-the-art article ‘Plagiarism in second-language writing’ we trace the development of plagiarism as a research topic in L2 writing, discussing the received view of plagiarism as a transgressive act and alternative understandings which have been presented in the L1 and L2 writing literature.
The article then surveys the rapidly growing body of work relating to plagiarism, primarily from an L2
writing/applied linguistic perspective, identifying salient themes. One of these is the role of intention. Significant evidence exists to support the idea, familiar to many writing teachers, that plagiarism sometimes has causes other than a desire to cheat in order to receive unearned academic credit.
This realisation has lead some scholars to believe that ‘plagiarism’, with its strong connotations of malfeasance, can be an unhelpful term to use in some contexts, and so we review alternative terminology, such as patchwriting, textual plagiarism, prototypical plagiarism, and transgressive versus non-transgressive intertextuality.
The use of alternative terminology suggests potentially differing understandings, and that is very much the case for plagiarism. Just like that other thing, we all think we can recognise it when we see it. However, as research traced in this article shows, we recognise different things.
Other themes identified include the role of textual plagiarism in language learning and a writer’s development; the role of the electronic media, investigations of cultural differences, and pedagogical approaches to guiding students away from plagiarism. Methodological issues in researching plagiarism are surveyed, and the article concludes by suggesting directions for future research.
Read the full article ‘Plagiarism in second-language writing’ here
Post written by Ping Li based on a recent article in the journal Bilingualism: Language and Cognition
Language history question-naire (LHQ) is an important tool for assessing the linguistic background of language learners (background), the context and habits of language use (usage), proficiency in multiple languages (proficiency), and dominance and cultural identity of the acquired languages (dominance). Outcomes from such assessments have often been used to predict or correlate with learners’ linguistic performance in cognitive and behavioral tests. Previous researchers have often relied on LHQs that their own research groups develop, depending on whether their study is concerned with the background, usage, proficiency, or dominance of the bilingual learner. The lack of a standardized, easy-to-use, and web-based LHQ inspired some researchers to develop such a tool for bilingual research (see Li, Sepanski, & Zhao, 2006). In the LHQ 2.0, we have further developed an enhanced interface that takes advantage of the dynamic web technology, which has the following new features as compared with the original LHQ: more flexibility in functionality, more accuracy in data recording and retrieval, and more privacy for users and data.
With respect to flexibility, LHQ 2.0 allows researchers to customize their own questions depending on whether they are interested in one or a combination of the participant’s language history: background, usage, proficiency, and dominance. Additionally, the participants can complete the entire or customized LHQ online with unique experiment and participant IDs. LHQ 2.0 also has a multi-language function that allows the participant to complete questions in the native or the preferred language, including English, Chinese (simplified or traditional forms), Spanish, French, German, and Turkish (and more to come). Thus, investigators can dynamically construct individualized LHQs on the fly and collect data from a large number of individual participants simultaneously.
With respect to accuracy, LHQ 2.0 eliminates the need of traditional data entry with papers and pencils, and the potential errors during the time-consuming manual coding of handwritten results. Once the participant completes the LHQ, all the data are stored automatically in a spreadsheet, and the data are accumulated (and updated) in the order in which the questions are answered. Investigators can track the progress of the LHQ data collection, and download or delete the data at any point during the study.
With respect to privacy, LHQ 2.0 stores no personal information of the participant but rather, collects the data through automatically generated unique ID numbers for each study (and the participants), and through password-protected access to data. Researchers can (1) access their data in the cloud uniquely stored in their own account, (2) update necessary information associated with the study, (3) retrieve the data, and finally, (4) at the conclusion of the study, delete the data permanently.
A large number of investigators have already used the LHQ 2.0 in the past year, and we welcome comments and suggestions from all users. Please visit http://blclab.org/language-history-questionnaire/ and use the LHQ 2.0 today!
Access the entire article ‘Language history questionnaire (LHQ 2.0): A new dynamic web-based research tool’ without charge here
Blog post written by Paul Nation based on an article in Language Teaching
How many words in English do you know? How many words do your students know? What words should our learners be focusing on? Do native speakers at primary and secondary school need vocabulary-focused instruction? These questions and others like them have been of concern to researchers in the School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies (LALS) at Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand for well over thirty years. One of the results of this concern has been a range of vocabulary tests which have been made available for general use.
It may seem a straightforward job to make a vocabulary test. However, vocabulary size testing is probably the most badly researched area in the field of applied linguistics. It’s not badly researched because of a lack of research. It’s badly researched because the research has been methodologically faulty, so faulty in fact that the results of much of the research are grossly misleading.
An important first step in measuring vocabulary size is to create a substantial list of words to draw a sample from. Developments in computing and corpus linguistics have now made this much more feasible, and many of the tests reported on in this article draw upon word lists that were carefully created for the purposes of test development.
Most of the article describes the Vocabulary Size Test and its bilingual and computerised versions. Bilingual versions of the test are now available in languages such as Japanese, Russian, Spanish, Chinese, and Korean. Bilingual versions are helpful for lower proficiency learners in particular. An online version of the test has now been taken by thousands of first and second language speakers of English.
How can finding out about your students’ vocabulary size help you and your students? It can help you diagnose particular learning problems and set curriculum goals. It can also help you select materials at the right lexical level for your classes and for your students’ independent learning time. Knowing their vocabulary size can also help your students understand and set their own vocabulary learning goals.
Since the writing of the article, another test aimed at young pre-literate learners has been developed and will soon become available – the Picture Vocabulary Size Test.
Read the full article ‘Vocabulary size research at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand’ here
Blog post written by Dalila Ayoun based on an article in Journal of French Language Studies
The investigation of the acquisition of temporal systems by second language (L2 ) learners has created an impressive body of work that informs our understanding of their developing competence because they involve all aspects of a language – pragmatic, lexical, syntactic, morphological (e. g., Ayoun & Salaberry2005; Salaberry2008; Salaberry & Comajoan, 2013). However, most empirical studies have focused on past temporal reference, neglecting future temporal reference with a few exceptions (e.g., Benati, 2001) aside from ESL learners (Bardovi-Harlig 2004 a, 2004 b). The future is interesting because it differs from the past and the present in encompassing both temporality and modality. Intentionality is its most common reading, but it can also express possibility, probability, desire and volition (Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca 1994). French and English share several ways of expressing future temporality that include three morphological forms (simple future, lexical future, periphrastic future) without being necessarily equivalent. For instance, ‘will’ expresses modality whereas the simple future in French is clearly temporal.
Previous studies found that L2 learners go through three developmental stages in their acquisition of future temporality: a pragmatic stage, a lexical stage and finally a morphological stage characterized by the productive use verbal morphology. Since these stages are based on naturalistic data (Dietrich, Klein & Noyau 1995) and ESL learner data (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig 2000, 2005), it will be interesting to see if instructed foreign language learners go through the same stages as suggested by an early study (Moses 2002).
In the present cross-sectional study, L2 French learners at three proficiency levels and French native speaker controls completed a personal narrative and a cloze task. Findings were mixed in that they revealed a task effect and proficiency effects, but all learners used a variety of morphological forms (i.e., present, futurate present, periphrastic future, time adverbials) to express futurity in their personal narratives, and appear to be acquiring temporal and modal values associated with the future. These learners appear to be already too advanced to use pragmatic and lexical means to express futurity and rely instead on morphological means, the ultimate developmental stage.
As found in previous studies, the cloze test was more difficult than the narrative. As it is well-known, participants’ behaviour on experimental elicitation tasks combines primary language faculties and general cognitive properties along with individual linguistic and extra-linguistic attitudes. Higher levels of proficiency will eventually lead to a more consistent performance on more demanding elicitation tasks, although the literature illustrates how empirical findings are rarely consistent across measures. But the most important finding is that the L2 learners’ TAM system shows contrasts and systematicity suggesting that they are making appropriate distinctions.
Access the entire article ‘The acquisition of future temporality by L2 French learners’ here
Post written by Aylin C. Küntay, Koç University, Istanbul & Utrecht University, Utrecht
Based on an upcoming keynote talk to be given at IASCL 2014 this week (14th – 18th July, Amsterdam)
Referential communication is talking about things and people, an essential ability upon which many human communicative interactions build. To be able to communicate effectively, speakers and addressees should concur on what they are talking about. Although this sounds trivial, even adults sometimes have trouble in pinpointing exactly what their interlocutor has in mind, or might fail to express their referential intentions in the clearest way.
The evidence we have about children’s referential abilities is mixed. An 18-month-old can be quite effective in making us pick the right diaper with the desired picture out from a heap of clean diapers. A 5-year-old, on the other hand, might lose us among the many characters he introduces in his retelling of a movie. Many factors distinguish the situation of the diaper-picker from the film-narrator. Yet in our methodological and analytical frameworks, we forget that the act of referential behavior is embedded in certain contexts and geared towards a particular type of interactive experience. My talk will focus on the contextual conditions that render toddlers and preschoolers referentially (in)effective.
For my keynote talk in the conference organized by the IASCL in 2014 to take place in Amsterdam, I will focus on the contributions interactive contexts, interactive goals, and interactive partners make to the development of referential communication. I will introduce data from narrative interactions and conversational discourse of children in addition to experimental studies.
These studies show how naturalistic interactions with others and their feedback impact (monolingual) children’s development of referential communication. Infants are presented by their caregivers with richly textured patterns of referential sets, where the referent remains constant across extended stretches of discourse. This constancy is accompanied by integration of nonverbal cues such as gestures, gazes, and touches in addition to linguistic expansions and reductions regarding the referent.
Preschool children display morphosyntactically more sophisticated and referentially clearer structures when they build their discourse structures conversationally rather than via being prompted by picturebooks, when they assume more audience-oriented interactive goals, and when they are trained on referential effectiveness. In brief, children need to learn to form a variety of (often language-specific) expressive devices in addition to learning how to use these devices for particular interactive contexts and discourse functions.
Discover more about the IASCL 2014 here
Post written by Editor of English Today Clive Upton based on his Editorial in the latest issue
From time to time the media pick up on instances of English language use which do not carry over entirely happily from one variety to another. One of the most well-known of these must be the feature – variously known by such labels as ‘high rising terminal’ (HRT), ‘Australian question intonation’ (AQI), or ‘uptalk’ – which sees an upward inflection being introduced to utterances that are not actually questions. Long unremarkable in Australia, and increasingly unremarkable elsewhere in the English-speaking world, especially among younger speakers, this feature nevertheless annoys a lot of people who do not use it themselves. A recent online discussion of this phenomenon in the United States can be found here.
The latest in a catalogue of complaints recorded about uptalk has come as a result of a survey of business leaders carried out by Pearson, the findings of which were reported in the Daily Mail and other British newspapers in January this year. Under the headline ‘Want a promotion? Don’t speak like an AUSSIE [i.e. an Australian]’, the Mail explains that Pearson surveyed 700 men and women in managerial roles, and more than half said that the trait was a clear indicator of insecurity and would hinder employment prospects. Taking this up the following day, the Guardian newspaper featured a light-hearted debate between an Australian, Alex McClintock, and an Englishwoman, Rae Earl. Among many partisan claims by McClintock was that ‘far from indicating insecurity, some studies suggest that the AQI is often used by powerful people when speaking to their subordinates (thereby explaining why Australians use it when talking to Britons)’. Earl countered with equal spirit, observing that uptalk ‘makes tiny admissions of doubt sound like Pacific-sized adolescent insecurities’.
As well as provoking popular discussion, this one linguistic feature has a long and distinguished history of sociolinguistic analysis. But we might remark here on two very fundamental issues that touch on the everyday world. Firstly, it is clear that how we speak leads others to judge us: as G. B. Shaw wrote in his Preface to Pygmalion, ‘It is impossible for an Englishman [for this, probably read ‘any speaker’] to open his mouth without making some other Englishman [i.e. speaker] hate or despise him’. People do not generally hold back from being judgemental about the speech of others, even though they might be careful not to voice prejudices based on, for example, gender, race, or religion. Secondly, the media never tire of discussing English. Those of us who teach or research the language can expect a ready audience for what we have to say, making it essential that we ensure our facts are correct and our opinions objective.
Read the full Editorial here