Fifty Years of JIPA

This year JIPA celebrates 50 years under its present title, and 20 years of publication with CUP. But that’s only part of a 134-year story. Under earlier titles (The Phonetic Teacher and Le Maître Phonétique) the journal dates back to 1886, and was printed entirely in IPA phonetic symbols for over 80 years. It switched to ordinary orthography in 1971 and at the same time adopted the title Journal of the International Phonetic Association, with the catchy acronym JIPA.

After a hundred years of conventional typesetting and printing, the journal went through an innovative era of desktop publishing in the 1980s and 90s. The partnership with CUP began with Volume 31 in 2001, and the journal acquired its striking black and orange cover. JIPA has gone from strength to strength, and is now published in three issues per year.

JIPA is not only the longest-established phonetics journal, but special too in that alongside general research papers on phonetics, it also publishes the “Illustrations of the IPA”, which are concise but detailed first-hand accounts of the phonetics of numerous languages and varieties (many of them under-described or endangered) based on fieldwork and original recordings. The growing corpus of Illustrations is now widely recognised as an important resource in phonetic documentation and typology. Three years after publication, Illustrations and the accompanying recordings become open to all – an important service to the language communities who provided them, as well as to students and teachers of phonetics everywhere.

The current Editor of JIPA is Marija Tabain, with co-editor Jody Kreiman. They and their editorial team are very proud and honoured to build on the legacy created by the long line of distinguished previous editors of the journal. We look forward to the next 50 years!

Read the latest issue of JIPA without charge until 15 December 2020.

Virtual Exchange and its Role in Internationalising University Education

Written by Robert O’Dowd, University of León, Spain ([email protected])

In universities around the world, more and more teachers are engaging their students in intercultural collaborative projects with partners from other countries using digital technologies. This is commonly known as Virtual Exchange (VE) or Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL). VE has great potential to foster a range of 21st century employability skills which include media and digital literacy, communication skills, global awareness, empathy, critical and analytical thinking, foreign language skills and intercultural competences.

Nobody is suggesting that VE should ever replace physical mobility programmes. But many institutions are now considering how to use VE to prepare students for physical mobility or how it can function as an alternative to physical mobility for those students who are not able to travel abroad for medical, financial or personal reasons. This will help your university become more inclusive and ensure that students who cannot take part in physical mobility can still develop those skills usually associated with international experiences.

The article A Transnational Model of Virtual Exchange for Global Citizenship Education, reports on the findings of an Eramsus+ European Policy Experiment – Evaluating and Upscaling Telecollaborative Teacher Education (EVALUATE). This project brought together researchers, educators, university senior management, and public authorities from five different European countries and autonomous regions in an initiative to provide large-scale evidence of its impact as an international learning practice and to inform educational policy based on this evidence. In particular, we focused on a case study of an autonomous region in Spain that enabled us to illustrate how researchers, university management and public authorities collaborated to upscale this internationalization activity and integrate VE in educational policy at both institutional and regional levels. Based on the findings of the case study, we identified a series of institutional and cultural ‘blockers’ that hindered the upscaling of VE and we also proposed a set of criteria for successful implementation of VE in university education.

Read the full EVALUATE report.

For more information on Virtual Exchange, visit the UNICollaboration organisation website or Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange.

A short video introducing Virtual Exchange.

Robert O’Dowd is Associate Professor at the University of León, Spain and has been engaged in researching and training projects related to Virtual Exchange for over 20 years. He was the project coordinator for the EVALUATE project.

ELT and me: A story with no history?

Written by Michael McCarthy

I was recently invited to contribute an article to the CUP journal Language Teaching, looking back over my career as an English language teacher, applied linguist and academic. In a strange sort of way, I discovered my own history by writing about it, a truly pleasurable experience. But in doing so, I realised how much I had lacked a proper historical perspective during most of my fifty-odd years in the profession. Great changes have happened during that half-century, and they happened all around me as I soldiered on, blissfully ignorant of the ideas that were pushing the profession forward.

My career started in the mid-1960s, when structuralism was popular in language teaching, alongside traditional Latin-modelled grammar-translation approaches, and most English language teaching was a mix of the two. At the time, and for a couple of decades after that, I knew almost nothing of the giants whose shoulders I was standing on. It is only in the last decade, for example, that I have taken the time to familiarise myself properly with the works of Harold E. Palmer, that great pioneer and father-figure of modern applied linguistics. In the course of corpus work on spoken grammar with the late Ronald Carter in the mid-1990s, which subsequently bore fruit in the Cambridge Grammar of English and the Touchstone and Viewpoint courses published by CUP, I became aware that Palmer had published a grammar of spoken English in 1924[1], almost seventy years before we embarked on our project. It was only about five years ago that I read it, and what a truly monumental work it is. Palmer’s approach was founded on the tradition of ‘scientific’ grammars of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with an emphasis on phonetics as the starting point of understanding and learning a language. His grammar was strong on dialogue: in his examples, we see not only what speakers say but how listeners react, something that we have been able to observe more closely nowadays with the luxury of spoken corpus data. Palmer would have probably given his eye teeth to have access to a spoken corpus.

It was not only Palmer’s contribution that I was ignorant of. My first job, in a Berlitz language school in Spain, demanded no more of me than delivering a pre-ordained structural syllabus through the official textbook. I didn’t understand the principles of structuralism and slot-and-filler paradigms; I suppose I just assumed it was the right way of looking at language. Meanwhile back in my homeland of Britain, J. R. Firth and his followers, most notably Michael Halliday and John Sinclair, were forging a new grammatical and lexical approach, based on the relationship between language and its contexts of use, quite different from structuralism, an approach later to crystallise into systemic-functional linguistics and corpus linguistics.

I caught up with the missing history of my profession when I became a university academic in the 1980s and I have tried in recent years to pay homage to our applied linguistic forebears. However, because of the explosion of research in books and journals and now online, and the dizzyingly increasing pace of publication, we are in danger of losing our sense of historical continuity. As a frequent reviewer of scholarly works submitted for publication, I never cease to be amazed by how few lists of references ever cite anything published before 1990. What I learnt in my quest to discover my own history is that so many ideas we think of as novel and ground-breaking are in fact reinventing wheels and turning over already well-tilled ground.

We ought not to neglect ‘old’ research. It’s often a treasure-house of gems and pure gold; you just have to be patient, track it down on library shelves instead of instantly downloading a pdf, dust it off, and take plenty of time to read it.

[1] Palmer, H. E. (1924). A Grammar of Spoken English on a Strictly Phonetic Basis. Cambridge: W. Heffer and Sons Ltd.

 

‘Word jails’, ‘slang bans’ and the punitive policing of language in schools

Blog post written by Ian Cushing based on a new article published in Language in Society

The late, great linguist and educationalist Ronald Carter wrote that teachers can be forced into acting as a kind of ‘kind of linguistic dentist, polishing here and there, straightening out, removing decay, filling gaps and occasionally undertaking a necessary extraction’. In a new article published in Language in Society, I use Carter’s metaphor as a springboard to critically examine a spate of many current language education policies and pedagogies in schools which are driven by deficit discourses about linguistic variation and change. The focus of the paper is on primary and secondary schools in England who have implemented strict, prescriptive and punitive language policies which attempt to ‘ban’ young people from using particular words, phrases and non-standard grammatical constructions from classrooms and corridors. In doing so, I adopt a stance from critical linguistics in that my approach is to unpick how authoritative bodies weaponise language policies and ideologies as a mechanism to control and suppres how people use language, and as a way of maintaining institutional power. Ultimately, my argument is that a prescriptive language policy carries a threat of language discrimination and serve to bolster the stigmatisation that many speakers of non-standard language already face.

One important commitment that I make in the article is to use discursive methods to analysing language policy. In this, policy is conceived of as an ‘onion’: a series of interconnected ‘layers’ or ‘levels’, which typically carry different degrees of power and agency, from ‘macro-level’ (e.g. government; curriculum documents; national tests) through to ‘micro-level’ (e.g. teachers; students). I argue that current macro-level policy in England is particularly problematic in the ways in which it uncritically emphasises a requirement for students to use Standard English in schools, for teachers to ‘model’ Standard English, and the ways in which language is reductively framed as ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ in national grammar tests and political discourse. In interviews, one reason that teachers at the micro-level gave for implementing prescriptive language policies then, is in response to these kinds of top-down policies which coerce and intimidate them in compliance. Schools are particularly crucial spaces for language policy, being controlled by the state, being key sites of socialisation and legitimisation, and the curriculum being a key vehicle through which the state can shape the attitudes and behaviours of the next generation.

Strict language policies mirror a shift (and return) towards conservatism in English education more broadly, along with a growing trend for schools to implement hostile ‘no excuses’ and ‘zero-tolerance’ behaviour policies, which are driven by retribution and punishment. Media reporting on these policies is equally problematic, often inviting readers to submit their own words they would like to see ‘banned’ and whipping up the kind of moral panic about language change, ‘falling standards’ and young people’s behaviour which has long permeated UK society. Critical discourse analysis of media stories and interviews revealed that crime metaphors often appear within prescriptive policies: language policing, word jails, crackdowns and rule breakers serve to re-enforce teachers and management as powerful language policy agents who are concerned with linguistic control, regulation and ‘standards’.

Importantly, the article draws attention to the lack of opportunities for students to study sociolinguistics in schools, as well as the low-number of linguistics graduates training to become teachers and a general lack of linguistics on many teacher education courses. These remain pressing issues for applied linguists and educationalists in working to educate teachers and policy makers about the dangers of prescriptivism and the potential for language discrimination it can bring about.

Read the full article ‘The policy and policing of language in schools‘ published in Language in Society

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

 

Words on the loose: The power of “premium”

Blog post written by Crispin Thurlow based on a new article published in Language in Society

 

In a new paper for Language in Society, I open with the following anecdote about the disingenuous power of everyday language games. On a work trip to Stockholm several years ago, I needed to take my two sons along with me. My local colleagues had kindly accommodated us in one of Sweden’s “Elite” hotels. On arrival day, my sons and I checked in and made our way up to the room. As we stepped across the threshold my oldest son declared, with genuine disappointment, “But this isn’t elite!” After I pressed him, he explained that the room was just not big enough. Evidently, he had already learned about the well-established link between space, privilege and the performance of status. And, in that moment, he was also learning two truths about language: words do not carry meaning, but words really do matter.

Against this domestic backdrop, I undertake an extensive critique of another floating signifier at work in the world today: “premium”. Attached to any number of goods or services, this ubiquitous label is an apparent effort to persuade people into an easy sense of distinction. My own collected examples include chocolates, beer, clothing, haircuts, towelling, potato chips, olives, crab cakes and tomatoes. The power of “premium” is at its most vivid, however, in the elaborately orchestrated rhetorics of so-called Premium Economy. Here we have not the sorting of tomatoes but rather the sorting of people. Arguably the most profitable of passenger classes, this is also where language comes to the fore. In an industry where profit margins are slim, one of the cheapest resources available to airlines – the one with the lowest fossil-fuel burn – is words. Words are precisely how airlines fabricate a “class” of passengers tangibly but not too visibly distinct from Economy, while steering clear of the more prestigious (and expensive) Business.

In teasing apart the copious and florid marketing copy of over forty international airlines, I have pin-pointed three common strategies which underpin this in-between passenger service. The first is extraction (of money and of other people’s comfort) and the second is excess (of words and other largely immaterial performances of plenty). Perhaps most important of all, however, Premium Economy rests on a core grammatical feature and a related social-psychological phenomenon: comparison. Airlines can only profitably afford to offer “extra” and “more” – as in the words of one airline, “More comfort, more choice, more privileges”. All of which hinges on the human predeliction for downward comparison – or, in the case of airplane seating configurations, backwards comparison. And it works, as behavioural economists attest. Simply knowing that others are worse off makes people feel better about themselves and more willing to part with their money.

In the final reckoning, I have come to understand “premium” to be a prime example of Bourdieu’s symbolic power. For all its seemingly frivolous, innocuous appearance, this little word is deployed – and quite successfully it seems – as a means for controlling people through seduction and enchantment. In fact, and following the impressive interventions of critical economist Frédéric Lordon, I propose that the “humble joy” of having a little extra or a little more – of being just a little bit better than the rest – is partly how members of the aspirational middle classes make themselves compliant to the capitalist order. As such, “premium” promises just enough to keep me striving willingly for my own subjugation.

Read the article Dissecting the Language of Elitism: The ‘Joyful’ Violence of Premium published in Language in Society.

Educating the global citizen or the global consumer?

Blog post written by Claire Kramsch based on an article published in Language Teaching

My views on the impact that globalization has had on the learning and teaching of foreign languages have been very much influenced by my French upbringing. In the fifties in France I learned and then studied German not in order to find a job in Germany, nor to go and visit the country, nor even to make friends with Germans, but to enjoy German literature and to immerse myself in German poems and fairytales. The language for me was indissociable from texts on the page and the imaginary worlds they opened up for me.  Not that I had consciously intended it to be that way. The teaching of German in those days was pure grammar/translation, my teachers spoke German with an atrocious French accent, many of them has fought the  Germans and had just returned from POW camps, and Germany lay in ruins. And yet…not unlike many learners of English today, I embraced German as my ticket to freedom from what I perceived to be a stifling French educational system.

Later, once I got to know real Germans and discovered the thrills of real live conversation with native speakers of German (rather than textbook dialogues) I began to understand the potential of foreign language education to bring people together across national boundaries. But the language of international communication was increasingly English, not German. People were not learning English to study Shakespeare, but to adopt a more instrumental, commercially efficient mode of communication that became even more widespread with the invention of the Internet. I became fascinated by the extensive research conducted to improve the teaching of English as a global language. I benefitted tremendously from the insights of my colleagues in second language acquisition and applied linguistics, but I always missed the imaginary worlds of my youth, when I was a French citizen in love with German poetry.

So when the invitation came to reflect on “the global citizen” of the future, I couldn’t help thinking: What is a global citizen?  Isn’t globalization making us rather into global consumers? Isn’t globalization just another form of imperialism or colonialism?  As a French high school student, I had loved German precisely because it was not French nor English, because it was different and controversial. As a graduate student, I was seduced by the possibility of thinking and dreaming in different syntaxes, lexicons and metaphors. Now as a German professor in the United States I am happy to remain a French Germanist with a U.S. passport, resonating to different multilingual ecologies of being to which English, Latin, Greek and Russian were added later on.

Read the article ‘Educating the global citizen or the global consumer?’ published in Language Teaching

The English major crisis in China

Blog post written by Ningyang Chen, author of the article ‘The English major crisis in China: Why did the once-popular major fall out of favor among Chinese students? recently published in English Today.

There was a time in China when becoming a foreign language major was the dream of many aspiring young minds. The English major, in particular, enjoyed the greatest popularity and was associated with many advantages: a better social reputation, better-paid jobs, and above all, the chance to go out and see the world. Over the years, however, the English major has been losing its appeal to Chinese students. Some critics have questioned its validity or even proposed closing the major. This concern was brought to the fore by a recent Chinese newspaper article in which the opinionist described the major as suffering from “a guilty conscience”.

How to explain this drastic change? There are some obvious reasons such as the expansion of choices. But other factors may have also played a part. According to an analysis of WeChat (China’s most popular social media channel) comments on the “guilty conscience” article, three types of attitudes portray the social media response to the English major crisis. In the first place is practical attitudes, followed by the pessimistic and the optimistic. The majority of the student and teacher commenters find elements of truths in the motto of “Being practical is everything”. The English major in the modern era falls behind other majors in securing a financial future. Success models like Jack Ma serve only as reminders to choose a major that is more “worth” the “investment”. This prevailing attitude of being practical echoes a critical paper on ‘the practical turn’ in English studies, in that the successful turn seems to have exerted a lasting influence. The pessimistic views of the English major in China find fault with the teachers and the courses. Courses taught by less qualified teachers can be a waste of time, and irresponsible teachers increase students’ dismay even further. The small number of optimists are mainly proud English majors who share an interest in literature and the language. Yet their voices seem hushed by the overwhelming negativity and criticism.

The bulging purse of the Chinese is an economic reality we find difficult to ignore. With this comes wider options and opportunities. What used to be an accessible and promising way to pursue a “modern” education is now among the least efficient ways to achieve that goal. Let’s face it: Why sitting through a boring class taught in Chinese-accented English when one can get a more “authentic” English experience by watching a Hollywood blockbuster? What’s the point of spending four years in a program to learn skills that can be readily acquired by studying in an English-speaking country at a reasonable price? Even those with a less superficial understanding of the major may doubt, quite rightfully, if a Chinese professor can interpret Shakespeare as adequately as Lu Xun.

Although the decline of the liberal arts subjects seems a shared concern across institutions and cultures, the English major in China has its specificities. After all, it is pathetic to find what started out as part of the “solution” to the country’s modernization has become a “problem” of its own. As globalization deepens, a similar pity is likely to be felt in other contexts around the world where the program once played a big part in training personnel who pioneered international communication and engagement. Yet opportunities are born out of crises. The raised concerns could inspire creative changes to the system. And while we are a long way away from figuring out what the future holds for the English major in China, getting a sense of the distressing reality can be the first step.

What’s the best way to teach children a second language? New research produces surprising results

Article was originally published by The Conversation, reposted with permission

Authors
1. Karen Roehr-Brackin, Reader, Department of Language and Linguistics, University of Essex
2. Angela Tellier, Associate Fellow, University of Essex

People often assume that children learn new languages easily and without effort, regardless of the situation they find themselves in. But is it really true that children soak up language like sponges?

Research has shown that children are highly successful learners if they have a lot of exposure to a new language over a long time, such as in the case of child immigrants who are surrounded by the new language all day, every day. In such a scenario, children become much more proficient in the new language over the long term than adults.

But if the amount of language children are exposed to is limited, as in classroom language learning, children are slow learners and overall less successful than teenagers or adults. How can we explain this apparent contrast?

Researchers have argued that children learn implicitly, that is, without conscious thought, reflection or effort. And implicit learning requires a large amount of language input over a long period of time.

As we get older, we develop the ability to learn explicitly – that is, analytically and with deliberate effort. Put differently, adults approach the learning task like scientists. This explains why more mature classroom learners have greater success: they can draw on more highly developed, efficient, explicit learning processes which also require more effort.

Which is best?

When it comes to learning a language, however, it is not a question of either implicit or explicit learning. They can coexist, so it is more often a question of how much of each approach is used.

In our new study, we asked whether younger children who are generally thought to learn implicitly had already developed some ability to learn explicitly as well. What’s more, we looked at whether the ability to analyse language can predict foreign language learning success in the classroom.

We worked with over 100 Year 4 children, aged eight to nine, in five primary schools in England. The children took a number of tests, including a measure of their language learning aptitude, which assessed their ability to analyse language (language-analytic ability), to memorise language material (memory ability) and to handle language sounds (phonological awareness).

Over one school year, the children participated in language classes for 75 minutes per week. For this purpose, they were divided into four groups.

In the first half of the school year, each group was taught, respectively, German, Italian, Esperanto or Esperanto with a “focus-on-form method”. This method involved the teacher drawing the children’s attention to regular patterns in the language, asked them to think about what particular parts of words might mean or how sentences are put together in the language, for example. In other words, the children were encouraged to use their language-analytic ability, taking an explicit approach.

In the other groups, language was taught in a way that is typically used at primary school, that is, entirely playfully with games, songs and worksheets. This method is more likely to result in implicit learning.

How important is memory to a child’s ability to learn a second language? Shutterstock

In the second half of the school year, all groups experienced the same type of language class: they all learned French, taught with a focus-on-form method. For our study, we assessed the children’s progress in French over the second half of the school year and then looked at whether any components of their aptitude – language-analytic ability, memory ability, phonological awareness – would predict their success in learning French.

If children learn implicitly, we would expect that memory ability would be most important. In other words, the ability to pick up language material as you hear and see it is most relevant. If children learn above all explicitly, we would expect that language-analytic ability would be most important.

The results

Differently to what people might expect, we found that the children’s language-analytic ability was most important, followed by phonological awareness. These two abilities contributed to predicting the children’s achievement in French, while memory ability was only marginally relevant. This suggests that children as young as eight or nine years can indeed learn explicitly to some extent, if the teaching method they experience encourages them to engage in analysis of the language to be learned.

Our results are in line with a previous study which directly compared children and adults experiencing different teaching methods. Here the researcher also found that learners’ use of an explicit approach in the foreign language classroom did not exclusively depend on age, but on how learners were taught. This means that even younger children can approach a learning task like scientists.

Of course, it is important to note that children of primary school age are still developing their ability to learn explicitly. Therefore, we cannot expect to teach them languages in exactly the same way as we would teach teenagers or adults. But some activities that encourage children to consciously reflect on and analyse the language material to be learned can be introduced to make best use of the limited class time that is available for foreign language teaching.

 

Call for Editor Proposals – Language in Society

Professor Jenny Cheshire is completing her tenure in December 2019 as Editor of Language in Society (LiS). Cambridge University Press is now inviting applications for the position of Editor. A team of two Co-Editors will also be considered. Final appointment decisions will be made by the Syndicate of Cambridge University Press.

The deadline for applications is February 1, 2018.

Language in Society is an international journal of sociolinguistics concerned with language and discourse as aspects of social life. The journal publishes empirical articles of general theoretical, comparative or methodological interest to students and scholars in sociolinguistics, linguistic anthropology, and related fields. LiS aims to strengthen international scholarship and interdisciplinary conversation and cooperation among researchers interested in language and society by publishing work of high quality which speaks to a wide audience. In addition to original articles, the journal publishes reviews and notices of the latest important books in the field as well as occasional theme and discussions sections.

LiS published volume 47 in 2018. Its 2017 Impact Factor was 1.426, placing it 45 of 181 journals in the Linguistics JCR and 56 of 147 journals in the Sociology JCR (ranked by Impact Factor).

Interested applicants should send a curriculum vita and cover letter along with an abbreviated development plan (not to exceed two pages) and the names and email addresses of three referees, to Amy Laurent at Cambridge University Press (details below).

Editorial responsibilities will include:

  • Shaping the strategic direction of the journal, in cooperation with Cambridge
  • Organizing and managing the editorial office, with support from Cambridge
  • Managing the peer review process (the journal uses the ScholarOne system)
  • Making final article acceptance decisions
  • Editing and proofing articles for the journal
  • Proposing and working with members of an active Editorial Board
  • Attending relevant conferences and an annual editorial meeting

In your application, please indicate your:

  • Experience of publishing in the field
  • Editorial experience, ideally with an academic journal
  • Ability to work under pressure, meet deadlines and work as part of a team
  • Strong professional and academic links
  • Organizational, communication and IT skills
  • Institutional support, financial or otherwise, to aid your work on the journal
  • Proposed plan for development, including areas such as:
    • Engagement of journal reviewers and editorial board members
    • Areas of focus for commissioning
    • Journal metrics

Please direct applications and any questions to Amy Laurent, Editor, Cambridge University Press at [email protected]Please use Language in Society Call for Editor as your email subject line.

Figures of Speech Competition Winners

We are delighted to announce the winner of the Figures of Speech linguistics cartoon competition.

Congratulations to Jonas B. Wittke (a graduate student at Rice University, USA) and Jonathan Maki (an art teacher in Minneapolis) for winning the iPad Pro, Apple Pen and £100 of CUP vouchers with their cartoon series Minimal Peers.

The judges, including linguists, cartoonists and the CUP editorial team, thought the presentation of Minimal Peers was extremely professional and the cartoons funny with approachable and intelligent linguistic points.

We will be publishing the full cartoon series on our Twitter and Facebook pages over the next six weeks beginning on Friday 19 October.

Congratulations, too, to the three runners up who will each receive £100 of CUP books.

  • Selina Sutton, Northumbria University
  • Belinda Krottendorfer, University of Vienna
  • Samuel Crowe, University of York

We would like to express our thanks to everyone who entered the competition, it has been clear that entrants spent a significant amount of time and effort creating the cartoons and it has been a pleasure to read them all.

The judging panel included:

Dominic Wyse, author of How Writing Works
Dominic is Professor of Early Childhood and Primary Education at the University College London (UCL), Institute of Education (IOE), and Head of the Department of Learning and Leadership. Dominic will be President of the British Educational Research Association (BERA) from 2019 to 2021. He is a fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences (FAcSS), and of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA).
Click here to access How Writing Works.

Paul Baker, author of American and British English
Paul is a Professor in the department of Linguistics and English Language at Lancaster University with an interest in Corpus linguistics, particularly in relation to discourse analysis, critical discourse analysis and recent diachronic change; representation of identity, especially gender and sexuality; and analysis of news and online corpora. Paul is the commissioning editor of Corpora journal.
Click here to access American and British English.

Berger and Wyse
Joe Berger and Pascal Wyse produce animation and comic strips for various outlets, including Channel 4, BBC, Sky, Discovery, and The Guardian. Their animations include the title sequences to BBC1’s Hustle (Bafta, Emmy and RTS nominations) and the more recent Ambassadors, starring Mitchell and Webb. You can currently see their work every Saturday in The Guardian Weekend magazine.
Click here to visit the Berger and Wyse website for examples of their work.

Cambridge University Press Linguistics Editorial Team
Andrew Winnard, Executive Publisher (Language and Linguistics, Anthropology)
Helen Barton, Commissioning Editor (Language and Linguistics)
Rebecca Taylor, Commissioning Editor (Linguistics)