(sociolinguistics, pragmatics, discourse analysis, psycholinguistics, conversation analysis, first/second language acquisition) as well as non-linguistic disciplines (law, criminology, psychology, forensic sciences). Given the interdisciplinarity and breadth of topics, the wider field of forensic linguistics and language and the law aims to enhance access to justice through the provision of linguistic expertise in criminal and civil cases, impact best practices in the legal sphere, and improve communication in legal and investigative settings. This chapter presents recent developments in all three streams while placing more emphasis on the latter area, i.e. communication in the legal process, as it is closely related to pedagogical implications of appliedlinguistics and the main focus of this edited collection, thus strengthening intersections with other chapters.
Daniel Perrin is Professor of AppliedLinguistics, Vice President at Zurich University of Applied Sciences, President of the International Association of AppliedLinguistics AILA, Board Member of the Swiss Academy of Social Sciences and Humanities, as well as Editor of the International Journal of AppliedLinguistics and the de Gruyter Handbook of AppliedLinguistics series. His areas of research are media linguistics, methodology of appliedlinguistics, text production research, and analysis of language use in professional communication. Before his academic career, Daniel Perrin worked as a journalist and writing coach. This long-term experience in professional practice has fostered his transdisciplinary research. Today, he is still engaged in training and coaching media and communication professionals as well as leaders in education, economy, and politics in the framework of transdisciplinary projects. For more information see: www.danielperrin.net. What comes below is an email-based interview with Daniel Perrin (DP) conducted by the editor of IJLTR (KS).
Indeed, the authors have unambiguously implied that the field of discourse is so dynamic that it is not reducible to some fixed theories or viewpoints. The authors propose the idea of ‘peopling’ whereby the role of individuals’ judgments, intentions, and interpretations (inter alia) is emphasized in shaping research on discourse. The book is a useful tool for students and researchers across a broad spectrum of fields such as AppliedLinguistics, TESOL, Language Education, and Communication Studies. It focuses on research and practice and argues that the two are interconnected. The book covers a variety of subthemes and is divided into three parts: Part I deals with theoretical underpinnings of the field; Part II looks at proposed guidelines for a workable research perspective; and Part III details useful resources for practitioners in the field of discourse analysis.
This issue offers seven research articles and two book reviews. The first article deals with topics related to using cultural content in the English lessons to help undergraduate students develop meaningful communication through cultural knowledge. The authors, Oviedo, H., & Álvarez, H. (2019) explored undergraduate students´ responsiveness to cultural issues and activities in their process of learning English. The second article by Cuesta Medina L., Alvarez Ayure C.P., Cadena Aguilar, A., Jiménez Bonilla, M. S., Maldonado Chacón, P., & Morales Pulido, V. (2019) deals with the value of reflection in Language Teaching and Learning with in-service language teachers pursuing a graduate degree. The results of their study unveil the difficulties
In this regard, and in addition to existential paradigm, schemata, the writer’s anticipation of the reader’s possible reactions, the writer-reader interaction, and Pagano’s classification of denials, there is a crucial concept proposed by Bakhtin. Bakhtin (1981) , observes that all utterances exist "… against a backdrop of other concrete utterances on the same theme, a background made up of contradictory opinions, points of view and value judgments… pregnant with responses and objections” . That is to say, a dialogistic perspective reveals that when writers engage with prior speakers and prior utterances in the same sphere, they can stand with, stand against, be undecided, or neutral to the other speakers and their value positions. At the same time, the dialogistic perspective reveals the anticipatory aspect of the text that equips the writer with the signals for the ways they expect their addressee to respond to the current proposition. Moreover, this reflects Bakhtin’s notions of dialogism and heteroglossia under which all verbal communication, whether written or spoken, is ‘dialogic’ in that to speak or write always refers to or reveals the influence of, what is written before, and simultaneously anticipates the reader's responses . Utterances are categorized accordingly into a two-way distinction that classifies them as ‘monoglossic’ or ‘heteroglossic. When they make no reference to other voices or viewpoints, they are monoglossic, whereas when they invoke or allow for dialogistic alternatives and refer to other voices or viewpoints, they are heteroglossic .
Appliedlinguistics has two definitions: narrow sense and broad sense. In narrow sense, this discipline mainly studies intercultural communication terms and language teaching, mainly focusing on the internal research of linguistics. In broad sense, appliedlinguistics has been fully utilized in sociology, psychology, philosophy and logic, and has a certain guidance significance to the design of professional terms in various disciplines . Therefore, whether it is a narrow paradigm to understand appliedlinguistics or a broad view of appliedlinguistics, scholars generally agrees that appliedlinguistics is a discipline to solve linguistic problems. Appliedlinguistics holds that people should reconstruct the language teaching system so as to link language with context and social practice . In How to cite this paper: Xing, H.H. (2018)
The complexities of the relationship between teaching and language learning have motivated appliedlinguistics researchers to propose various hypotheses regarding the role of classroom interaction in providing samples of the target language. For example, ‘The comprehensible input hypothesis’ (Krashen 1982), proposes that if the interaction in the classroom is comprehensible to the learner, s/he will learn language by participating in it, without needing direct instruction. ‘The interaction hypothesis’ (Allwright 1984 a, b), proposes that the quality and quantity of spoken interaction in which a learner engages in the classroom will have an impact on his/her language learning. The belief about language learning underlying these hypotheses is that different learners will learn different things from exposure to purposeful communication in the target language. They suggest that researchers should lookcarefully at language in the language classroom as ‘input’ in its own right rather than just as the conveyor of information, and that teachers should be aware of the potential of their language use to act as a sample of the language to be learned. It is impossible to claim conclusively that these teaching approaches are more effective than others, since there are so many factors in operation in any teaching learning event, and there are such enormous differences from one cultural context to another (as discussed, for example, in Tarnopolsky 2000). However, we believe that these ‘interaction hypotheses’ are worth taking into account in relation to the teaching of English as a Second Language to adults, and we suggest also that they may be applicable to literacy learning through interaction with written texts, including interactive electronic texts.
Generally, the structure of titles as a rhetorical tool is inscribed in their semantic, lexical and syntactic compositions. For example, the syntax of a title, in particular, can reveal its distinctiveness. A writer’s intention to invest a title with a particular meaning calls for a specific syntactic configuration. So, while there are emerging and perceptible studies into the syntactic configuration of titles, this subject matter and other perspectives have been limited largely to RA titles (e.g. Diener, 1984; Jalilifar, 2010; Peritz, 1994; Rodriguez, 1996; Yitzhaki, 1994). Admittedly, the RA continues to be the chief mode of communication in academia (Canagarajah, 2002; Lillis & Curry, 2010; Swales, 1990, 2004). Consequently, there is the need for a thorough consideration and investigation of the syntax (Moattarian & Alibabaee, 2015) in the titles of less investigated academic publications such as conference papers as it is known that CP constitutes one of the earliest research genres in the process towards knowledge construction and dissemination among both expert and novice members in the academic discourse community (Cianflone, 2012). The study, thus, aims to explore the syntactic configurations of conference paper titles (CPTs). Such a detailed study into the syntactic structures of CPTs can assist in their effective construction, presentation, and comprehension.
The focus of related studies in the literature is versatile. Most previous works have focused on phonological and pragmatic differences between female and male language use in speech (Trudgill, 1974; Holmes, 1990), informal writing (Mulac et al., 1990), fiction and nonfiction textbooks (Argomon et al., 2003), and electronic messaging or web logs as a new genre of computer- mediated communication (Herring & Paolillo, 2006). Sociolinguists, on the other hand, have reported different styles of language use in speech in statistical terms. For instance, females have been speculated to be excessive users of hedging in communication while males have been speculated to be more assertive users and interrupters particularly in mixed gender interactions (Holmes, 1984). Tannen (1990) suggested that females talk about relationships more than males. They use more compliments and apologies and use more facilitative tag questions (Holmes, 1984, 1988). In the second language acquisition context also Spanish learners of English” either frequently fail […] to identify hedges in the L2 or consider […] them as negative evasive concepts,” (Alonso, Alonso, & Mariñas, 2012, p. 47).
Vocabulary classification is one of the most important processes of language analysis in the area of descrip- tive and historical linguistics. In language technology and computational linguistics also, it has turned up as an important strategy for language-specific lexical information retrieval and knowledge representation. In the act of vocabulary classification, we propose to identify the source of origin of a word and annotate it accordingly. For instance, within a modern Bengali text corpus we have annotated the word iskul/ENG/ “school” as an English word, because although the word is a part of the present vocabulary of the Bengali language, the mother source of the word is English. Therefore, it is annotated as an English word, and not as a Bengali word. In case of hierarchical tagging it should carry tags of both the languages. Through this process, we shall be able to learn words of which an- cestry are used in a language and what kind of mor- phophonemic changes these words have undergone in the course of naturalization in the language (Rissanen 1989).
Contrary to Iranian writers, non-Iranian writers of ESP had the tendency to put more emphasis on step 1A by showing the gap in the research history, the step which was not pinpointed as such by Iranians. Frequencies of move 3 utilized by Iranian and non-Iranian authors proved negligible differences between the groups. Announcing present research, the only obligatory step (S1) in Move 3, was used extensively by the international researchers, so this step was present in about all international RAs, but in local articles this was less frequent which implies that some local writers might not be aware of the obligatory function of this particular step or they used step 2 in place of step 1 to announce the present study. There was also a greater tendency by Iranian researchers to explicitly announce the research questions (M3-S2). Other steps were sporadically utilized in both corpora, with a greater frequency in international articles, alluding indirectly to the optional nature of these steps, and that they might not be characteristics of appliedlinguistics introductions. The greater frequency of these steps in international articles might also indicate the diversity involved in the structure of scholarly articles. It is likely that experienced researchers start an argument and let the argument unfold as they proceed, adopting rhetorical structures that suit the argument rather than sticking strictly to the generic conventions as suggested in the literature. The deviation from the standard practice is not only interesting but may also lead to greater creativity.
The findings of this study have indicated that the class that employed etymological elaboration as a method of learning English idioms did better in the posttest than the control class. This finding points to the need for the teachers of English in Kenyan schools and beyond to apply this method in their teaching instead of the teacher descriptive method that is usually used in the language classroom. In so doing, teachers will create a learning atmosphere that is conducive for their learners. The study concludes that etymological elaboration is an effective strategy in appliedlinguistics that enhances performance in English idioms. However, it is important to know that not all idioms can be easily hypothesized by their etymological origins because of their semantic opacity. Therefore, further studies need to be done on other language learning strategies to help improve the learners‟ performance in English idioms.
Ingrid Piller and Aneta Pavlenko s ‘ Globalization, Multilingualism and Gender ’ provides cogent examples of how gender structures multilingualism in the domains of economic and social reproduction, and explains how ‘multilingualism is a form of practice, and it is a gendered practice’ (p. 22). Florian Coulmas brings together discussion of the language of economics (linking appliedlinguistics to areas such as game theory and evolutionary economics in unexpected ways) and the economics of language (language as capital). Strong though his chapter is, it oddly makes no reference either to Blommaert or Bourdieu in the latter sections. Suzanne Romaine writes about the correlation in the global distribution of linguistic diversity and poverty, maintaining that ‘addressing poverty entails a new understanding of the critical role of language and linguistic diversity in human development ’ (p. 47). Bernard Spolsky briefly and incisively summarises some key issues in the management of religious language. Nick Enfield’s investigation of the relationship among language, culture and cognition is, I feel, the weaker of the two chapters whose central issue is culture (the other being by Kramsch, in the first volume), and is seriously over- referenced.
An applied linguistic approach is the entry point here. AppliedLinguistics has been broadly defined as “a practice-driven discipline that addresses language-based problems in real-world contexts” (Grabe, 2002, p. 10). With the spirit of CAL, i.e. the problematizing practices which entails being self-critical or self-reflexive (cf. Pennycook, 1999, 2001, 2004), among others, many Indonesian EFL teachers must criticize their own reluctance of dealing with political issues with students. In fact, political discourses are pregnant with language problems and are situated in real-world contexts such as in the media and in daily conversations when people embed political stances in their Discourses. And those who are already accustomed to bringing up such issues in classrooms, need to problematize the taken-for-granted approach such as harshly discrediting politicians from a certain affiliation or party without providing a balanced proportion of voices (or perspectives) from other politicians or people’s points of view. Even when in advanced EFL reading courses the identification of biases in the media is relatively prevalent already, this bias identification is still subject to problematization. That is, they are lacking in a more complex framework by which a variety of voices and phases of confusion syndrome Discourses, among others, can be more systematically analyzed. Being systematic here does not mean that the working model I am proposing here (cf. Figures 1 and 3) is static and irrefutable. As Pennycook (n.d.) suggests,
There were attitude markers (i.e. it is interesting to, it is important that, and it is hoped that) that were only used by published writers in appliedlinguistics. Especially important was the higher frequency of it is important to in the corpus of research articles. It is difficult to was another bundle which was also used more heavily by appliedlinguistics writers. Interestingly and in contrast to some findings of the previous research (e.g. Hyland, 2008a, 2008b, Cortes, 2004), postgraduate students, who might not have established themselves as members of their disciplinary communities, were found to be confident in using those stretches that involved making emphasis. This showed that postgraduate students could express their attitudinal meaning in a straightforward manner.
This paper focuses on some latent, and still largely undiscussed issues in these and similar debates, in other words on observations that are not immediately obvious to those who read and understand these discussions as merely historical treatments and information, of past, contemporary or possible future directions within the discipline. The first observation that will be dealt with below is that, within postmodernism itself, there is an ongoing contestation about potentially modernist influences that still inhibit its radicalism (McNamara, 2012a: 474; Kramsch, 2012). The second is that, with one possible but tenuous exception, poststructuralist thinking ignores its main current rival, dynamic systems theory. There remains within poststructuralism an uneasiness with the notion of ‘system’, with some proponents declaring it anathema, and others retaining an ambiguous perspective. The third and related observation is that there remain clear lines of demarcation between dynamic systems theory and poststructuralism, in which the political emphases of the latter appear to be the distinct and enduring contribution that poststructuralism (as most other tenets of postmodernism) will add to the design of applied linguistic solutions to language problems. The fourth observation concerns the claim by poststructuralism that other disciplines exert an influence on appliedlinguistics, and so implicitly provide evidence of interdisciplinarity. Such a claim may indeed stem from a twofold misunderstanding. I turn below to each of these issues.
linguistics. This includes, for example, justifying the use of L2 and considering how much it affects the detail of what interviewers can offer. Canagarajah (2008) would be a good example of a paper where large amounts of codeswitching are overlooked. Also, there is no comment at all on why some participants chose English (only) and why some chose Tamil. This is a crucial but neglected data source and somewhat surprising given the stated aim to provide „emic perspectives on how the [Tamil diasporic] community explains its language choice and attitudes‟ (2008: 148). There needs to be more attention given to code switching practices in interviews (when both parties have access to L1 and L2). For example, is it worth encouraging interviewees to code-switch if they feel that an explanation can be fuller in L1? There are also translation complexities that get
We propose this Volume 16, Number 1 issue of the Colombian AppliedLinguistics Journal as a springboard of intersubjectivities, new voices and new multidirectional horizons because it might be contradictory thinking of single and fixed research horizons for knowledge generation in appliedlinguistics in myriad second-language contextual scenarios. It seems rather necessary to move the eyes lengthwise the horizons. Our editorial research view understands that our mission, as in any research programme, should relate to the context and to the multiple social uses of languages. As I have pointed out elsewhere (Castañeda-Peña, 2010), in the words of Martin-Barbero (2009, p. 12), we believe that in Latin America,