The contributions in this volume provide a comprehensive survey of recent research and pedagogic practice in what is described as ‘the four basic language skills.’ My brief, and my original intention, seemed straightforward enough: to provide a short overview which would comment on general trends in a relatively impartial manner. Impartiality is never easy to achieve, however, and since trends are typically a matter of implicit assumptions, discerning them is bound to be subjective in some degree. What I have done is to consider certain of these assumptions and relate them to general issues about the so-called language skills which have been subject to debate for some time. This commentary, then, is less a measured survey than a critical reflection, from an historical and personal perspective, on matters arising from these contributions.

Much recent work on optimal conditions for the teaching of speaking in second and foreign language classrooms has been grounded in educational psycholinguistics or in cognitive and social psychology. Theoretical constructs for language pedagogy have been drawn extensively from empirical studies, underpinned by the central notions of second language acquisition: communicative competence (Canale and Swain 1980); comprehensible input (Krashen 1985), negotiated interaction (Ellis 1990, Gass and Varonis 1994, Long 1983, Pica, et al. 1989), input processing (VanPatten and Cadierno 1993), developmental sequences and routes of acquisition (Meisel, Clahsen and Pienemann 1981), and communication strategies (Faerch and Kasper 1983). Such constructs are widely taught in teacher preparation programs in second and foreign language teaching and clearly have relevance to oral language instructional practice.

Since Messick (1989) included test use in his validity matrix, there has been extensive debate about professional responsibility for test use. To theorize test use, some researchers have relied upon Foucault's social criticism, thereby stressing the negative role of tests in the surveillance of the marginalized. From a wider perspective, Shohamy (2001a) sees negative test impact as stemming from centralizing agencies, which still leaves open the possibility of positive test use. In this article I argue that how tests are used is a reflection of the wider political philosophy of a society. Political philosophy can generally be characterized as placing more emphasis on either the state or the citizen, leading to collectivist or individualist solutions to problems, be they real or perceived. In collectivist societies, tests, like history, are used to achieve conformity, control, and identity. In individualistic societies, they are used to promote individual progress. The role of tests within each broad approach will be described and illustrated. Finally, I briefly describe effect-driven test architecture as a method for testers to proscribe unintended uses of their tests.

This chapter reviews recent research that investigates second language performance from the perspective of sentence processing (on-line comprehension studies) and word recognition. It concentrates on describing methods that employ reaction time measures as correlates of processing difficulty or knowledge representation. This research suggests that second language learners employ much the same on-line processing strategies as native speakers, but that the L1 can also influence L2 processing. Reaction times in lexical decision experiments have been useful in exploring the relationship between the first and second language lexicons and automatic processes in lexical access. Finally, the chapter mentions some of the problems in this line of research, in particular the issue of individual differences in working memory and technological challenges.

As linguistics has extended its scope over the past thirty years from an exclusive concern with knowledge of the abstract code, what Chomsky referred to as Internalized (I) language, to a consideration of the way this knowledge is actualized in Externalized (E) language (Chomsky 1988), so it has inevitably gained in face validity as an area of inquiry relevant to practical life. A linguistics that deals with real, as distinct from ideal, speaker-listeners has a more obvious applicability to the problems real people actually have with language. Nevertheless, one cannot just assume a direct correspondence between the E externalized language the linguist describes and the E experienced language that is a reality for the user. The applicability of linguistic descriptions is a potential that has to be realized, and this is where applied linguistics comes in.

We empirically evaluated three theoretical models—the threshold hypothesis, transfer theory, and time-on-task theory—for educating English language learners (ELLs), with a focus on the role of language factors in explaining achievement differences among ELLs. Participants were 196 sixth graders with Spanish language backgrounds who started learning English in kindergarten and then were continuously enrolled in a U.S. school. Structural equation modeling was used to estimate the extent to which Spanish and English language and literacy—skills that are emphasized differentially in competing theories for educating ELLs—predict academic achievement assessed in English. Results indicated that Spanish literacy, over and above English language proficiency, was substantially predictive of academic achievement, consistent with the transfer theory. This model was a more focused version of the threshold hypothesis, in that the weaker predictor of Spanish oral language proficiency was excluded. Time-on task theory was not supported.

Research on the forms and functions of language in medical practice and training has expanded rapidly during the past two decades, a development marked by diversity in theoretical perspectives and methods brought to bear on a variety of problems. Although we label the area as “language and medicine,” it includes other health professionals and nonclinical settings. Our discussion is organized under four headings that we believe represent primary topics and domains of interest among investigators as well as the variability within the field: speaking to patients, speaking with patients, speaking about patients, and speaking by patients. A few exemplar studies will be cited in each section and the contributions and limitations of approaches in each topic area will be noted.

As awareness of the unique abilities and needs of heritage language learners has grown, so too has recent research deepened our understanding of the dynamic between language policy and heritage language education (HLE). In this article, I review HLE policy research conducted in various international contexts. I begin by reviewing ongoing debates in the policy literature over definitions and adopt a broad understanding of the term so that we can glean as much insight as possible from the comparison of international contexts. I then turn to six international regions and countries that have been the focus of recent HLE policy research. Within each region, I apply the analytic framework proposed by Ricento and Hornberger (1996) to differentiate the multiple levels at which language policy functions. Finally, I identify common themes emerging across the research in these varied contexts and conclude with suggestions for future policy-oriented HLE research.

English worldwide may be viewed in terms of spread and of diffusion. Spread refers to the use in different global contexts, such as publishing and examinations, of Standard British or American English. Diffusion describes the emergence of local varieties of English in, for example, India or Singapore, comparable to the earlier emergence of Australian English, Canadian English, and so on. In nonformal settings, interlocutors make use of their own local variety of English, their World Englishes (WEs). In formal settings, notably in English language assessment, it seems that the norm appealed to is still that of Standard British or American English. Since English as a lingua franca (ELF) appears to make use only of the spoken medium, there is less of a demand for an ELF written norm. At present what seems to hold back the use of local WEs norms in formal assessment is less the hegemony of Western postcolonial and economic power and more the uncertainty of local stakeholders.

Second language (L2) learning strategies are specific actions, behaviors, steps, or techniques that students employ—often consciously—to improve their own progress in internalizing, storing, retrieving, and using the L2 (Oxford 1990b, after Rigney 1978). Strategies are the tools for active, self-directed involvement that is necessary for developing L2 communicative ability (O'Malley and Chamot 1990, Wenden 1991, Wenden and Rubin 1987). Hundreds of L2 learning strategies exist and many are well recognized and used regularly by students. In a given class of students, for example, Lázló will seek out conversation partners. Iike will group words to be learned and then label each group. Marijke will give herself encouragement through positive self-talk before getting up to give a speech in the target language.

As an alternative paradigm, mixed methods research (MMR), in general, endorses pluralism to understand the complex nature of a social world from multiple perspectives and multiple methodological lenses, each of which offers partial, yet valuable, insights. This methodological mixing is not limited to mixing of methods, but extends to the entire inquiry process. Researchers in language testing and assessment (LTA) are increasingly turning to MMR in order to understand the complexities of language acquisition and interaction among various language users, and also to expand opportunities to investigate validity claims beyond the three traditional facets of construct, content, and criterion validity. We use current conceptualizations of validity as a guiding framework to review 32 empirical MMR studies that have been published in LTA since 2007. Our systematic review encompassed multiple areas of foci, including the rationale for the use of MMR, evidence of collaboration, and synergetic effects. The analyses revealed several key trends including: (a) triangulation and complementarity were the prevalent uses of MMR in LTA; (b) the majority of the studies took place predominantly in higher education learning contexts with adult immigrant or university populations; (c) aspects of writing assessment were most frequently the focus of the studies (compared to other language modalities); (d) many of the studies explicitly addressed facets of validity, and others had significant implications for expanding notions of validity in LTA; (e) the majority of the studies avoided mixing at the data analysis stage by distinguishing data types and reporting results separately; and (f) integration occurred primarily at the discussion stage. We contend that LTA should embrace MMR through creative designs and integrative analytic strategies to seek new insights into the complexities and contexts of language testing and assessment.

The focus in this article is on the evolution of language and technology in relation to multilingualism, in particular on how multilingual provision has developed in tandem with the development of the internet and the World Wide Web (WWW). In trying to understand how multilingualism has evolved, it is also necessary to understand how the technical aspects of digital technology as well as the politico-economic dimensions to that technology have changed. Four distinct periods emerge in the development: monolingualism, multilingualism, hyperlingualism, and idiolingualism. Monolingualism covers the origins of the internet and later the WWW as monolingual spaces. This was followed by a long period that charts the slow but gradual development of increased language provision and what I am terming “partial multilingualism.” Multilingualism expanded substantially, potentially limitlessly, with the development of Web 2.0. This has involved the diversification of online spaces to the point of “hyperlingualism.” I argue that we are still in this hyperlingual phase, but alongside it, a new phase is developing, that of “idiolingualism” as a result of mass linguistic customization. In this article, I discuss these phases, paying attention to both their technical and economic contexts, as well as their implications for linguistic diversity online and in wider society.

In the last two decades, content-based instruction (CBI) has grown by leaps and bounds; it appears across educational levels and under various guises. In foreign language education, immersion education and “content-enriched” Foreign Language in the Elementary School (FLES) are popular examples. Sheltered classes and thematic curricula are two variations commonly found in ESL settings. The degree of language and content integration which underlies these various program types is perhaps best captured by means of a continuum.

The research presented here is an examination of how child language novices (zero beginners) develop interactional competences and repertoires in a Swedish as a second language classroom. Two 7-year-old girls’ learning trajectories are the focus in a yearlong study of their second language (L2) development. The girls’ transition from highly repetitious and formulaic production to formally and semantically more diverse discourse is documented, along with a broadening of the girls’ classroom interactional repertoires. They initiated and took part in interactions with teachers and peers and participated in a growing range of classroom discursive activities. The longitudinal analysis also documents the differences in their two learning trajectories, particularly in terms of their L2 resources and pragmatic skills, as well as their identities as successful or unsuccessful language learners (as ascribed to them by the teachers). The study illustrates an intricate and synergistic, rather than unidirectional, relationship between these two child novice learners’ competences, L2 features, and identities.

Language testing [LT] research and second language acquisition [SLA] research are often seen as distinct areas of inquiry in applied linguistics. To oversimplify slightly, SLA research takes a longitudinal view, concerning itself primarily with the description and explanation of how second language proficiency develops, while LT research typically observes a “slice of life”, and attempts to arrive at a more or less static description of language proficiency at a given stage of development.

The expectations of the impact of technology for language teaching and learning have often exceeded the actual results themselves, where emerging technologies are often believed to be more effective than existing ones simply because they are newer, with little consideration of the differences in associated pedagogies (see Bax, 2003; Levy & Stockwell, 2006). Technology is often believed to be inherently motivating for students and linked to the development of autonomy. The realities of technology and its influence on motivation are proving to be somewhat more complex than perceived for both language teachers and learners (Stockwell, 2013). Technology can provide opportunities for motivated learners but is unlikely to lead to motivation or autonomous behavior in many learners unless appropriate pedagogies are applied that capitalize on the affordances of the technologies and include sufficient training in how to use the technologies for language learning purposes (see Reinders, 2018a). At the same time, the role of teachers in the classroom and their attitudes toward their environment and the pressures that they face (Mercer & Kostoulas, 2018) can also impact technology implementation. This article brings together these three interrelated areas and explores how they link to technology: learner motivation and autonomy, teacher psychology, and pedagogical considerations.

Like so many other aspects of language analysis, assessing the writing abilities of non-native English speakers (NNES) becomes an increasingly complex issue as one explores both its root meaning and its current uses; this complexity can be traced, in part, to the recognition that writing abilities develop in interaction with other language skills. In this volume, various chapters have narrowed, if artificially, the area of investigation by providing for a separate consideration of assessment as applied to each of the four language skills; clearly assessment of language proficiency as a total package also is of great concern in academic contexts, especially where NNES students are concerned (see also Resources in Language Testing website).

The last two decades in applied linguistics—which roughly coincide with the evolution of the communicative approach in language teaching—have seen the development of a number of language teaching innovations, including the notional/functional syllabus, the process syllabus, the Natural Approach, the procedural syllabus, and task-based language teaching. All of these proposals have contributed in important ways to an understanding of theoretical issues related to designing innovative language syllabuses. But it is only rather recently that applied linguists have begun to investigate the problems associated with implementing these innovations.

Task-based language teaching (TBLT) is increasingly becoming known for its distinct edge in developing learners’ functional competence. Although its potential in promoting content learning has yet to be realized and explored, it should be high, given TBLT's primary attention to meaning. To what extent does the potential play out in foreign language teacher education, a domain involving much content learning, is both an intellectually stimulating and practically meaningful question. This article reports on a semester-long study investigating task-based learning in a Chinese language teacher-training program that promotes TBLT. The participants were three Chinese-speaking trainees, who, while being exposed to TBLT, performed ongoing tasks. Data from one task—writing weekly reading journals—were analyzed for both content and language, quantitatively (using robust automated tools) and qualitatively. The results show tangible gains on both counts—understanding TBLT (content) and the ability to articulate it (language). The conceptual and methodological implications of the findings are discussed for future research.

Bilingualism is a complex life experience. Second language (L2) learning and bilingualism take place in many different contexts. To develop a comprehensive account of dual-language experience requires research that examines individuals who are learning and using two languages in both the first language (L1) and second language (L2) environments. In this article, we review studies that exploit the presence of an international research network on bilingualism to investigate the role of the environment and some the unique characteristics of L2 learning and bilingual language usage in different locations. We ask how the context of learning affects the acquisition of the L2 and the ability to control the use of each language, how language processing is changed by the patterns of language usage in different places (e.g., whether bilinguals have been immersed in the L2 environment for an extended period of time or whether they code-switch), and how the bilingualism of the community itself influences learning and language use.