While there is a growing body of research on second language acquisition (SLA) in children, adolescents, young and more mature adults, much remains to be explored about how adults in later life learn a new language and how good additional language learning is for them. Our goal in this article is to survey and evaluate what is known about the linguistic, socio-affective, neurobiological and cognitive underpinnings of the second language (L2) learning process in older individuals, the extent to which L2 acquisition may be seen as contributing to healthy and active ageing, and how these phenomena are to be approached scientifically, methodologically and pedagogically. Our view is that a developmental enterprise as complex as L2 learning in senior adulthood and its effects in later life cannot be explained by a single theory or set of principles. Furthermore, we take it that L2 acquisition in the third age needs to be regarded not just as a goal in itself but as a means of promoting social interaction and integration, and that it is partly through the stimulation of social well-being that its cognitive effects may potentially be observed.

We often hear language teachers say ‘Don't confuse me with theories, just give me practical ideas I can take into the classroom’. Many teacher educators and researchers, on the other hand, believe that (research-based) theory is more important, and should be used and implemented by practitioners. This paper will propose an approach to the use of theory and practice in teacher education that may help to resolve this dissonance. After some preliminary definitions and clarification of some common confusions, it is suggested that theory and practice in the context of language teaching are not polar opposites, but points on a continuum: any statement or guideline about teaching can be, more or less, practical or theoretical. The rest of the paper will focus on the questions how the various types of published theories or teacher theorizing can contribute to professional expertise, what is the place of practical tips or recipes, and how all these can be used or combined in teacher education courses to bring about optimal learning by novice teachers, or increased expertise on the part of the more experienced ones.

Although there is a large and increasing body of research on the use of corpus data by language teachers and learners, the language teachers in question are also the researchers reporting on their use of corpora with their own learners. There is thus a gap, which this plenary speech addresses, between this research and the practice of language teachers who are not corpus linguists. After a brief account of the successful integration of corpus data in the production of language learning resources such as dictionaries, grammars and course books, the potential benefits of having direct access to corpora by teachers and learners are discussed. Following this, a number of publications on the use of corpora in the language classroom, both in higher education and at secondary level, are examined, focussing on how easy or difficult it would be for teachers to replicate the use of corpus data in their own classrooms. This leads to a final section where possible solutions to the research–practice gap are considered, involving language teacher education, publishers of course books, and research involving the use of corpora in the classroom by language teachers who are not also corpus linguists.

In referencing the title of Chris Candlin's (2008) plenary, this paper focuses on the continuing concern to align research and practice in applied linguistics, and more particularly in language for specific purposes (LSP) and professional communication. We examine how Candlin identified practices for trading places between research and practice and for creating synergies between them – and in so doing opened up new spaces for enquiry and understanding in the field. We identify and critically examine four approaches that Candlin developed to promote the alignment of research and practice: through particular research tools and methodologies, through the investigation of professional settings and inter-domain constructs (such as quality, trust and risk), through a concern with both rigour and relevance in relation to research and training, and through a focus on ‘critical moments of interaction’ in ‘crucial sites of engagement’ (Candlin 2008). To this end, we draw on the diverse domains and trajectories of enquiry outlined in the opening plenary symposium at the 4th Asia-Pacific Language for Specific Purposes & Professional Communication Association Conference from five standpoints: in recent impact case studies of professional communication in the Hong Kong context (Cheng 2017), in a ‘multi-perspectival’ account of Candlin's enacted philosophy of teaching and learning (Moore 2017), in examining the communicative basis of expertise (Sarangi 2017) and the concept of interdiscursivity (Jones 2017), and in the extensive fieldwork and analysis of workplace talk underlying the development of resources for new migrants in New Zealand (Holmes & Riddiford 2017). In conclusion, we pay tribute to an inspirational researcher and teacher whose influence will continue to impact applied linguistics for decades to come.

Erlam & Ellis (2018) published, in Canadian Modern Language Review, an experimental study that investigated the effect of input-based tasks on the acquisition of vocabulary and markers of plurality by adolescent near-beginner learners of L2 (second language) French. The present paper reports an approximate replication of the original study with the aim of confirming or disconfirming the results.1 The research questions of both studies addressed the receptive acquisition of new vocabulary and the receptive and productive acquisition of markers of plurality resulting from instruction using input-based tasks. Both studies investigated near-beginner adolescent learners of French. The teacher, the students’ usual classroom teacher, was the same in both studies. In the replication study, a new, larger group of students were investigated, the length of the instruction was increased, involving the development of additional tasks, and productive as well as the receptive knowledge of the vocabulary items was assessed. The results of the replication study confirm and extend those of the original study. The teachers’ views about the role of input-based tasks with near-beginner learners remained constant in the two studies. The paper concludes with a discussion of the contribution that approximate replications can make to instructed second language acquisition research.

There has been extensive research in the last 20 years on the effectiveness of different instructional interventions and learning conditions on the acquisition of vocabulary. However, very few attempts have been made to explore how vocabulary knowledge develops over time. This paper argues for the need to conduct more longitudinal studies on vocabulary learning and teaching and provides suggestions for important replication studies in the area. In particular, this paper calls for the replication of the studies by Schmitt (1998) and Webb & Chang (2012). Unlike most studies on vocabulary learning and teaching, these two follow a longitudinal approach and study vocabulary growth from two main perspectives, i.e. the development of vocabulary depth and vocabulary breadth. The approximate replications suggested here would constitute an important contribution to the field of vocabulary learning and teaching.

In different parts of the world second language (L2) teachers devote a massive amount of time to giving feedback on grammatical errors in student writing. Such written corrective feedback, which is unfocused and comprehensive, is fraught with problems for both teachers and students. Nonetheless, it remains a prevalent practice in many L2 contexts. In this position paper, I argue that more written corrective feedback is not better, but instead less is more. After presenting the problems emanating from comprehensive written corrective feedback, I argue for a focused approach to written corrective feedback and examine its benefits for teachers and students. Through discussing five impediments to the implementation of focused written corrective feedback, I scrutinize and refute the counter-claims, and bolster my overall argument in support of focused written corrective feedback. I conclude the position paper with recommendations for action for teachers, teacher educators and researchers.