The present paper reports on an approximate replication of Foster's (1998) study on the negotiation of meaning. Foster investigated the interactional adjustments produced by L2 English learners working on different types of language learning tasks in a classroom setting. The replication study duplicates the methods of data collection and data analysis of the original study, but alters the target language (L2 German) and adds a stimulated recall methodology. The results of the replication study partially confirm Foster's results, and introduce some further differentiated findings. It is concluded that the original study's concern with the transferability of laboratory findings to classroom settings should be investigated in greater detail.

This state-of-the-art review focuses on translanguaging in education. In recent years, scholars have engaged in the conceptualisation of ‘translanguaging’ (e.g. García, 2009; García & Wei, 2014a; Wei, 2018) as well as in conducting a vast and ever-increasing number of empirical studies, in educational contexts in particular. This article aims to take stock of the different ways in which ‘translanguaging’ has been conceptualised and of the ways in which it has been interpreted and applied in the study of multilingualism in diverse educational contexts across the globe. Our review exercise shows that ‘translanguaging’ has been conceptualised within two different approaches, which we propose to call the ‘fixed language approach’ and the ‘fluid languaging approach’. It further shows how ‘translanguaging’ has been studied within these two approaches in different educational contexts. We finish our review by calling for new methodologies adapted to a linguistics of fluidity and by considering critically translanguaging as a scholarly phenomenon.

There is a great deal of variation in gains found between studies of second language (L2) incidental vocabulary learning, as well as many factors that affect learning. This meta-analysis investigated the effects of exposure to L2 meaning-focused input on incidental vocabulary learning with an aim to clarify the proportional gains that occur through meaning-focused learning. Twenty-four primary studies were retrieved providing 29 different effect sizes and a total sample size of 2,771 participants (1,517 in experimental groups vs. 1,254 in control groups). Results showed large overall effects for incidental vocabulary learning on first and follow-up posttests. Mean proportions of target words learned ranged from 9–18% on immediate posttests, and 6–17% on delayed posttests. Incidental L2 vocabulary learning gains were similar across reading (17%, 15%), listening (15%, 13%), and reading while listening (13%, 17%) conditions on immediate and delayed posttest. In contrast, the proportion of words learned in viewing conditions on immediate posttests was smaller (7%, 5%). Findings also revealed that the amount of incidental learning varies according to a range of moderator variables including learner characteristics (L2 proficiency, institutional levels), materials (text type and audience), learning activities (spacing, mode of input), and methodological features (approaches to controlling prior word knowledge).

This paper reviews how the construct of oral fluency in a second language (L2) has been defined and researched over the last twenty-five years. The emerging picture is somewhat kaleidoscopic, as domains of cognitive, social, individual and linguistic influences on L2 speech have been opened up for study. L2 fluency research presents a wealth of directions for future exploration, five of which have been laid out here as an achievable, though not comprehensive, agenda for the coming decade. Four of these studies focus on the relationship between variables such as perceived fluency, utterance fluency, idiomaticity, task familiarity, vocabulary size and learner self-reflection, while the fifth focusses on supporting fluency development in the L2 classroom. As an aid to prospective researchers, the five studies are laid out in practical detail, together with suggestions on how these might need to be altered to fit the local context in which the research is undertaken.

This article describes the structure, functions and origins of the Council of Europe's European Language Portfolio (ELP); summarizes the scope and findings of the pilot projects (1998–2000) and the measures that have been taken to encourage large-scale implementation in 2001 and beyond; outlines the pedagogical challenge posed by the ELP; and suggests various possibilities for future work.

The last couple of decades have seen a dramatic increase in corpus availability and a steady growth in the number of supporters of the use of corpora in language teaching. Yet there still seems to be a long way to go before corpora can be understood and used by language teachers in general. Novice corpus users often fail to grasp that corpora do not work in the same way as the more familiar language learning resources – such as dictionaries, grammar books and textbooks – that they are accustomed to using. I therefore propose a series of task-based, consciousness-raising exercises to help teachers (who are not corpus linguists) understand the basics of corpora. The tasks proposed are not about learning how to use a specific corpus or software, but about learning how to use corpora in general.

“Context” has been increasingly featured and acknowledged in second language (L2) research because L2 teaching is recognised to be shaped by the environments in which it is situated. Numerous theoretical perspectives were introduced to L2 research that aim to capture the contextual forces at work in teaching and learning, including but not limited to Activity Theory, Complexity Theory, and Sociocultural Theory. Activity Theory holds that a learner's motives (human needs directed towards an object) are highly malleable, subject to the influence of such contextual variables as institutional rules, community, tools and artefacts available (see Leont'ev, 1978, 1981 who popularised Activity Theory from Sergei Rubenstein's founding and also Engeström's more current work in 1999). Complexity Theory, which has been widely adopted in both physical and social sciences, originates from physics (Martin et al., 2019). Complexity Theory was later introduced into L2 research by Diane Larsen-Freeman who posits that language learning is not only a process but a volatile and emerging system that is shaped by components of the system (e.g., learners, teachers, schools) engaging in constant and vibrant interactions (Larsen-Freeman, 2014). Sociocultural Theory highlights the sociocultural contexts where learning takes place (Lantolf, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978). Informed by a social constructivist view of learning, key concepts such as scaffolding (e.g., teachers’ support for learners) are put forward. In particular, Vygotsky argues that communication plays an indispensable role in language learning. Extrapolating Vygotsky's work to L2 research, Swain (2006) claims that languaging, dialogues among learners to discuss issues in L2 learning, is an important process of learning a L2.

Research into the distance learning of languages is now established as a significant avenue of enquiry in language teaching, with evident research trajectories in several domains. This article selects and analyses significant areas of investigation in distance language learning and teaching to identify new and emerging gaps, along with research questions, methodologies and research tools. Taken together these define a research agenda focusing on theory, pedagogy, technology use, learner contributions, innovation and less commonly taught languages. Within those broad areas, the scope of proposed research tasks includes the distinctive features and practices of distance language teaching, task design for synchronous settings, mentoring, multimodal learning environments, the transfer of speaking skills, and learners’ affective experiences. To conclude, a number of guidelines are given for future enquiry addressing the distinctive nature of research into distance language teaching and learning and the need for a rich evidence base in both theory and practice.

Second language acquisition (SLA) as a discipline has not had a long history and, as any new discipline, has seen growing pains over the years. This research timeline traces the development of the increased and more sophisticated use of statistics in SLA research and the increasing demands for rigor in their use. Use of statistical procedures has been increasing in the SLA literature, but the tools themselves have not developed from within the field; rather the increased use stems from greater statistical sophistication on the part of users. In other words, SLA is not an innovator but an increasingly knowledgeable borrower and adapter of statistical procedures.

Research on second language (L2) collaborative writing (CW) has proliferated over the recent decade and will continue to bloom due to the changing landscape of writing and learning in the digital age. This article provides a research agenda on CW in L2 classrooms. We illustrate six research themes for future research inquiry by pointing out the research gap, following a brief review of theoretical frameworks and existing empirical efforts on CW. We then expound on six specific research tasks that we deem to be pressing for this domain to progress, including more attention to multimodal CW, expanded frameworks for analyzing peer interaction and writing products, deployment of underused research techniques and improved research practice, development of CW assessment practice, as well as the inquiry of practitioners’ input on CW. We hope to provide guidance for future research endeavors by identifying avenues of investigations on CW and meanwhile contribute to the trajectory of vibrant research on L2 writing and language learning.

The term ‘genre’ first came into the field of second-language (L2) writing and, in turn, the field of English for specific purposes (ESP) in the 1980s, with the research of John Swales, first carried out in the UK, into the introduction section of research articles. Other important figures in this area are Tony Dudley-Evans, Ann Johns and Ken Hyland, who have argued for the value of genre in the teaching of L2 academic writing. ESP genre analysis is a development of text linguistics and the description of academic genres, moving from a focus on lexicogrammatical features to rhetorical moves and, later, to a focus on rhetorical context (see Swales 2001 for a review). Systemic functional genre analysis (typically called the ‘Sydney school’) is a development of research such as that of Longacre (1976) and Labov & Waletzky (1967) and their analyses of the discourse structures of texts. Jim Martin and Joan Rothery are two important figures in the early development of systemic functional genre analysis; their work became the basis for the Disadvantaged Schools Project in Sydney (see Rose & Martin 2012 for a history). As an approach to the teaching of writing, genre-based pedagogy came into prominence in the US, in part as a response to process writing, which, it was felt, did not realistically prepare students for the demands of writing in academic contexts (Horowitz 1986). Genre-based pedagogy in Australia has a similar history and was a reaction to whole language and process writing, which were dominant in the teaching of writing in Australian schools at the time.

This timeline is concerned with Dynamic Assessment (henceforth, DA) as it has been taken up and elaborated in contexts involving the teaching, learning, and assessment of learners of second languages (L2s). DA is distinguished by its insistence that an individual's independent performance of assessment tasks reveals only part of his/her abilities, namely those that have completed their development at the time of the assessment; insights into abilities that have begun to emerge but have not yet fully developed can be determined according to an individual's responsiveness to particular kinds of support, referred to as mediation (e.g., reminders, leading questions, hints, provision of a model, feedback), offered during the assessment as difficulties arise (Haywood & Lidz, 2006). In this respect, DA differs from more conventional distinctions in assessment, such as that between assessments concerned with the results of previous learning (‘summative assessment’) and those intended to provide information relevant to subsequent instruction (‘formative assessment’). Instead, the embedding of an interactive, instructional element within the assessment procedure allows for the possibility of expanding the evidential basis upon which summative interpretations of learner abilities are made; that is, the results encompass previous learning that has resulted in both complete and partial understanding of relevant concepts. At the same time, DA serves a formative function in so far as interaction allows insights into the underlying sources of learner difficulties and the kind of support to which they are most responsive (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002).

This paper follows up on the work of Crossley, Louwerse, McCarthy & McNamara (2007), who conducted an exploratory study of the linguistic differences of simplified and authentic texts found in beginner level English as a Second Language (ESL) textbooks using the computational tool Coh-Metrix. The purpose of this study is to provide a more comprehensive study of second language (L2) reading texts than that provided by Crossley et al. (2007) by investigating the differences between the linguistic structures of a larger and more selective corpus of intermediate reading texts. This study is important because advocates of both approaches to ESL text construction cite linguistic features, syntax, and discourse structures as essential elements of text readability, but only the Crossley et al. (2007) study has measured the differences between these text types and their implications for L2 learners. This research replicates the methods of the earlier study. The findings of this study provide a more thorough understanding of the linguistic features that construct simplified and authentic texts. This work will enable material developers, publishers, and reading researchers to more accurately judge the values of simplified and authentic L2 texts as well as improve measures for matching readers to text.

We provide an exhaustive review of studies in the relatively new domain of research on the influence of orthography on second language (L2) phonological acquisition. While language teachers have long recognized the importance of written input—in addition to spoken input—on learners’ development, until this century there was very little systematic research investigating the relationship between orthography and L2 phonological acquisition. Here, we review studies of the influence of written input on L2 phonological awareness, phoneme perception, the acquisition of phonological processes and syllable structure, and the pronunciation and recognition of words. We elaborate the variables that appear to moderate written input effects: (1) whether or not a novel phonological contrast is systematically represented by the L2 writing system (systematicity); (2) whether some or all of the L2 graphemes are familiar to learners from the L1 (familiarity); (3) for familiar graphemes, whether the native language (L1) and the L2 employ the same grapheme-phoneme correspondences (congruence); and (4) the ability of learners to perceive an auditory contrast that is systematically represented in writing (perceptibility). We conclude by calling for future research on the pedagogical implications of this body of work, which has thus far received very little attention by researchers.

No area of language assessment research in the past 20 years has received a greater increase in attention than washback research. Beginning with the seminal work of Alderson & Wall (Alderson & Wall 1993; Wall & Alderson 1993), an evolving body of empirical washback studies has been conducted worldwide, especially in countries where English is not the dominant language. A systematic search of the pertinent literature between 1993 and 2013 identified a total of 123 publications consisting of 36 review articles and 87 empirical studies. The focus of this review is on the empirical studies. A further breakdown of these empirical studies reveals 11 books and monographs, 27 doctoral dissertations, 40 journal articles, and 9 book chapters. This intensity of research activity underscores the timeliness and importance of this research topic and highlights its maturity, which in turn calls for this systematic review.

This state-of-the art paper focuses on the issue of linguistic giftedness, somewhat neglected in the second language acquisition (SLA) literature, attempting to reconceptualize, expand and update this concept in response to latest developments in the fields of psychology, linguistics and neurology. It first discusses contemporary perspectives on foreign language aptitude, concentrating in particular on the models proposed by Skehan (1998), Robinson (2002) and Sternberg (2002). This is followed by a discussion of the definitions of talented individuals and the criteria for their selection, as well as an overview of empirical research on gifted language learners, divided into early studies with those focusing on the ultimate attainment of post-pubescent learners, and those dealing with super-learners of foreign languages. The subsequent sections touch upon such issues as the relationship between first language (L1) ability and second language (L2) aptitude, and linguistic giftedness and intelligence, memory, personality factors and language learning strategies, as well as neurolinguistic research on brain functioning in gifted learners. The paper closes with the discussion of the limitations of current research, its future directions and methodological considerations.

This new strand in the journal provides a space for contributors to present a personal stance either on future research needs or on the perceived current applications of research in the classroom. Like much of our current content, it echoes the historical uniqueness of this journal in terms of its rich and expert overview of recent research in the field of L2 teaching and learning. However, this new strand takes such research as its starting point and attempts to look forward, using these findings both to debate their application in the language learning classroom and also to suggest where research would be best directed in the future. Thus, the objective of both papers is eminently practical: contributors to the research agenda will present suggestions for what research might usefully be undertaken, given what is currently known or what is perceived to be necessary. In the research into practice papers there will be critical appraisal both of what research is, and is not, getting through to the language learning classroom and practical suggestions made for improving such outcomes.