Explore the vast range of titles available.

A long-standing concern in the field of second language acquisition is that replication studies are not only infrequent but also poorly designed, reported, and labeled. This special issue responds to an urgent need for action by showcasing eleven high-quality replication studies. In doing so, this collection highlights exemplary standards in replication study design and reporting. This introduction to the special issue provides readers with a point of reference for what replication research is, including why replication studies are needed, issues about originality and innovation in replication research, how replication studies can be designed and conducted, and recent advances and resources to support future replication efforts in the field. The introduction concludes with an overview of each study in the special issue, highlighting its main components and discussing how the replication strengthens the field and advances knowledge and understanding about the topic.

Recently there has been some debate about the appropriacy of different lexical units in pedagogy and research (e.g., Brown et al., 2020; Dang & Webb, 2016a; Kremmel, 2016; Laufer & Cobb, 2020; McLean, 2018; Nation, 2016; Nation & Webb, 2011; Vilkaitė-Lozdienė & Schmitt, 2020). The lexical unit (word types, lemmas, flemmas, word families) needs to be considered when developing wordlists, vocabulary tests, and vocabulary learning programs. It is also central to the lexical profiles of text and corpora, which indicate the vocabulary learning targets associated with understanding different types of discourse. Perhaps most importantly, the lexical unit of words found in vocabulary learning resources such as word lists and tests may affect their pedagogical value. The aim of this article is to highlight aspects of research and pedagogy that are affected by lexical units and describe issues that should be considered when operationalizing words in studies of vocabulary and learning resources.

This commentary responds to Laura Domínguez, Glyn Hicks, and Roumyana Slabakova's article \"Terminology choice in generative acquisition research: the case of “incomplete acquisition” in heritage language grammars\" (same journal issue).

In this commentary, we summarize the findings of the seven included studies that examined implicit language aptitude from various perspectives and highlight issues to be resolved in the validation of this new construct in second language research. We start by providing an overview of the contributions of the studies. We then identify the lack of convergent validity of the measures of implicit aptitude reported in the included studies and problematize the equally varied nature of the measurement of implicit knowledge—the outcome variable of aptitude research—and related concepts. In particular, by drawing on empirical evidence and theoretical claims, we attempt to clarify the relationships between implicit and explicit knowledge, implicit and explicit learning, and implicit and explicit instruction. Next, we draw attention to the interactions reported by the included studies between aptitude and outcome measures and between aptitude and instruction type, emphasizing the value and importance of interactional research. We conclude by making recommendations for future research.

Although this special issue reveals some promising achievements, most of the contributions show that tasks of implicit learning are not or are only weakly correlated with each other, and they have inconsistent predictive power on L2 acquisition. This commentary examines four possible explanations for this surprising pattern: The (suboptimal) selection of tasks, the low reliability of measures, the deep influence of the starting level even for nominally “new” implicit tasks, and the fact that the mastery of L2 may involve other implicit processes than implicit learning measured through laboratory tasks.

It is generally assumed that the so-called populist explosion that has swept across liberal democracies since 2016 has led to a crisis of neoliberal reason in its original formulation. Owing to the close relationship between cities and neoliberalism, the crisis of neoliberal rationality has significantly impacted what is defined here ‘Western urbanology’. This definition brings together influential apologists of the urban age and its entrepreneurialist potential, starting with Richard Florida and Edward Glaeser. In recent times, these authors have started revisiting their conceptions and related policy proposals, in response to the growing sense of dissatisfaction with mainstream theorisations of economic development that has been associated with the populist explosion of 2016. However, this article shows how their revisions are minimal, and fundamentally illusory, as these authors have glossed over the very foundations of capitalist societies, drawing a veil over the issue of economic-value creation within contemporary platform urbanism. After having critically assessed the trajectory of Western urbanology, the article concludes by arguing that a substantial revision of the role of contemporary urbanism in economic development processes would require interrogating the creation and capture of economic value in today’s capitalist societies. 人们普遍认为，自2016年以来席卷自由民主国家的所谓民粹主义爆发导致了新自由主义理念（其原始论述）的危机。由于城市与新自由主义之间的密切关系，新自由主义理念的危机对这里所定义的“西方城市学”产生了重大影响。从理查德·佛罗里达（Richard Florida）和爱德华·格拉瑟（Edward Glaeser）开始，这个定义汇集了有影响力的都市时代及其企业家主义潜力的辩护者。最近，这些作者开始重新审视他们的观念和相关的政策建议，以应对与2016年民粹主义爆发相关的、对主流经济发展理论的不满情绪。然而，这篇文章展示了他们的修正是如何微不足道，并且，从根本上讲是虚幻的，因为这些作者掩盖了资本主义社会的基础，为当代平台城市化中的经济价值创造问题蒙上了面纱。在对西方城市学的轨迹进行批判性评估之后，本文最后指出，对当代城市化在经济发展过程中的作用的实质性修正要求拷问当今资本主义社会中的经济价值创造和占有。