Explore the vast range of titles available.

The reported study presents and analyzes the comprehension of relative clauses in child and adult speakers of Russian, comparing monolingual controls with Russian heritage speakers (HSs) who are English-dominant. Monolingual and bilingual children demonstrate full adultlike mastery of relative clauses. Adult HSs, however, are significantly different from the monolingual adult controls and from the child HS group. This divergent performance indicates that the adult heritage grammar is not a product of the fossilization of child language. Instead, it suggests that forms existing in the baseline undergo gradual attrition over the life span of a HS. This result is consistent with observations on narrative structure in child and adult HSs (Polinsky, 2008b). Evidence from word order facts suggests that relative clause reanalysis in adult HSs cannot be attributed to transfer from English. (Verlag, adapt.).

Until recently, the assumption of the language-teaching literature has been that new languages are best taught and learned monolingually, without the use of the students’ own language(s). In recent years, however, this monolingual assumption has been increasingly questioned, and a re-evaluation of teaching that relates the language being taught to the students’ own language has begun. This article surveys the developing English language literature on the role of students’ own language(s) in the language classroom. After clarifying key terms, the paper charts the continuing widespread use of students’ own languages in classrooms around the world and the contemporary academic and societal trends which have led to a revival of support for this. It then explores key arguments which underpin this revival, and reviews a range of empirical studies which examine the extent and functions of own-language use within language classrooms. Next, the article examines the support for own-language use that a range of theoretical frameworks provide, including psycholinguistic and cognitive approaches, general learning theory and sociocultural approaches. Having explored the notion of ‘optimal’ in-class own-language use, the article then reviews research into teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards own-language use. It concludes by examining how a bilingual approach to language teaching and learning might be implemented in practice.

This study investigates caption-reading behavior by foreign language (L2) learners and, through eye-tracking methodology, explores the extent to which the relationship between the native and target language affects that behavior. Second-year (4th semester) English-speaking learners of Arabic, Chinese, Russian, and Spanish watched 2 videos differing in content familiarity, each dubbed and captioned in the target language. Results indicated that time spent on captions differed significantly by language: Arabic learners spent more time on captions than learners of Spanish and Russian. A significant interaction between language and content familiarity occurred: Chinese learners spent less time on captions in the unfamiliar content video than the familiar, while others spent comparable times on each. Based on dual-processing and cognitive load theories, the authors posit that the Chinese learners experienced a split-attention effect when verbal processing was difficult and that, overall, captioning benefits during the 4th semester of language learning are constrained by L2 differences, including differences in script, vocabulary knowledge, concomitant L2 proficiency, and instructional methods. Results are triangulated with qualitative findings from interviews. (Verlag, adapt.).

Many factors influencing second language (L2) speech fluency have been widely studied, but the effects of first language (L1) fluency on L2 speech fluency are still relatively poorly understood. In contrast to mostly quantitative previous studies, the present study adopted a mixed methods approach to examining the connections between L1 fluency and L2 fluency. Monologue speech samples in L1 and L2 were obtained from 42 Finnish learners of English at 2 school levels (9th grade and upper secondary school). The samples were examined for 13 measures capturing different aspects of fluency: temporal fluency, including speed and pausing, and stalling mechanisms. The results indicated positive correlations between the majority of temporal L1 and L2 fluency measures. Regression analyses further demonstrated that most temporal L2 fluency measures could be predicted from L1 fluency measures to a certain extent, although the predictive power varied across the measures. Regarding stalling mechanisms, a complementary qualitative analysis provided insights to idiosyncratic patterns in their use in L1 and L2. Together, the findings suggest that L1 fluency is an important factor in explaining L2 fluency and should be more widely acknowledged in L2 fluency research, assessment, and teaching.

In the article, the author invites a reconceptualization and expansion of the field of second language acquisition (SLA) by examining possible intersections between SLA and the area of language instruction currently referred to as the teaching of heritage languages. She discusses the ways in which the opportunity of broadening SLA-and-instruction research can be seized by current researchers so that it can address the most intractable educational problems involving language. Drawing from current research on bilingualism, she first describes the challenges of providing language instruction for heritage speakers and examines the bilingualism of these unique language learners. She then offers an overview of the questions raised by the study of heritage language learners. Finally, she describes communities of professional practice and existing disciplinary boundaries and concludes with a discussion of the ways in which the field of SLA can draw from other areas in order to affect the educational futures of language minority children around the world and, at the same time, contribute to our greater understanding of the human language faculty. (Verlag, adapt.).

For many decades, foreign language teaching has been dominated by the principle that teachers should use only the target language (TL) and avoid using the mother tongue (L1) except as a last resort. However, reports show that teachers make extensive use of the L1. This paper illustrates this discrepancy and considers some main reasons for it. It suggests a framework of principles for balancing L1 and TL use in the classroom. Finally, it reviews some strategies available to teachers who wish to make maximal use of the TL without denying the potential of the L1 to support foreign language learning.

This position paper makes a critical intervention in one of the mostly salient sociolinguistic debates of the recent years, that of the integration of multilingual speakers in language ideological research. Although many scholars now recognize the need for decentering the ideal(ized) ‘monolingual native speakers’, they remain the default norm in language ideological research. Indeed, despite our efforts to dismantle our own language ideologies as linguists, the implicit focus on native speakers and monolinguals proceeds to the or (Irvine & Gal 2000) of multilinguals. Drawing on research on gender-inclusive language as well as my own empirical study on L2 speakers of German, I show why integrating a higher variety of language users is necessary—not only on ethical grounds, but also on theoretical ones. Altogether, this paper presents the challenges language ideological research still faces despite ongoing efforts to tackle multilingualism and offers possible solutions for language ideological research to become truly inclusive.

One of the concerns foreign language teachers may have about using small group (and pair) work is that students will use their shared first language (L1) instead of the target language. The presented study investigated the effect of learner proficiency pairing and task type on the amount of L1 used by learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) in pair work and the functions that the L1 served. Learners in this study (n = 15 pairs) formed three proficiency groupings based on the teacher's assessment of their second language proficiency: high - high (H - H), high - low (H - L), and low - low (L - L). All pairs completed three tasks - jigsaw, composition and text-editing - and their talk was audio-recorded. The transcribed pair talk was analysed for the quantity of L1 used (L1 words and L1 turns), and the functions the L1 served. The study found that overall, there was a modest use of L1 in pair work activity and that task type had a greater impact on the amount of L1 used than proficiency pairing. L1 was mainly used for the purpose of task management and to facilitate deliberations over vocabulary. When used for task management, L1 tended to reflect the kind of relationship the learners formed. When used for vocabulary deliberations, L1 was used not only to provide explanations to peers but also for private speech. (Verlag, adapt.).

Second-language (L2) sentence processing may differ from processing in a native language in a variety of ways, and it has been argued that one major difference is that L2 learners can only construct shallow representations that lack structural details (e.g., Clahsen & Felser, 2006). The present study challenges this hypothesis by comparing the extent to which advanced L1 Spanish-L2 English learners and English native speakers make use of the relative clause island constraint in constructing filler-gap dependencies. In offline acceptability judgment and online self-paced reading experiments that used stimuli adapted from Traxler and Pickering (1996), both the L2 group and the native-speaker control group demonstrated clear evidence for application of the relative clause island constraint. These findings suggest that advanced L2 learners not only build abstract structural representations but also rapidly constrain the active search for a gap location. These results cast doubt on the proposal that L2 learners are unable to build structural representations with grammatical precision.

Target varieties for language learning are contentious in applied linguistics and sociolinguistics. Debates centre on the nature and utility of alternative norms. Approximation to 'native speaker' practices is the hallmark of language education. Thus, policy and pedagogy frequently orient toward achieving native-like production. While many language learning stakeholders are committed to this model, it is also contested. Opponents point to the ideological assumptions about 'native' and 'nonnative' speech inherent in the model, and to the unrealistic aims it presents to teachers and learners. While much research focuses on learner preferences, little work exists on teacher attitudes. This article aims to address this dearth in the target variety debate. By focusing on Irish as a minority language, the article supplements the literature on classroom targets for English and other major languages. A thematic analysis of interviews with Irish language pedagogues is presented and reveals their engagement with target varieties for the language. (Verlag).