This chapter argues that there is a need for more formal, scholarly work published by language practitioners themselves. It takes the view that a ‘scholar-practitioner’ expectation is appropriate for language educators teaching at university level. Starting with the often used definition of scholarship articulated by Shulman (2000), the first half of the chapter sets out why a distinct label for the scholarly work of language practitioners is needed. The argument is that the use of the term scholarship can include research, but that the nature of the scholarly activity of practitioners is different enough to warrant a label to distinguish it from the work of those academics for whom research is a formal expectation. The second half of the chapter goes on to explore each of the chapters presented in this edited volume. In doing so, it illustrates how the work of language practitioners confirms the view of scholarship as argued for here. It demonstrates not only the importance of scholarship by language practitioners in higher education, but also draws out future directions, indicating further work that can be done to build on the best practice included in this volume.

Traditionally, there has been a disconnect between theoretical linguistics and pedagogical teacher training. This book seeks to bridge that gap. Using engaging examples from a wide variety of languages, it provides an innovative overview of linguistic theory and language acquisition research for readers with a background in education and teacher training, and without specialist knowledge of the field. The authors draw on a range of research to ground ideas about grammar pedagogy, presenting the notion of Virtual Grammar as an accessible label for unifying the complexity of linguistics. Organised thematically, the book includes helpful 'Case in point' examples throughout the text, to illustrate specific grammar points, and step-by-step training in linguistic methods, such as how to analyse examples, which educators can apply to their own teaching contexts. Through enriching language teachers' understanding of linguistic features, the book fosters a different perspective on grammar for educators.

The field of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) developed to address the needs of students whose mother tongue is not English. However, the linguistic competence required to achieve academic success at any university where English is the medium of instruction is a challenge for all students. While there are linguistic features common to academic literacy as a general genre, closer investigation reveals significant differences from one academic field to another. This volume asks what good writing is within specific disciplines, focussing on student work. Each chapter provides key insights by EAP professionals, based on their research in which they bring together analysis of student writing and interviews with subject specialists and markers who determine what 'good writing' is in their discipline. The volume includes chapters on established disciplines which have had less attention in the EAP and academic writing literature to date, including music, formal linguistics, and dentistry, as well as new and growing fields of study such as new media.

This study examined the acquisition of English plural marking, i.e. the plural-s marker on nouns without quantifiers (lexical plural marking) and nouns in contexts with quantifiers (phrasal plural marking). It was carried out within the framework of Processability Theory. There were ten participants involved; they were young adult Indonesian learners who learned English as a second language in a formal context. Data collection was carried out at two points in time within one semester, namely at the beginning and the end of the semester. At each point of time, the participants were assigned translation tasks from Indonesian into English. The translation tasks aimed specifically to elicit the targeted morphological structures based on the PT hierarchy. The data were analysed by using distributional analysis; the findings were then examined by means of implicational scaling on the basis of the emergence criterion, the purpose of which is to determine the acquisition points of the morphological forms under scrutiny. The research finding demonstrates that the development of plural marking of the participants follows the sequences as predicted in PT; each participant first acquires plural –s marker on nouns without quantifiers, and then they acquire that marker on nouns with quantifiers. © 2020 IJLS; Printed in the USA by Lulu Press Inc.

This paper develops an approach to pedagogical grammar based on the notion of grammatical concepts. Grammatical concepts are based on the sort of properties that are used to explain grammatical patterns and the acquisition of grammar in formal linguistics. It is proposed that these properties can be exploited for language pedagogy as they provide teachers with a deeper understanding of issues of learnability with respect to grammar. The concepts are illustrated on the basis of the pronoun system of English, demonstrating how a range of different underlying grammatical concepts can coincide to regulate syntactic and semantic patterns in a particular morphosyntactic paradigm. © 2020, Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

This article brings together an experimental study involving L2 knowledge of negation in English and an analysis of how English language textbooks treat negation, in order to consider whether textbook explanations of negation could better exploit linguistic insights into negation. We focus on the English negative polarity item any, whose distribution is contingent on negation, whether through the explicit negator not or through lexical semantic negators (e.g. hardly). Our experiment compares Chinese-speaking learners with existing data from Arabic-speaking learners, finding lower accuracy on any with lexical semantic negators in both groups. Our textbook analysis reveals an approach to negation that is limited to form, focusing on the explicit negator not without explicit treatment of other types of negation. We propose that emphasizing the meaning of negation, with explicit treatment of the full range of negative forms could facilitate more complete acquisition across a range of grammatical properties where negation plays a role. © The Author(s) 2017.

The trend towards an embedded approach to English for Academic Purposes (EAP) has led to calls for more collaboration between EAP practitioners and subject tutors (Wingate 2012). In this paper, we argue that this does not go far enough. The field of EAP can be seen as comprising two areas of important work which, at present, remain somewhat distinct: research and pedagogy (Ding and Bruce 2017). Both are interested in student writing, and both have approached student writing primarily through the lens of genre. Existing research on student writing (e.g. Nesi and Gardner 2012) draws heavily on methods of analysis applied to published academic texts (Hyland, Flowerdew, among many others). Taken together, EAP research has led to a good set of useful conclusions about specific features of text such as hedging, nominalisation, etc., on the one hand, and broad generalisations about ‘science’ v ‘social science’, for example, on the other. Our survey of the literature leaves us with the observation that there are too few voices within the EAP research side of the field that go beyond investigating what’s typical in academic writing to asking the question that practitioners engaged in pedagogy want answered: what is good academic writing? We report on a project in which EAP practitioners have joined forces with subject tutors to explore this very question. Based on the experience of this project, we argue that a call for ‘collaboration’ between EAP and subject tutors is not ambitious enough. Significant gains are to be made if tutors with expertise in EAP and tutors with expertise in a specific academic discipline take a ‘dual practitioning’ approach to what both sets of professionals dedicate a significant proportion of their career to: student education. Such an approach recognises equal value of contribution to a shared interest. Subject tutors are rightly respected for their knowledge of their respective academic field. EAP tutors possess not only the knowledge of academic text in terms of both product and process, but the metalanguage to make this knowledge explicit. In addition to benefitting the field of EAP itself, a dual practitioning approach will help to prevent a deficiency model which undermines the values and intentions of academia and academics.

This paper presents an experimental study of the rarely explored question of how input through instruction interacts with L2 acquisition at the level ofmodular linguistic knowledge. The investigation focuses on L2 knowledge of the English polarity itemany, whose properties are only partially covered by typical language-teaching materials. We investigate Najdi-Saudi Arabic-speaking learners' knowledge of the distribution of any in contexts that are taught, contexts that are not taught but may be observable in the input, and contexts that are neither taught nor observable. We further test whether conscious awareness of instructed rules about any correlates with performance. Our findings suggest a role for instruction and for internal, UG-constrained acquisition, and that these two paths interact.We explore our findings in terms of SharwoodSmithandTruscott's (2014a, 2014b) framework ofmodular online growth and use of language, in which cognitive development is driven by processing. © Cambridge University Press 2017.

This paper investigates the relationship between what English language textbooks teach in relation to a specific linguistic phenomenon, and what language learners know. The phenomenon selected for investigation is the distribution of the quantifier any, which is considerably more complex than textbooks (perhaps quite reasonably) show. Typically, textbooks indicate that any should be used in questions and in negated sentences (e.g. (1a), (2a)). However, formal linguistic analysis shows that it is negative meaning, and not just negation in the form of the morpheme not, that plays a key role in licensing any. This is illustrated in (3a), (4a), where there is no overt negator, but the words deny and hardly are semantically negative and therefore license any, in contrast to (3b) and (4b) where the verb or adverb are not semantically negative and any is not grammatical.

This article reviews studies in second language classroom research from a cross-theoretic perspective, arguing that the classroom holds the potential for bringing together researchers from opposing theoretical orientations. It shows how generative and general cognitive approaches share a view of language that implicates both implicit and explicit knowledge, and that holds a bias towards implicit knowledge. Arguing that it is implicit knowledge that should be the object of research, it proposes that classroom research would benefit from incorporating insights from a generative understanding of language. Specifically, there is a need for a more nuanced view of the complexity of language in terms of linguistic domain, and the interaction between those domains. Generative second language acquisition research that shows developmental differences in terms of both linguistic domain and interface is reviewed. The core argument is a call for more attention to the ‘what’ of language development in classroom research and, by implication, teaching practice. As such, the language classroom is seen to offer potential for research that goes beyond paradigm to address both the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of language development. © The Author(s) 2014.

This book proposes that research into generative second language acquisition (GenSLA) can be applied to the language classroom. Assuming that Universal Grammar plays a role in second language development, it explores generalisations from GenSLA research. The book aims to build bridges between the fields of generative second language acquisition, applied linguistics, and language teaching; and it shows how GenSLA is poised to engage with researchers of second language learning outside the generative paradigm. Each chapter of Universal Grammar and the Second Language Classroom showcases ways in which GenSLA research can inform language pedagogy. Some chapters include classroom research that tests the effectiveness of teaching particular linguistic phenomena. Others review existing research findings, discussing how these findings are useful for language pedagogy. All chapters show how generative linguistics can enhance teachers’ expertise in language and second language development. “This groundbreaking volume ably takes on the gap that currently exists between generative linguistic theory in second language acquisition (GenSLA) and second language pedagogy, by gathering chapters from GenSLA researchers who are interested in the relevance and potential application of their research to second/foreign language teaching. It offers a welcome and thought-provoking contribution to any discussion of the relation between linguistic theory and practice. I recommend it not only for language teachers interested in deepening their understanding of the formal properties of the languages they teach, but also for linguists interested in following up on more practical consequences of the fruits of their theoretical and empirical research.” Donna Lardiere, Georgetown University, Washington DC, USA

Despite a range of criticism communicative language teaching (CLT) has been broadly accepted as the appropriate approach to language teaching. This paper argues that large shifts in language pedagogy firstly from 'structure' to 'meaning' and more recently from progressivism to critical pedagogy need to be tempered bya restatement of the importance of linguistics to language teaching. Ten characteristics of CLT are presented and then explored from a linguistic point of view. Throughout, explicit connections are made between cutting-edge linguistic research and questions of language pedagogy within the CLT paradigm. The conclusion is a call for a renewed focus on the understanding of language for language teaching expertise. © 2013 Association for Language Learning.

This chapter brings together some of the core themes that emerge from the chapters in the volume and builds on them to suggest a way forward for SLA as a field, suggesting avenues for initiating dialogue and collaboration between GenSLA and instructed SLA. Appeals are made to GenSLA researchers to consider their research in relation to questions of pedagogy, by articulating their findings for practitioners in order to raise their levels of expertise. The need to better articulate the distinction between acquisition and learning is also explored, and the question of the relationship between this and concepts of explicit/implicit language development is identified as an area in need of engagement with SLA researchers working within other linguistic paradigms. Within GenSLA, it is argued that now is the time for the field to develop a subfield of Applied Generative Second Language Acquisition.

Research into the second language acquisition of quantifiers (every, any, some, etc.) sheds light on the L2 development of form and meaning in an area of language that is not usually a key focus of the language classroom. This chapter begins with an overview of some existing studies of L2 acquisition of quantifiers, the majority of which investigate phenomena that are not only absent from classroom instruction but are also not directly deducible from the input: “poverty of the stimulus” phenomena. The findings show that subtle properties of quantifiers are difficult to acquire—particularly if they involve the syntax-pragmatics interface—but they often emerge in advanced learners, even without teaching or direct evidence in the input. The chapter then explores how language teaching might accelerate acquisition of such late-emerging aspects of the L2. We report the findings of a pilot study (Gil K-H, Marsden H, Whong M. Can explicit grammar instruction serve as evidence for L2 grammar restructuring? In: Stavrakaki S, Konstantinopoulou P, Lalioti M (eds) Proceedings of GALA 2011. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Cambridge, to appear) on the effect of providing focus on form instruction about the English quantifier any. Though inconclusive, the findings raise new research questions that are of interest to both generative L2 acquisition researchers and classroom researchers. We conclude that collaborative research will enrich both fields.

A default assumption in generative second language acquisition (SLA) research is that learned L2 knowledge cannot become acquired knowledge. However, given recent generative SLA research concerned with how classroom input affects L2 performance, this paper argues that it is time to revisit this assumption. The discussion draws on both generative and non-generative research and concludes that the context of the language classroom can serve as a motivation for a cross-paradigm research agenda that will be better placed than within-framework research to develop a transition theory for L2 acquisition, and to identify how classroom input affects different types of linguistic properties.

A textbook which relates lingusitic theory to second language teaching. © Melinda Whong, 2011. All rights reserved.

This paper reports on two preliminary studies of L2 knowledge of the polarity item any. Any is ungrammatical in most declarative affirmative contexts, but it can be licensed exceptionally by negative implicature (*I said anything v. I regret that I said anything). The studies aim to shed light on what facilitates acquisition of the distribution of any, examining the roles of (i) negative evidence in the form of explicit instruction, and (ii) L1 transfer. Initial findings are that L1 transfer facilitates acquisition of where any is ungrammatical. However, learners failed to acquire the exceptional licensing of any by negative implicature, regardless of L1 and instruction. Proposals for further collaborative research with language educators are put forward.

EAP in a Globalizing World: English as an Academic Lingua Franca This volume consists of a selection of papers presented at the Biennial Conference of the British Association of Lecturers in English for Academic Purposes (BALEAP), held at the University of Durham in the UK in 2007. Reflecting the theme of the conference, this volume considers English for Academic Purposes (EAP) in the context of English as an international language. Some of the papers directly address the notion of an academic lingua franca. Others look at EAP as it exists in the global context. At the heart of all the papers is a commitment to EAP competence.

This paper contests Montrul's (2000) idea of modular transfer, arguing for a strong Full Transfer position instead. A reanalysis of results from her second language (L2) acquisition study of the causative/inchoative alternation with L2 English, Spanish and Turkish speakers leads to the following conclusions: (1) the overgeneralization found in the results represent a stage of development after Full Transfer; (2) if one takes a derivational view of syntax the results no longer support a view of modular transfer in which there is transfer of morphology but not argument structure.

This experimental study compares the acquisition of the English to- and for-dative alternation by L1 English, L1 Japanese, and L1 Korean children. It is well known that there are restrictions on the verbs that can enter into the dative alternation—for example, you can show the results to someone and show someone the results; and you can demonstrate the results to someone but you cannot *demonstrate someone the results. L1 children sometimes overextend the double-object variant to verbs that disallow it. One question we investigate is whether L2 children, like L1 children, overextend the double-object variant. A second question we probe is whether L2 children, like L2 adults, transfer properties of the L1 grammar. Japanese disallows all double-accusative constructions. Korean disallows them with analogues of to-dative verbs; but with analogues of for-dative verbs, Korean productively allows them—more broadly, in fact, than English—if the benefactive verbal morpheme cwu- is added. Results from an oral grammaticality judgment task show (a) that all groups allow illicit to-dative double-object forms and (b) that the Japanese—but not the Koreans—allow illicit for-dative double-object forms. This bifurcation, we argue, stems from the fact that Korean (but not Japanese) has an overt morphological licensor for double objects. We thus find evidence of both (a) overgeneralization, like in L1 acquisition, and (b) L1 influence, like in adult L2 acquisition, in this case from the (syntactic) argument-changing properties of overt morphology.