It is a privilege to be Editor-in-Chief of the Annual Review of Applied Linguistics in 2020 as it celebrates its 40th year. This is my fifth issue as Editor. I will begin this short introduction by paying tribute, with the help of Bill Grabe (Northern Arizona University), to the founding editor of the journal, Robert Kaplan (1929–2020). Without Robert Kaplan, none of us would be reading these pages. We will then turn to some comments from each of the previous editors on a few of the highlights of their time editing the journal, along with words for the future. After this, I will describe some recent updates, go through a few of the historical successes of the journal, and then turn to the contents of the exciting current issue, “Looking back and moving ahead.”

Following the trends established in psychology and emerging in L2 research, we explain our support for an Open Science approach in this paper (i.e., developing, analyzing and sharing datasets) as a way to answer controversial and complex questions in applied linguistics. We illustrate this with a focus on a frequently debated question, what underlies individual differences in the dynamic system of post-pubertal L2 speech learning? We provide a detailed description of our dataset which consists of spontaneous speech samples, elicited from 110 late L2 speakers in the UK with diverse linguistic, experiential and sociopsychological backgrounds, rated by ten L1 English listeners for comprehensibility and nativelikeness. We explain how we examined the source of individual differences by linking different levels of L2 speech performance to a range of learner-extrinsic and intrinsic variables related to first language backgrounds, age, experience, motivation, awareness, and attitudes using a series of factor and Bayesian mixed-effects ordinal regression analyses. We conclude with a range of suggestions for the fields of applied linguistics and SLA, including the use of Bayesian methods in analyzing multivariate, multifactorial data of this kind, and advocating for publicly available datasets. In keeping with recommendations for increasing openness of the field, we invite readers to rethink and redo our analyses and interpretations from multiple angles by making our dataset and coding publicly available as part of our 40th anniversary ARAL article.

Data from self-paced reading (SPR) tasks are routinely checked for statistical outliers (Marsden, Thompson, & Plonsky, 2018). Such data points can be handled in a variety of ways (e.g., trimming, data transformation), each of which may influence study results in a different manner. This two-phase study sought, first, to systematically review outlier handling techniques found in studies that involve SPR and, second, to re-analyze raw data from SPR tasks to understand the impact of those techniques. Toward these ends, in Phase I, a sample of 104 studies that employed SPR tasks was collected and coded for different outlier treatments. As found in Marsden et al. (2018), wide variability was observed across the sample in terms of selection of time and standard deviation (SD)-based boundaries for determining what constitutes a legitimate reading time (RT). In Phase II, the raw data from the SPR studies in Phase I were requested from the authors. Nineteen usable datasets were obtained and re-analyzed using data transformations, SD boundaries, trimming, and winsorizing, in order to test their relative effectiveness for normalizing SPR reaction time data. The results suggested that, in the vast majority of cases, logarithmic transformation circumvented the need for SD boundaries, which blindly eliminate or alter potentially legitimate data. The results also indicated that choice of SD boundary had little influence on the data and revealed no meaningful difference between trimming and winsorizing, implying that blindly removing data from SPR analyses might be unnecessary. Suggestions are provided for future research involving SPR data and the handling of outliers in second language (L2) research more generally.

This paper begins by discussing new trends in the use of neurostimulation techniques in cognitive science and learning research, as well as the nascent research on their application in second language learning. To illustrate this, an experiment designed to investigate the impact of transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS), which is delivered via earbuds, on how learners process and learn Mandarin tones is reported. Pupillometry, which is an index of cognitive effort, is explained and illustrated as one way to assess the impact of tVNS. Participants in the study were native English speakers, naïve to tone languages, pseudorandomly assigned to active or control conditions, while balancing for nonlinguistic pitch ability and musical experience. Their performance after tVNS was assessed using a range of more traditional language outcome measures, including accuracy and reaction times from lexical recognition and recall tasks and was triangulated with pupillometry during word-learning to help understand the mechanism through which tVNS operates. Findings are discussed in light of the literatures on lexical tone learning, cognitive effort, and neurostimulation, including specific benefits for learners of tone languages. Recommendations are made for future work on the increasingly popular area of neurostimulation for the field of applied linguistics in the 40th anniversary issue of ARAL.

Damages done to Indigenous languages occurred due to colonial forces, some of which continue to this day, and many believe efforts to revive them should involve more than Indigenous peoples alone. Therefore, the need for learning Indigenous languages as “additional” languages is a relatively new societal phenomenon and Indigenous language revitalization (ILR) an emerging academic field of study. As the ILR body of literature has developed, it has become clear that this work does not fit neatly into any single academic discipline. While there have been substantial contributions from linguistics and education, the study and recovery of Indigenous languages are necessarily self-determined and self-governing. Also, due to the unique set of circumstances, contexts, and, therefore, solutions needed, it is argued that this discipline is separate from, yet connected to, others. Applied linguists hold specific knowledge and skills that could be extended to ILR toward great gains. This paper explores current foci within ILR, especially concepts, theories, and areas of study that connect applied linguistics and Indigenous language learning. The intention of this paper is to consider commonalities, differences, current and future interests for shared consideration of the potential of collaborations, and partnerships between applied linguistics and ILR scholars.

This article examines the history of African Americans in the academic study of world languages and presents an overview of inquiry on the topic. The paper focuses on the impact of race in second language acquisition (SLA) as exemplified through the experience of black students in language education and study abroad. It discusses objectives, policies, instructional priorities and strategies, conditions, and materials related to how black students have in the past, are currently, or should be engaged in language learning. The article examines the path forged by African Americans in world language study, signals gaps in the present body of knowledge, and suggests future directions for investigations into this important topic in the field of applied linguistics and SLA for ARAL's 40th anniversary.

This 40th anniversary of ARAL also marks the 40-year anniversary of a significant uptick in research on language assessment, and hence there is much to reflect on and revisit within this period—and still scope for imagining the future. Pre-1980, language assessment had a long history, but Spolsky (1995) designated the late 1940s as a time of professionalization, which continued through the following decades. By the 1970s, language testers were gradually organizing into an academic community with an annual international conference, regional conferences, journals, and scholarly books. The new academic community not only developed and used language tests but also investigated the validity of their interpretations and uses. Canale's (1987) paper in ARAL provides an enduring frame of reference for reflection on the concerns of the academic community, which he introduced as the what, how, and why of language assessment.

Tracing applied linguists’ interests in language policy and planning (LPP) as reflected in the pages of the Annual Review of Applied Linguistics since its founding in 1980, I focus on the emergence of, and current boom in, ethnographic LPP research. I draw on the ethnographic concept of ideological and implementational LPP spaces as scalar, layered policies and practices influencing each other, mutually reinforcing, wedging, and transforming ideology through implementation and vice versa. Doing so highlights how the perennial policy-practice gap is given nuance through exploration of the intertwining dynamics of top-down/bottom-up language planning activities and processes, monoglossic/heteroglossic language ideologies and practices, potential equality/actual inequality of languages, and critical/transformative research paradigms in LPP.

This article argues for an uncovering of the multitude of ways in which applied linguistics has functioned as an important and effective vehicle for White supremacy and empire, with its disciplinary roots embedded in assumptions about racial inequalities and racial hierarchies and, equally importantly, the concealment of these forms of racial discrimination which often manifest as innocuous language practices. In particular, the notion of objectivity has played a guiding role in reinscribing Whiteness in much applied linguistics theorizing and research within a global context of inequitable racial power and forms of knowledge production and transmission that are steeped in colonial reasoning. In this piece, the author considers what antiracism and decolonization mean within applied linguistics and asks: Is the discipline of applied linguistics irretrievably rooted in an ontology of race and empire? Or is an antiracist and decolonizing applied linguistics possible?

In this final contribution to the issue, we discuss the important concept of generalizability and how it relates to applied linguists’ ability to serve language learners of all shades and grades. We provide insight into how biased sampling in Applied Linguistics currently is and how such bias may skew the knowledge that we, applied linguists, are building about second language learning and instruction. For example, our conclusions are often framed as universally-applying, even though the samples that have given rise to them are highly specific and Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD; Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010). We end with a call for research and replication in more diverse contexts and with more diverse samples to promote progress in the field of Applied Linguistics as ARAL celebrates its 40th anniversary.