Plagiarism is a broad and multidisciplinary field of study, and within second-language (L2) writing, research on the topic goes back to the mid-1980s. In this review article we first discuss the received view of plagiarism as a transgressive act and alternative understandings which have been presented in the L1 and L2 writing literature. We then survey and identify salient themes in the growing body of work relating to plagiarism, primarily from an L2 writing/applied linguistic perspective. These themes include terminological distinctions; views of the role of textual plagiarism in language learning and a writer's development; a concern with students’ and teachers’ sometimes differing understanding of plagiarism; and disciplinary differences in perceptions of plagiarism. We review research into the role of the electronic media in changing orientations toward plagiarism, the potential role of culture as a cause of plagiarism in the work of L2 writers, and pedagogical approaches to guiding students away from plagiarism. Methodological issues in researching plagiarism are surveyed, and the article concludes by suggesting directions for future research.

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 paper explores three research projects conducted by the writer and others with a view to demonstrating the importance of effective theory and methodology in the analysis of teaching situations where Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL), teacher practice and teacher education meet. It argues that there is a tendency in the field of teacher education for CALL to make use of what might be considered quite traditional research methodology, often drawing on research traditions not connected to teacher education. In teacher education and CALL, research theory is quite often drawn from the field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA), which despite its connection with CALL, is less relevant to the specific combined demands of researching teacher education for CALL. At the same time we are seeing some moves in recent publications and conference presentations towards the use of sociocultural theories as part of an analysis of CALL teacher practices and teacher education for CALL. In this paper, I argue that this is a positive step in the direction of establishing teacher education for CALL as a more mature field of enquiry. In order to avoid the pitfalls of inappropriate research methodology, the paper then presents an argument for a range of methodologies, chosen on the basis of a fashioning of research instruments (Czarniawska 1998), or a ‘bricolage’ (Levi-Strauss 1962/1966) that enables us – in conjunction with the theory – to explore different teaching situations in an informed and effective way.

The social and cultural ‘turn’ in language education of recent years has helped move language teaching and curriculum design away from many of the more rigid dogmas of earlier generations, but the issue of the roles of the learners’ first language (L1) in language pedagogy and classroom interaction is far from settled. Some follow a strict ‘exclusive target language’ pedagogy, while others ‘resort to’ the use of the L1 for a variety of purposes (see ACTFL 2008). Underlying these competing views is the perspective of the L1 as an impediment to second language learning. Following sociocultural theory and ecological perspectives of language and learning and based on the findings of research on classroom code-switching and code choice, this paper lays out an approach to the language classroom as a multilingual social space in which learners and teacher study, negotiate, and co-construct code choice norms toward the dynamic, creative, and pedagogically effective use of both the target language and the learners’ L1(s). Learner use of the L1 for the purpose of grammatical or lexical learning is also considered, and some examples for instruction are offered.

In its early days, CLT was widely promoted as suitable for all contexts, but many questions have since been raised about what it really means and what versions of it (if any) are suited to specific learning situations. Experiences in Asia, where educational traditions and current realities often contrast strongly with those where CLT originated, have provided a major impetus for this questioning and the process has been reinforced by developments in the wider context, such as the postmethod perspective in language teaching and the decline of centre-to-periphery conceptions of modernization. CLT now serves not so much as a label for a specific approach as an umbrella term to describe all approaches that aim to develop communicative competence in personally meaningful ways. It also provides a framework for defining issues that research and exploratory practice need to address in the years ahead.

In this paper I will look at the controversy surrounding the current status of English in the world. I will consider the question of whether the dominant role of English as a lingua franca (ELF) is a menace to other languages, to multilingual communication and to the profession of translation and interpreting, or whether a positive evaluation of the omnipresence of English as a default means of communication can be justified. I will argue for a compromise position: neither demonizing global English nor welcoming it uncritically. I will support this stance from different perspectives, drawing on my own work on ELF and translation.

In recent years a number of comparative studies based on an established approach to genre analysis have been published in the English for Academic Purposes (EAP) literature. Studies in this emerging strand of research typically aim to identify how the rhetorical structure of a particular genre (a text type) or part of a genre may vary across different disciplines or groups of writers. The first part of this article makes a case for replication in this strand of research, arguing that replication would be timely and suggesting the advantages that it could offer to the field of EAP. The second part focuses on three key studies, and suggests how each one might be replicated and the potential benefits of doing so.

In pre-service and in-service language teacher education, and in curriculum-related projects in second and foreign language settings, a recurrent issue is the failure to relate the teaching of reading to reading as a meaning-making activity. In this paper, I will consider what current research on second language (L2) reading has actually succeeded in bringing to the classroom. In doing this, I will examine the three obvious candidates for inclusion in a reading programme: extensive reading, reading fluency development, and intensive reading. For each of these I will give my perspective on what's getting through to teachers, and what isn’t, and my best guess as to why it isn’t. This leads to suggestions about areas for further research and other actions that need to be taken to improve classroom practice.

The English Language Institute (now the School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies) at Victoria University of Wellington has a long history of corpus-based vocabulary research, especially after the arrival of the second director of the institute, H. V. George, and the appointment of Helen Barnard, whom George knew in India. George's successor, Graeme Kennedy, also saw corpus linguistics as a very fruitful and important area of applied language research.

Griffith University is set across five campuses in south-east Queensland, Australia, and has a student population of 43,000. The School of Languages and Linguistics (LAL) offers programs in linguistics, international English, Chinese, Italian, Japanese and Spanish, as well as English language enhancement courses. Research strands reflect the staff's varied scholarly interests, which include academic language and learning, sociolinguistics, second language learning/acquisition and teaching, computer assisted language learning (CALL) and language corpora. This report offers a summary of research recently published or currently underway within LAL.

There is no denying that English is an international language, and as such we must expect to encounter a multitude of local varieties: not only the national Englishes, such as American, British, Australian, etc. but also an even greater number of learner Englishes, such as French English, Brazilian English, Japanese English and the like. But the analogy between these two types of varieties must not be forced; while it would be absurd to condemn American English ‘faucet’ or ‘Do you have children?’ as errors, the same should not be said for Spanish ‘a real (royal) prince’ or German English ‘We smoke not here’.