This chapter shifts the analysis to the macro-structural (discourse unit) level. Short-text MDA reveals five dimensions at the discourse unit level (ten distinct functions). This chapter deals with the first three dimensions. The analysis begins with a brief discussion of the first dimension before exploring in depth the second and third dimensions. Throughout the analysis is guided by an exploration of prototypical discourse units – those discourse units most strongly associated with either side of a dimension. This allows an exploration of the roles of the L1 and the L2 speakers in the use of the functions as well as the interaction between discourse unit function and task, level of proficiency and attainment in the examination. These early studies show that that discourse unit functions are sensitive to task in particular and that the role of the examiner in the examination may be seen to vary through discourse unit functions as the proficiency of the L2 speaker increases. The chapter also remarks on links between micro-structural discourse functions and those at the macro-level.

In this chapter the final two dimensions of the TLC are analysed. The four discourse unit functions within those dimensions are once again approached via prototypical discourse units, and task, level of examination and grade of exam are considered as potential sources of variation. Importantly, Narrative emerges in this chapter as a function at the macro-structural level. The analyses show variation by task, level of exam and attainment, and show clearly how the scaffolding behaviour of the examiner influences the selection of micro-structural discourse functions that have an impact on the macro-structural functions present. The chapter argues for the salience of the cooperative principle from Gricean pragmatics as a key organising principle in the discourse observed.

This chapter shifts focus to consider to what extent the behaviours viewed in Chapters 3 and 4 were unique to learners. This is achieved by using a new corpus, the TLC L1 corpus, which is composed of the same exam as in the TLC corpus. However, in this case it is L1 speakers sitting the exam. This allows us to see an overlap between the discourse unit functions selected by L1 speakers undertaking the same tasks as the L2 speakers. The role of micro-structural features, specifically grammatical features, in forming similarities and differences between the two sets of examinees (L1 and L2 speakers) is considered. As part of this, the chapter focuses in on four particular grammatical features – demonstrative determiners, numeral nouns, passives and relative clauses – which seem to link discourse unit to proficiency in the TLC to the extent that they generate differences between discourse unit functions when the TLC and TLC L1 are compared. The chapter also considers, however, the normative nature of the analysis undertaken and notes that individual learners’ performance may vary from the norms examined.

This introductory chapter presents the aims of the book and its rationale in Section 1.1, including some insight into the author’s experience of teaching sign language for many years. Next, Section 1.2 provides some suggestions for how you can best use the book to advance your learning and provides explanation for some of the terminology and conventions used in the book. This section also provides some awareness of the systemic barriers faced by many sign language teachers and the limited amount of research on BSL teaching and learning. The following section, Section 1.3, then gives some details about the research and evidence basis of the book in order to provide the reader with some awareness of current research and understanding of this visual nature of the language. Lastly, Section 1.4 addresses a few questions that students commonly ask and expels some common myths around learning BSL.

English Medium Instruction (EMI) research has highlighted the transition from secondary schools to EMI higher education as a critical stage that shapes students’ learning behaviors and perceptions. However, longitudinal studies that draw on a quantitative design to outline students’ patterns of academic development during the transition period are scarce. While investigating students’ language-related academic difficulties, previous research has predominantly treated students as a unitary cohort without exploring the disparities that may arise from individual difference variables. This chapter reports an empirical case study that adopts a longitudinal quantitative design to identify patterns of change in students’ perceptions of lecture listening difficulties during their first semester transitioning into an EMI university in China. The study also explores variations in these patterns that are associated with students’ English listening proficiency upon entry. Key methodological procedures for designing and implementing the study will be introduced, while along with sharing suggestions for handling the typical challenges of attrition and missing data in longitudinal quantitative research. The chapter concludes with methodological implications of the study for EMI research, and offers suggestions for future research based on a critical reflection of the study’s limitations.

The language continuum is defined by the dimensions of language ability (from language talent to language disorder) and bilingual language proficiency (from monolingual to multilingual) in this chapter. Although the terms “language ability” and “proficiency” are often used interchangeably in the literature, we systematically differentiate these two dimensions in order to explain variations in speakers from different linguistic backgrounds. Cross-linguistic data are presented to strengthen this argument. The differentiation of these two language dimensions is important for professionals to prevent the over- and underdiagnosis of children who come from language minority groups or exhibit bilingual language disorder. A discussion of similarities in language acquisition between typically developing monolingual and bilingual first language speakers and between monolingual and bilingual children with developmental language disorder is included to highlight common features along the language dimensions. Within-subject approaches and different measures of assessment are described to support the classification of children from diverse linguistic environments.

Early language exposure is crucial for acquiring native mastery of phonology, and multilingual exposure results in enhanced phonetic/phonological learning ability in adulthood. It remains unclear, however, whether early language exposure has lasting benefits when the quantity and quality of speaking drop dramatically after childhood. We investigate the production and perception of Arabic in fifteen early-interrupted exposure (i.e., childhood) speakers and fifteen late-exposure (i.e., novice) speakers. We compare the production of both groups to that of a control group of fifteen early uninterrupted exposure (i.e., native monolingual) speakers. The experiment included tasks addressing language proficiency, word production, and speech perception. Early-interrupted exposure speakers outperformed late-exposure speakers on all tasks of the language proficiency diagnostic, while also displaying more native-like perception and production. Our study adds further support to the body of work on the measurable long-term benefits of early language experience for an individual’s phonetic and phonological skills, even when language experience diminishes over time.

Differential Object Marking (DOM) is vulnerable to change in heritage speakers of Spanish and heritage speakers of Hindi. DOM is also vulnerable to L1 attrition in Spanish-speaking first-generation immigrants but not in Hindi immigrants. This chapter examines DOM vulnerability in Romanian. The chapter describes the sociolinguistic characteristics of the Romanian-speaking population in the United, followed by a summary of the overall results of the linguistic background questionnaire and the linguistic tasks. The overall results show that, compared to the Spanish and Hindi-speaking populations, the Romanian-speaking population in the United States is far less numerous, yet their Romanian language skills remain relatively strong compared to the other two groups. The accuracy with DOM of the first-generation Romanian immigrants on all linguistic measures did not differ from those of the Romanian speakers in Romania. Just like in the Hindi study, there appears to be no evidence of language change in the homeland nor signs of attrition of this phenomenon in the first-generation adult immigrants sampled in this study. Yet, DOM and accusative clitic doubling (CD) were found to be somewhat vulnerable to omission in heritage speakers, especially in those exposed to English since birth or very early in life (the simultaneous bilinguals).

This chapter asks whether DOM—which is a vulnerable grammatical area in Spanish in the United States—is also vulnerable in Hindi as a heritage language. The results of the study presented in this chapter show that some Hindi heritage speakers also display omission of DOM in all tasks. But unlike what was found for the Spanish-speaking Mexican immigrants in the Spanish study discussed in the previous chapter, there is no indication of ongoing language change in the Hindi spoken in the homeland nor apparent signs of attrition of DOM in the Hindi-speaking adult immigrant group. The sociolinguistic characteristics of the Hindi/Urdu-speaking population in the United States is discussed. The results of the linguistic background questionnaire and the linguistic tasks (oral narrative task, elicited production task, written task, bimodal acceptability judgment task, auditory/written comprehension task) are presented and discussed.

The acquisition of DOM in Spanish monolingual children and Spanish-speaking bilinguals has been intensely investigated in the last two decades. One of the main objectives of the in-depth study of DOM conducted for this project was to confirm and evaluate the strength of previous findings of DOM omission in Spanish-English bilingual children and in young adult heritage speakers. If erosion of DOM in Spanish as a heritage language is indeed a robust phenomenon, it should be documented in other groups of heritage speakers. Although hypotheses about the potential role of the parental generation in contributing to heritage language grammars abound, at the time the Spanish study reported in this book was conceived, there were no studies of potential attrition of DOM in adult immigrants. Therefore, the first-generation immigrant group was included to put the language transmission hypothesis to the test. This chapter presents a brief overview of Spanish in the United States before summarizing the main results of the language background questionnaire, and of the production, comprehension and judgment tasks described in Chapter 5.

Over the last two decades, second-language pragmatics brought to the fore commonalities and conventions shared by speakers and hearers, those which create a common ground for communication, as well as culture varieties in language use, and those which cause communication breakdowns in real-life contexts. But, of course, meaning which is to be understood entirely under the influence of social interaction and cognitive change cannot capture the modalities or channels speakers use to convey a certain content of an utterance. Typically, natural behaviors, in the form of emotive effects, are integrated somehow into the interpretation of utterances in everyday life situations, a point generally missed in the literature on how utterances are understood in a second language. In the light of the above observations, an original feature of this chapter is its discussion of cases where "natural," i.e. affective, and linguistic communication interact in the interpretation of utterances. The task of describing and explaining what is conveyed by nonpropositional types of meaning, those "affective aspects of learning," such as feelings, attitudes, or preferences, falls squarely within the domain of L2 pragmatics, and the central aim of this chapter is to redress the balance.

Chapter 27 stresses the importance of connecting assessment with learning and of assessment prior to implementation of instructional design based on the backward design principle (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). Backward design contrasts sharply with the traditional approach of planning instructional activities first and designing assessment later in the general instructional process. It also urges teachers to set clear learning objectives as the first step of curriculum design. After offering a short overview of key assessment types for different purposes, it presents Integrated Performance Assessment (IPA: Adair-Hauck, Glisan & Troyan, 2013) model by discussing how language proficiency and skills in real use of grammar and vocabulary can be measured in actual performance assessment. Actual students’ outcomes after implementation of IPA in an Advanced Korean class are collected and analyzed based on rubrics that can be used as standards for scoring. The chapter also analyzes whether there are correlations between IPA results and Proficiency outcomes.

This chapter explores the dynamic relationship between working memory (WM) and grammar development across adult L2 learning. For over twenty years, WM has received considerable attention in research on adult second language (L2) development. One reason for this is that L2 learning requires both processing and storage to comprehend input and to extract intake for acquisition, so differences in WM capacity may explain differences in developmental rates. Most studies on WM and morphosyntactic development in adults support the “more is better” hypothesis (Miyake & Friedman, 1998); yet others did not yield evidence in its support (e.g., Foote, 2011; Grey, Cox et al., 2015). While linguistic targets and methods may explain many discrepancies, recent research (e.g., Serafini & Sanz, 2016) may also help us understand these differences as a reflection of changes in what constitutes a cognitively demanding task (i.e., what tasks recruit WM resources) across L2 learning