Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
Volume 5 (2014) Issue 1
Foreword to the Issue
The
present issue commences the fifth volume of the Journal of
Linguistics and Language Teaching. This issue comprises six
articles and three book reviews The articles selected here offer
insight into the teaching of reading, the learning of vocabulary,
grammatical instruction, and the sociolinguistic competence of
language learners, potential remedies that can be implemented into
language learning software, and, last but not least, the teaching and
learning of lexical chunks.
The
first article by Shing-Lung Chen
(Kaohsiung, Taiwan) describes a model that aims to reduce
or even possibly eliminate potential failures occurring in language
learning programmes in the speech recognition process. Modern
language learning software, specially made for the correct decoding
of learners’ utterances, is designed on the basis of linear rather
than circular models. In the author’s opinion, however, only
circular models can serve to compensate for communication failures
and, thus, assure the continuation of given communication processes.
In this article, potential problems of language learning programmes
are analysed and possible remedies are suggested.
In
the subsequent article by Chris Merkelbach
(Taipei, Taiwan), the teaching of reading skills in Chinese as a
Second Language (CSL) is the issue in
the focus of the author’s attention. Students
generally encountering tremendous difficulties
in reading academic Chinese texts of a certain length
within a reasonable lapse of time, the article depicts the prominent
importance of reading skills in the framework of the mastery of this
language. Considering the fact that Western students of Chinese are,
as a rule, experienced language learners, the author elaborates on
selected reading styles, suggesting ways and techniques to
teach these strategies in CSL classes. Special focus is laid on the
syntactic and textual levels.
The
third article by Nina Daskalovska
(Stip, Republic of Macedonia) also deals with reading, but considers
it as a way to boost students’ incidental vocabulary learning,
taking into account that
reading is generally recognised as one of the essential sources of
human beings to extend their vocabulary banks. Providing the second
replication of a study by Zahar, Cob and Spada (2001; see the
article) with the first replication study also
being her own, the author analysed a group of university students in
their first and second year of English instruction. Her results
suggest a positive relation between learners’ existent vocabulary
size and their relative acquisition of new words, as
well as a positive correla-tion between the frequency with which new
words appear in a given text and the proba-bility of students
acquiring them. The study also confirms that
learners’ general pre-knowledge and their cognitive
abilities may be of decisive importance for their vocabulary
extension through reading.
Grammar
is in the focus of Andrew Schenck’s
& Wonkyung Choi’s
(both Daejeon, South Korea) contribution. The
authors recommend best practices for the teaching of some important
grammatical features of English. In the introductory part of their
article, the authors state the principal ineffectiveness of those
ways of teaching grammar that follow a one-for-all approach. Focusing
on adult learners, with a close examination of
their learning such grammatical items as the definite
article and the plural
noun, they point to the poten-tial outcome of
three different techniques: explicit focus on
meaning, explicit
focus on form, and implicit
focus on form. The findings of the study
reveal that grammatical instruction should vary according to the
traits of the individual grammatical item, the instruction employed,
and learners’ language proficiency. On this
basis, an empirical method is suggested that takes the respective
content of grammar instruction into account.
In
her article, Anna Krulatz
(Trondheim, Norway), gives insight into the sociolinguistic
competence of foreign language learners, analysing written electronic
requests (emails) produced by non-natives and natives of Russian
under test conditions. Focusing on the head act of request on the one
hand and internal and external modifications on the other, the
researcher identified various differences between the requests
produced by non-native and native speakers. In addition, the author
also found that although non-native speakers’
strategies occasionally approximate those
utilised by native speakers, the sociolinguistic
competence of the latter is most rarely fully attained by the former.
Patrycja
Golebiewska / Christian Jones (both Preston,
UK) elaborate on lexical chunks, comparing the potential
effectiveness of Observe
Hypothesise Experiment (OHE) and Presentation
Practice Production (PPP). In their
experiment, the authors found that both approaches proved to be
promising in terms of improving students’ productive and receptive
language knowledge, no statistically significant data in favor of the
one or the other framework being identified. Their research suggests
that both input- and output-based language
activities have the potential of enhancing students’ acquisition of
lexical chunks. Instructors’ choice of the one framework or the
other - so they conclude - may therefore be based on their personal
teaching preferences or on their estimation of the effectiveness of
learning styles rather than on
the potential success of the use of these two approaches.
The
present issue is rounded off by three book reviews: the first one by
Heinz-Helmut
Lüger
(Koblenz-Landau, Germany) on Zofia
Bilut-Homplewicz’s
book on perspectivation in text linguistics (2013), the second one by
Elisabeth
Kolb
(Munich, Germany) on a book on mediation in foreign language teaching
edited by Daniel
Reimann & Andrea Rössler
(2013), and the
third one by László
Kovács
(Szombathely, Hungary) on Erzsébet
Drahota-Szabó’s
book on intertextuality and translation (2013)
This
issue sees a varied selection of articles which
will not only will answer but also may open up
further research questions. As well as the articles, the three
book reviews presented in this issue may ultimately
entice our readers to pick up the
respective books and read them in detail. In either case, the editor
hopes that JLLT has
reached one of its objectives, i.e. to cast a
tiny light on one of the most interesting,
inspiring, and meanwhile, most complex fields
- the relationship between
linguistics on the one hand and language teaching on the other. Being
aware of all this, we wish our readers a pleasant time
thumbing through and enjoying the
latest issue of JLLT.
Thomas
Tinnefeld
JLLT
Editor