If you are looking for interesting articles in the field of Applied Linguistics, with which you want to compare the styles or rhtorics of writing, between English and Japanese, the following is
a list of contents of the latest issue of the journal: Applied Linguistics,
whose serials I had ordered at the University Library. The hardcopies might be available by now, but I have not confirmed yet. ... MYasuda 5/20/05 I have confirmed there is March 2005 issue of Applied Linguistics on the first floor. MYasuda 5/20/05
目次
It is possible for you to sign up for alert services, if you are a researcher in this field.
AU: Rosina Marquez Reiter; Isobel Rainey; Glenn Fulcher
JN: Applied Linguistics PD: March 2005 VO: 26 NO: 1 PG: 1-31(31) PB: Oxford University Press IS: 0142-6001 URL: click here
AU: Paul Meara
JN: Applied Linguistics PD: March 2005 VO: 26 NO: 1 PG: 32-47(16) PB: Oxford University Press IS: 0142-6001 URL: click here
Abstract:
This paper reports a set of Monte Carlo simulations designed to evaluate the main claims made by Laufer and Nation about the Lexical Frequency Profile (LFP). Laufer and Nation claim that the LFP is a sensitive and reliable tool for assessing productive vocabulary in L2 speakers, and they suggest it might have a serious role to play in diagnostic evaluations of learners. The simulations suggest that LFP is not in fact all that sensitive. It works best when the groups being compared have very disparate vocabulary sizes, and is probably not sensitive enough to pick up modest changes in vocabulary size.
AU: Lionel Wee
JN: Applied Linguistics PD: March 2005 VO: 26 NO: 1 PG: 48-69(22) PB: Oxford University Press IS: 0142-6001 URL: click here
AU: Larry Vandergrift
JN: Applied Linguistics PD: March 2005 VO: 26 NO: 1 PG: 70-89(20) PB: Oxford University Press IS: 0142-6001 URL: click here
AU: Satomi Takahashi
JN: Applied Linguistics PD: March 2005 VO: 26 NO: 1 PG: 90-120(31) PB: Oxford University Press IS: 0142-6001 URL: click here
Abstract:
Previous research on interlanguage pragmatics revealed that, under implicit pragmatic instruction, some learners noticed the target pragmalinguistic features, whereas others receiving the same instruction did not. This suggests possible effects of individual difference (ID) variables on learners' noticing of pragmalinguistic features. Among the ID variables, this study focused on motivation and proficiency, exploring their relationships with Japanese EFL learners' awareness of six types of L2 pragmalinguistic features under an implicit input condition. Eighty Japanese college students first completed a motivation questionnaire and a proficiency test. They then took part in a noticing-the-gap activity as the treatment task. The degree of the learners' awareness of the target pragmalinguistic features was assessed through a retrospective awareness questionnaire administered immediately after the treatment. The following two major findings were obtained: (1) The learners differentially noticed the target pragmalinguistic features; and (2) the learners' awareness of the target features was correlated with motivation subscales, but not with their proficiency. In particular, the learners' intrinsic motivation was found to be closely related to their pragmatic awareness. An attempt was made to further examine whether current models of attention in SLA are relevant in accounting for the noticing of L2 pragmalinguistic features.
AU: Kevin R. Gregg
JN: Applied Linguistics PD: March 2005 VO: 26 NO: 1 PG: 121-124(4) PB: Oxford University Press IS: 0142-6001 URL: click here
Abstract:
In a recent paper (Jordan, Geoff) Jordan takes issue with some of my claims about second language acquisition (SLA) theory. Specifically, he queries the necessity of a property theory, and he finds my discussion of explanation unsatisfactory. In this brief reply, I try to answer his criticisms.
In a brief but interesting paper, Geoff Jordan (2004: 539) raises the issue of explanation in SLA theory. Jordan lists the following ‘key questions’ in discussing theories of SLA: (i) What is the domain of a theory of SLA? (ii) What counts as a good explanation of the phenomena in that domain? (iii) What criteria should be used to evaluate competing theories in the same domain? (iv) Is there any need to keep to a minimum the number of rival theories in a domain? He finds my answers ‘not entirely satisfactory’. I'm happy to agree with him. Still, I'm afraid I find his specific criticisms misplaced, and in what follows I'll try to briefly show why.
Explanatory Adequacy and Theories of Second Language Acquisition Author: Jordan, Geoff Source: Applied Linguistics, December 2004, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 538-542(5)
AU: Deborah Cameron
JN: Applied Linguistics PD: March 2005 VO: 26 NO: 1 PG: 125-128(4) PB: Oxford University Press IS: 0142-6001 URL: click here
AU: Michael McCarthy?
JN: Applied Linguistics PD: March 2005 VO: 26 NO: 1 PG: 128-131(4) PB: Oxford University Press IS: 0142-6001 URL: click here
AU: Kate Pahl
JN: Applied Linguistics PD: March 2005 VO: 26 NO: 1 PG: 131-134(4) PB: Oxford University Press IS: 0142-6001 URL: click here
AU: Yunkyoung Cho
JN: Applied Linguistics PD: March 2005 VO: 26 NO: 1 PG: 134-138(5) PB: Oxford University Press IS: 0142-6001 URL: click here
以上
一覧
jump to