The effects of task complexity on L2 English rapport-building language use and its relationship with paired speaking test task performance
-
Tzu-Hua Chen
Tzu-Hua Chen is a PhD candidate in Applied Linguistics in the Education Department at Concordia University in Canada. Her research interests include second language acquisition, task-based language teaching and interaction, second language pragmatics, speech learning, individual differences in SLA, technology-mediated and technology-enhanced language learning, and research methods. Her work has been published in
Applied Linguistics Review ,System ,Language Learning & Technology ,English Teaching & Learning ,The Journal of Asia TEFL , and conference proceedings.
Abstract
Although task complexity effects on L2 oral production have been widely studied in teaching contexts, their application to task-based language assessment and pragmatic language use remains underexplored. Since pragmatic competence is part of effective communication and interactional abilities and is context-dependent, an investigation of the relationships among task complexity, pragmatic language use, and paired speaking test performance is needed. This study examined the effect of the resource-directing and resource-dispersing dimensions (the number of elements, causal reasoning demand, and planning time) of Robinson’s task complexity construct on fifty-two intermediate-level English as a Second Language (ESL) learners’ rapport-building language use during two decision-making tasks as the achievement test in an EAP program, and the relationships between rapport language use and three dimensions of paired speaking test performance: collaboration, task completion, and style. The results showed that frequency and variety of rapport-building language use did not significantly differ between the two tasks. However, the study found that only in the simple task did different types of rapport-building language have statistically significant positive or negative relationships with different dimensions of paired speaking test scores. Specifically, greeting language use had a strong or close to strong positive relationship with collaboration and style scores, whereas agreeing language had a strong negative relationship with collaboration scores. Additionally, thanking language had a strong negative association with task completion scores. The findings further suggest that task complexity effects learners’ production of rapport-building language in terms of alignment with their peer interlocutors and formality of style, and also impacts raters’ perceptions of paired speaking task performance. The findings highlight the importance of task effects, paired oral assessment rubrics development, and rapport-building language instruction.
Funding source: Canada Research Chairs Program
Award Identifier / Grant number: 950-221304
About the author
Tzu-Hua Chen is a PhD candidate in Applied Linguistics in the Education Department at Concordia University in Canada. Her research interests include second language acquisition, task-based language teaching and interaction, second language pragmatics, speech learning, individual differences in SLA, technology-mediated and technology-enhanced language learning, and research methods. Her work has been published in Applied Linguistics Review, System, Language Learning & Technology, English Teaching & Learning, The Journal of Asia TEFL, and conference proceedings.
Acknowledgement
I am grateful to Professor Kim McDonough for her helpful comments on previous drafts of this article and to Professor Pavel Trofimovich and Dr. Teresa Hernandez-Gonzalez for their oral feedback on this study. I thank Professors Kim McDonough and William Crawford for sharing the corpus with me. Funding for this project was provided by research grants awarded to Kim McDonough by the Canada Research Chairs Program (950-221304). I also thank the research assistants for their help in transcribing and coding the interaction data. Thanks also go to the participants for their participation in this research study. The study was presented at the 2022 AAAL Conference in Pittsburgh, the United States. The article was also sponsored by a Fonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et Culture Doctoral Research Scholarship awarded to me. Special thanks go to anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and to the Editor-in-Chief, Prof. Li Wei, for processing my manuscript.
-
Research funding: This work was funded by Canada Research Chairs Program (950-221304).
Appendix A: Assessment tasks
Crime and economy
Planning time: 1 min
Planning type: Individual
Task completion time: 3 min
Task
Scenario: You and your partner are taking Sociology at Northern Arizona University. Your assignment is to find two different statistical reports on the relationship between crime rates and economy. You and your partner have chosen two different reports.
You have 1 min to individually prepare your own ideas before discussing it with your partner. You have 3 min to complete this task with your partner.
Directions:
Step 1
In pairs, explain what your report presents.
Step 2
Based on the amount of information that each report includes, choose one report that you would like to present to the class. Make sure to discuss why you would like to choose one report over the other.
Step 3
Discuss two possible reasons for crime rates.
Student A
Student B
Crime statistics
Planning time: 3 min
Planning type: Individual
Task completion time: 3 min
Task
Scenario: You and your partner are taking Sociology at Northern Arizona University. Your assignment was to find two different statistical reports on crime rates in the USA. You and your partner have chosen two different reports.
You have 3 min to individually prepare your own ideas before discussing it with your partner. You have 3 min to complete this task with your partner.
Directions:
Step 1
In pairs, explain what each of your statistical reports present.
Step 2
Based on the amount of information that each report includes, discuss two possible reasons for types of crimes and crime rates and two solutions to decrease crime rates.
Step 3
Agree on the biggest factor contributing to crime rates in large cities.
Types of crimes in 2004
Student A
Student B
| 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Collaboration | Both consistently and actively work toward group goals. Value the knowledge, opinion and skills of group members and encourage contribution. The amount of contribution is fairly equal. | Both work toward group goals without prompting. Value the knowledge, opinion and skills of group members. The amount of contribution is fairly equal but turn is clearly controlled by one member. | One works toward group goal but the other contributes occasionally. Opinion and knowledge of group members do not receive equal attention. There is a clear difference in the amount of contribution. | One works toward group goal but the other contributes only when prompted. Only the dominant member’s opinion is valued; or the other member is disinterested. One member largely dominates the conversation. | Both learners show no evidence of working with partners. Both learners never pay attention or respond to each other. Both learners demonstrate no evidence of ability to provide feedback to each other. |
| Task completion | Both complete task with excellent ideas relevant to topic. Good use of examples to illustrate idea. Ideas are exceptionally well developed and coherent; relationship between ideas is clear. | Both complete the task with valid ideas relevant to topic. Sufficient number of ideas but may lack elaboration or specificity. Relationships between ideas may not be immediately clear. | One or both complete part of the task with ideas relevant to topic, but with an insufficient number. Some ideas lack elaboration or specificity. Connections of ideas may not always be clear. | Both complete part of the task with only a few ideas relevant to topic. Ideas are limited and lack elaboration or specificity. Unclear connection between ideas. | Unable to complete the task; few or no required elements are present |
| Responses are inappropriate; overall task outcome is not comprehensible | |||||
| Style | Both demonstrate use of a variety of expressions for giving opinions, agreeing, disagreeing, and building on another member’s idea. Shows appropriate use of the expressions and vocabulary. Exhibits a fairly high degree of automaticity. Some errors are noticeable but do not obscure meaning. | Both demonstrate use of a few expressions for giving opinions, agreeing, and disagreeing, and building on other member’s idea. Show fairly automatic and effective use of the expression and vocabulary. | One or both demonstrates limited range and control of expressions for giving opinions, agreeing, and disagreeing, and building on another member’s idea. May rely on one or two general expressions. Show difficulty using the more complex expression and can be inappropriate at times. | Both demonstrate a very limited range of expressions for giving opinions, agreeing, and disagreeing, and building on other member’s ideas. Rely heavily on one or two general expressions. Show limited use of the more complex and specific expressions. | No use of more complex and specific expressions for giving opinions, agreeing, disagreeing, and building on other member’s ideas. |
Appendix C: Transcription conventions
| /---/ | Unintelligible speech |
| % % | Simultaneous speech/overlap between speakers |
| … | Unfilled pause (1 s +) |
| uh | Filled pause |
| - - | Interrupted speech |
| — | Self-repair |
References
Ädel, Annelie. 2011. Rapport building in student group work. Journal of Pragmatics 43(12). 2932–2947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.007.Suche in Google Scholar
Baralt, Melissa. 2013. The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35(4). 689–725. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263113000429.Suche in Google Scholar
Baron, Julia & Luz Celaya. 2022. ‘May I do something for you?’: The effects of audio-visual material (captioned and non-captioned) on EFL pragmatic learning. Language Teaching Research 26(2). 238–255.10.1177/13621688211067000Suche in Google Scholar
Butler, Yuko Goto & Wei Zeng. 2014. Young foreign language learners’ interactions during task-based paired assessments. Language Assessment Quarterly 11(1). 45–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2013.869814.Suche in Google Scholar
Butler, Yuko Goto & Wei Zeng. 2015. Young learners’ interactional development in task-based paired-assessment in their first and foreign languages: A case of English learners in China. Education 3–13 43(3). 292–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2013.813955.Suche in Google Scholar
Chen, Tzu-Hua. under review. Dynamic fluctuations in foreign language enjoyment during cognitively simple and complex interactive speaking tasks.Suche in Google Scholar
Cohen, Andrew. 2018. Learning pragmatics from native and nonnative language teachers. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/COHEN9924Suche in Google Scholar
Crawford, William & Kim McDonough. 2021. Introduction to the corpus of collaborative oral tasks. In William Crawford (ed.), Multiple perspectives on learner interaction: The corpus of collaborative oral tasks, 7–16. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9781501511370-002Suche in Google Scholar
Crowther, Dustin, Pavel Trofimovich, Kazuya Saito & Talia Isaacs. 2018. Linguistic dimensions of L2 accentedness and comprehensibility vary across speaking tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 40(2). 443–457. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311700016X.Suche in Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan & Qian Kan. 2020. Communicative styles, rapport, and student engagement: An online peer mentoring scheme. Applied Linguistics 41(5). 756–786. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amz035.Suche in Google Scholar
Ducasse, Ana Maria & Annie Brown. 2009. Assessing paired orals: Raters’ orientation to interaction. Language Testing 26(3). 423–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209104669.Suche in Google Scholar
Ellis, Rod. 2009. Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19(3). 221–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00231.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Ellis, Rod. 2018. Reflections on task-based language teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/ELLIS0131Suche in Google Scholar
Ellis, Rod, Peter Skehan, Shaofeng Li, Natsuko Shintani & Craig Lambert. 2020. Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108643689Suche in Google Scholar
Galaczi, Evelina D. 2008. Peer–peer interaction in a speaking test: The case of the first certificate in English examination. Language Assessment Quarterly 5(2). 89–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434300801934702.Suche in Google Scholar
Galaczi, Evelina D. 2014. Interactional competence across proficiency levels: How do learners manage interaction in paired speaking tests? Applied Linguistics 35(5). 553–574. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt017.Suche in Google Scholar
Gilabert, Roger & Julia Barón. 2013. The impact of increasing task complexity on L2 pragmatic moves. In Kim Mcdonough & Alison Mackey (eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts, 45–70. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/lllt.34.06ch3Suche in Google Scholar
Gilabert, Roger, Julia Barón & Angels Llanes. 2009. Manipulating cognitive complexity across task types and its impact on learners’ interaction during oral performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 47. 367–395. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2009.01.Suche in Google Scholar
Gomez-Laich, María Pía & Naoko Taguchi. 2018. Task complexity effects on interaction during a collaborative persuasive writing task. In Naoko Taguchi & Youjin Kim (eds.), Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics, 83–109. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/tblt.10.04gomSuche in Google Scholar
Heylighen, Francis & Jean Marc Dewaele. 1999. Formality of language: Definition, measurement and behavioral determinants. Belgium: Center ‘Leo Apostel’, Free University of Brussels. Internal Report.Suche in Google Scholar
Ishihara, Noriko & Andrew Cohen. 2022. Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781003168188Suche in Google Scholar
Jackson, Daniel & Sakol Suethanapornkul. 2013. The cognition hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language Learning 63(2). 330–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12008.Suche in Google Scholar
Kim, Youjin & Caroline Payant. 2017. Impacts of task complexity on the development of L2 oral performance over time. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 55(2). 197–220. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2017-0066.Suche in Google Scholar
Kim, Youjin & Naoko Taguchi. 2015. Promoting task-based pragmatics instruction in EFL classroom contexts: The role of task complexity. The Modern Language Journal 99(4). 656–677. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12273.Suche in Google Scholar
Kim, Youjin & Naoko Taguchi. 2016. Learner–learner interaction during collaborative pragmatic tasks: The role of cognitive and pragmatic task demands. Foreign Language Annals 49(1). 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12180.Suche in Google Scholar
Kley, Katharina. 2019. What counts as evidence for interactional competence? Developing rating criteria for a German classroom-based paired speaking test. In Rafael Salaberry & Silvia Kunitz (eds.), Teaching and testing L2 interactional competence: Bridging theory and practice, 291–321. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315177021-12Suche in Google Scholar
Lasan, Ivan. 2021. Salience in EFL speakers’ perceptions of formality: (In) formal greetings and address forms combined with (in) formal nouns, verbs, and adjectives. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211055086 (Epub ahead of print).Suche in Google Scholar
Long, Michael. 2015. Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Suche in Google Scholar
Malicka, Aleksandra & Shoko Sasayama. 2017. The importance of learning from the accumulated knowledge: Findings from a research synthesis on task complexity. In Paper presented at the 7th biennial international conference on task-based language teaching. Spain: University of Barcelona.Suche in Google Scholar
Mir, Montserrat. 2021. Learning about L2 Spanish requests abroad through classroom and ethnography-based pragmatics instruction. In Cesar Felix-Brasdefer & Rachel Shively (eds.), New directions in second language pragmatics, 58–80. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110721775-007Suche in Google Scholar
Nguyen, Hanh Thi. 2007. Rapport building in language instruction: A microanalysis of the multiple resources in teacher talk. Language and Education 21(4). 284–303. https://doi.org/10.2167/le658.0.Suche in Google Scholar
Nguyen, Thi Thuy Minh & Van Canh Le. 2019. Teaching pragmatics in EFL classrooms. East Java: TEFLIN Publication Division.Suche in Google Scholar
Norris, John. 2016. Current uses for task-based language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36. 230–244. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190516000027.Suche in Google Scholar
Pica, Teresa, Ruth Kanagy & Joseph Falodun. 2009. Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction. In Kris Van den Branden, Martin Bygate & John Norris (eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader, 171–192. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/tblt.1.11choSuche in Google Scholar
Plonsky, Luke & Frederick L. Oswald. 2014. How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning 64. 878–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.120794.Suche in Google Scholar
Prior, Matthew. 2018. Accomplishing “rapport” in qualitative research interviews: Empathic moments in interaction. Applied Linguistics Review 9(4). 487–511. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2017-0029.Suche in Google Scholar
Révész, Andrea, Michel Marije & Roger Gilabert. 2016. Measuring cognitive task demands using dual-task methodology, subjective self-ratings, and expert judgments: A validation study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38(4). 703–737. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000339.Suche in Google Scholar
Robinson, Peter. 2001. Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics 22. 27–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.27.Suche in Google Scholar
Robinson, Peter. 2005. Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 43. 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2005.43.1.1.Suche in Google Scholar
Robinson, Peter. 2007. Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics 45. 193–213. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.009.Suche in Google Scholar
Robinson, Peter (ed.). 2011. Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/tblt.2Suche in Google Scholar
Robinson, Peter. 2022. The cognition hypothesis, the triadic componential framework and the SSARC model: An instructional design theory of pedagogic task sequencing. In Mohammad Javad Ahmadian & Michael H. Long (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of task-based language teaching, 205–225. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108868327.013Suche in Google Scholar
Roever, Carsten & Gabriel Kasper. 2018. Speaking in turns and sequences: Interactional competence as a target construct in testing speaking. Language Testing 35(3). 331–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532218758128.Suche in Google Scholar
Roever, Carsten & Naoki Ikeda. 2021. What scores from monologic speaking tests can (not) tell us about interactional competence. Language Testing. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322211003332 (Epub ahead of print).Suche in Google Scholar
Saito, Kazuya & Yuwei Liu. 2022. Roles of collocation in L2 oral proficiency revisited: Different tasks, L1 versus L2 raters, and cross-sectional versus longitudinal analyses. Second Language Research 38(3). 531–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658320988055.Suche in Google Scholar
Shively, Rachel. 2010. From the virtual world to the real world: A model of pragmatics instruction for study abroad. Foreign Language Annals 43(1). 105–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2010.01063.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Shively, Rachel. 2011. L2 pragmatic development in study abroad: A longitudinal study of Spanish service encounters. Journal of Pragmatics 43(6). 1818–1835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.030.Suche in Google Scholar
Solon, Megan, Avizia Y. Long & Laura Gurzynski-Weiss. 2017. Task complexity, language-related episodes, and production of L2 Spanish vowels. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 39(2). 347–380. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263116000425.Suche in Google Scholar
Spada, Nina. 2021. Reflecting on task-based language teaching from an instructed SLA perspective. Language Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444821000161 (Epub ahead of print).Suche in Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2008. Face, (im)politeness and rapport. In Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory, 11–47. London & New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.Suche in Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2021. What is rapport? A compilation of quotations for professionals working in diverse contexts. Global People Core Concept Compilations. Available at: www.globalpeopleconsulting.com/insights.Suche in Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen & Peter Franklin. 2009. Promoting rapport in intercultural interaction. In Helen Spencer-Oatey & Peter Franklin (eds.), Intercultural interaction: A multidisciplinary approach to intercultural communication, 101–129. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230244511_5Suche in Google Scholar
Tekin, Oguzhan, Pavel Trofimovich, Tzu-Hua Chen & Kim McDonough. 2022. Alignment in second language speakers’ perceptions of interaction and its relationship to perceived communicative success. System 108. 102848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102848.Suche in Google Scholar
Timpe-Laughlin, Veronika. 2018. Pragmatics in task-based language assessment: Opportunities and challenges. In Naoko Taguchi & Youjin Kim (eds.), Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics, 287–304. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/tblt.10.12timSuche in Google Scholar
Toomaneejinda, Anuchit & Luke Harding. 2018. Disagreement practices in ELF academic group discussion: Verbal, nonverbal and interactional strategies. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 7(2). 307–332. https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2018-0016.Suche in Google Scholar
Trofimovich, Pavel & Sarita Kennedy. 2014. Interactive alignment between bilingual interlocutors: Evidence from two information-exchange tasks. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17(4). 822–836. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728913000801.Suche in Google Scholar
Wong, Jean & Hansun Zhang Waring. 2021. Conversation analysis and second language pedagogy: A guide for ESL/EFL teachers. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780429488023Suche in Google Scholar
Xiao, Feng, Naoko Taguchi & Shuai Li. 2019. Effects of proficiency subskills on pragmatic development in L2 Chinese study abroad. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 41(2). 469–483. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263118000128.Suche in Google Scholar
Youn, Soo Jung. 2018. Task-based needs analysis of L2 pragmatics in an EAP context. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 36. 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.10.005.Suche in Google Scholar
Supplementary Material
The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2021-0199).
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- ELF- or NES-oriented pedagogy: enhancing learners’ intercultural communicative competence using a dual teaching model
- “You can’t start a fire without a spark”. Enjoyment, anxiety, and the emergence of flow in foreign language classrooms
- “You have to repeat Chinese to mother!”: multilingual identity, emotions, and family language policy in transnational multilingual families
- On the influence of the first language on orthographic competences in German as a second language: a comparative analysis
- Validating the conceptual domains of elementary school teachers’ knowledge and needs vis-à-vis the CLIL approach in Chinese-speaking contexts
- Agentive engagement in intercultural communication by L2 English-speaking international faculty and their L2 English-speaking host colleagues
- Review Article
- Illuminating insights into subjectivity: Q as a methodology in applied linguistics research
- Research Articles
- Making sense of trans-translating in blogger subtitling: a netnographic approach to translanguaging on a Chinese microblogging site
- The shape of a word: single word characteristics’ effect on novice L2 listening comprehension
- Success factors for English as a second language university students’ attainment in academic English language proficiency: exploring the roles of secondary school medium-of-instruction, motivation and language learning strategies
- LexCH: a quick and reliable receptive vocabulary size test for Chinese Learners
- Examining the role of writing proficiency in students’ feedback literacy development
- Confucius Institute and Confucius Classroom closures: trends, explanations and future directions
- Translanguaging as decoloniality-informed knowledge co-construction: a nexus analysis of an English-Medium-Instruction program in China
- The effects of task complexity on L2 English rapport-building language use and its relationship with paired speaking test task performance
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- ELF- or NES-oriented pedagogy: enhancing learners’ intercultural communicative competence using a dual teaching model
- “You can’t start a fire without a spark”. Enjoyment, anxiety, and the emergence of flow in foreign language classrooms
- “You have to repeat Chinese to mother!”: multilingual identity, emotions, and family language policy in transnational multilingual families
- On the influence of the first language on orthographic competences in German as a second language: a comparative analysis
- Validating the conceptual domains of elementary school teachers’ knowledge and needs vis-à-vis the CLIL approach in Chinese-speaking contexts
- Agentive engagement in intercultural communication by L2 English-speaking international faculty and their L2 English-speaking host colleagues
- Review Article
- Illuminating insights into subjectivity: Q as a methodology in applied linguistics research
- Research Articles
- Making sense of trans-translating in blogger subtitling: a netnographic approach to translanguaging on a Chinese microblogging site
- The shape of a word: single word characteristics’ effect on novice L2 listening comprehension
- Success factors for English as a second language university students’ attainment in academic English language proficiency: exploring the roles of secondary school medium-of-instruction, motivation and language learning strategies
- LexCH: a quick and reliable receptive vocabulary size test for Chinese Learners
- Examining the role of writing proficiency in students’ feedback literacy development
- Confucius Institute and Confucius Classroom closures: trends, explanations and future directions
- Translanguaging as decoloniality-informed knowledge co-construction: a nexus analysis of an English-Medium-Instruction program in China
- The effects of task complexity on L2 English rapport-building language use and its relationship with paired speaking test task performance
