ial is a refereed journal managed by scholars in the field of applied linguistics. Our aim is to publish outstanding research from faculty, independent researchers, and graduate students in the broad areas of second language acquisition, language socialization, language processing, language assessment, language pedagogy, language policy, making use of the following research methodologies (but not limited to): discourse analysis, conversation analysis, critical discourse analysis, critical race theory, and psychophysiology. ial publishes articles, book reviews, and interviews with notable scholars.
Volume 21, Issue 1, 2020
This paper builds on and extends Seedhouse (2004)’s study on conversational interaction and second language (L2) learning in formal pedagogical contexts through a longitudinal investigation of repair. Theoretically, the project engages with concepts of repair and language learning within the field of Conversation Analysis (CA) and attempts to re-examine the relationship between L2 repair and L2 classroom contexts proposed by Seedhouse. Methodologically, the research employs conversation analytic approach to L2 spoken data and as a departure from the traditional CA approach, it incooperates quantitative analysis as well as the researcher’s field notes and interviews to explore the complexities of L2 repair in terms of its sequential organization overtime.
The findings supported Seedhouse in that L2 repair is sequenced differently in accordance with the pedagogic goals set by the teacher. More importantly, this study adds to the previous research in that the learners orientated to achieving L2 accuracy in all pedagogic contexts regardless of the initial pedagogic focus.
This paper addresses the issue of indigenous language revitalization in California and the United States as it relates to language policy in schools. How do language policies—specifically, No Child Left Behind, the Native American Languages Act, and those of local funding—affect revitalization efforts? Based on a grounded exploration of language policies regarding Native American communities in the State of California, this paper offers: 1) a close analysis of how policies relegate Native community language needs to the background, and 2) how the realities of funding affect the implicit and explicit statements of these policies. In particular, a critical discourse analysis of policy documents is put forth. This analysis reveals that language revitalization efforts involve more than communities working to teach dying languages; they involve us addressing several background issues concerning existing language policies as well as efforts on the part of funders to raise awareness of Native American language concerns.