Welcome to the most recent issue of Applied
Research on English Language (formerly
known as Applied Research in English). In
the past few months since we published the
first issue of the journal, the following
developments have taken place:
1) We have been declared Elmi-Pazhuheshi by the Iranian Ministry
of Science, Research and
Technology, which means that the
papers we have published up to this
point are all of scientific quality.
2) Dr. Reza Pishghadam and Dr. Shiva
Keivanpanah have joined our team.
3) We have been indexed in/by such
famous databases as:
a) IndexCopernicus
b) Ulrich
c) ResearchGate
d) LINGUIST List
e) TIRF
f) Electronic Journals Library
g) WorldCat
h) ResearchBib
i) NewJour
The articles comprising the current issue are
again both theoretical as well as research-based. The first paper is written by Robert
Kaplan, who argues that language planning
is as old as human civilization. As explained
by the author, every time that one polity
invaded the territory of another, the
language of the conqueror was imposed on
the conquered. The Romans imposed their
language across the civilized world as they
knew it. In the 21st century, the practice of
language planning has become increasingly
sophisticated. English, as the result of a
series of fortuitous accidents has become the
international language serving many
activities. At the same time, Kaplan argues,
it has led to an explosion in English
language teaching, an activity also not based
on wise decisions or wise planning.
The second paper is written by Clive Scott,
who outlines founding principles and a
guiding strategy for the translation of
Apollinaire’s poetry; many aspects of the
strategy reflect the convictions and practices
of Apollinaire’s own poetics. Scott is
particularly concerned to argue that
translation’s task is the projection of the
source text into its future, rather than being
an act of recuperation or preservation; this
argument is pursued and evaluated with
reference to the thinking of Yves Bonnefoy,
and entails the differentiation of sense and
meaning.
In ‘Examining the difficulty pathways of
can-do statements from a localized version
of the CEFR’, Judith Runnels focuses on the
Japanese adaptation of the Common
European Framework of Reference (CEFR-J), which is designed to better meet the
needs of Japanese learners of English. Her
goal is to provide validity evidence in
support of the inherent difficulty hierarchy
within the 5 A level sub-categories (A1.1,
A1.2, A1.3, A2.1 and A2.2) in two ways: 1)
by testing whether the difficulty of the can-do statements for each skill increases with
the levels, and 2) by determining if there are
significant differences in difficulty ratings
between each level. For most skills, the rank
ordering from difficulty ratings made by
Japanese university students somewhat
matched the level hierarchy of the CEFR-J
but significant differences between many
adjacent levels were not found.
In the next study, Khojasteh and Reinders
report on the analysis of a 230,000 word
corpus of Malaysian English textbooks, in
which it was found that the relative
frequency of the modals did not match that
found in native speaker corpora such as the
BNC. They compared the textbook corpus
with a learner corpus of Malaysian form 4
learners and found no direct relationship
between frequency of presentation of target
forms in the textbooks and their use by
students in their writing. The authors
suggest a number of possible reasons for
these findings and discuss the implications
for materials developers and teachers.
The next study by Pishghadam and Shams
focuses on the validity of language and
intelligence factors for classifying Iranian
English learners’ writing performance. The
results revealed that, among language
factors, depth of vocabulary (collocational
knowledge) produces the best discriminant
function. In general, narrative intelligence
was found to be the most reliable predictor
for membership in low or high groups. It
was also found that, among the five sub-abilities of narrative intelligence,
emplotment carries the highest classifying
value.
As discussed by Mohammad Javad
Ahmadian in the sixth paper, microgenetic
method is a specific method for studying
change in abilities, knowledge, and
understanding during short time spans,
through dense observations, and over a
relatively long period of time. The paper
provides a brief overview of microgenetic
method and will point out its potential
advantages and disadvantages in the context
of second language acquisition. To illustrate
the utility of microgenetic method in SLA
research, the author discusses a SLA-related
issue which could be addressed via this
research method, namely the effects of
written corrective feedback on L2
acquisition.
And finally, Ines khalsi investigates the
effect of language complexity and group
size on knowledge construction in two
online debates. The results show that
knowledge construction and group size are
significantly and negatively correlated. Also,
the study reveals that knowledge
construction and language complexity are
significantly and positively correlated.
Furthermore, the study demonstrates that
language complexity is a significant
predictor of knowledge construction in
online debates.
Many thanks to the researchers who
submitted their papers to us and also to the
reviewers who contributed with constructive
feedback. We are now accepting
submissions for our next issue: Volume II,
issue II.
Please send us your feedback! We would
love to hear what you think of the journal!
The journal’s email address is
jare@res.ui.ac.ir.
Best wishes,
Saeed Ketabi, PhD (Editor-in-Chief)
