This issue is my first edited volume of the Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (ARAL). Each year ARAL focuses on a specific theme, but about every five years it covers a range of mostly unrelated topics in a survey issue. Volume 30 was scheduled to be a survey issue, and after some discussion with the editorial directors, I decided to keep this tradition. Thus, I had the daunting task of choosing four broad topics, and then within each broad topic, a few narrow topics on which to invite scholars to write review articles. I chose a wide range of areas as a statement that I see the field of applied linguistics as not only being broad but as also representing a range of perspectives on theory and research methods. For example, I have included sections both on language socialization and on linguistic theory (mostly formal) in second language acquisition. I felt that these two areas were quite far apart with regard to the view that researchers in those areas held, but in my mind, both social and cognitive approaches to language learning and use are valid and simply seek to answer different questions. In the section on research methods, the articles focus on using both cognitive and social approaches, as well as quantitative and qualitative methods. The articles on heritage language learning focus on acquisition, policy, pedagogy, and sociocultural issues.

An increasing trend in many postsecondary foreign language classes in North America is the presence of heritage language learners. Heritage language learners are speakers of ethnolinguistically minority languages who were exposed to the language in the family since childhood and as adults wish to learn, relearn, or improve their current level of linguistic proficiency in their family language. This article discusses the development of the linguistic and grammatical knowledge of heritage language speakers from childhood to adulthood and the conditions under which language learning does or does not occur. Placing heritage language acquisition within current and viable cognitive and linguistic theories of acquisition, I discuss what most recent basic research has so far uncovered about heritage speakers of different languages and their language learning process. I conclude with directions for future research.

In the last few decades, research on teaching heritage language (HL) learners has expanded enormously and encouraged language professionals to work toward responsible curriculum development for this specific type of learners. This article suggests ways to expand current curriculum research and practices with the goal of advancing the HL competence of learners. To this end, this article examines the scope, trends, and issues in recent theoretical and practical studies concerning curriculum development for HL learners from various language backgrounds, especially those in the United States. A definition of HL learners is presented first, which is followed by a discussion of general second language curriculum development frameworks with specific reference to HL instruction. Then, the article examines the contexts, challenges, and possibilities for teaching HLs to school-age children in precollegiate programs. Next, it turns to a discussion of issues and recommendations for teaching postsecondary HL students. The article concludes by discussing curricular and pedagogical recommendations for HL professionals as well as a future research agenda that could promote the advancement of HL competence in all educational institutions.

As awareness of the unique abilities and needs of heritage language learners has grown, so too has recent research deepened our understanding of the dynamic between language policy and heritage language education (HLE). In this article, I review HLE policy research conducted in various international contexts. I begin by reviewing ongoing debates in the policy literature over definitions and adopt a broad understanding of the term so that we can glean as much insight as possible from the comparison of international contexts. I then turn to six international regions and countries that have been the focus of recent HLE policy research. Within each region, I apply the analytic framework proposed by Ricento and Hornberger (1996) to differentiate the multiple levels at which language policy functions. Finally, I identify common themes emerging across the research in these varied contexts and conclude with suggestions for future policy-oriented HLE research.

The very notion of heritage language (HL) is a sociocultural one insofar as it is defined in terms of a group of people who speak it. Heritage languages also have a sociocultural function, both as a means of communication and as a way of identifying and transforming sociocultural groups. This article surveys two broad approaches to research on the sociocultural dimensions of HL learning. While both of these approaches acknowledge the close connection and mutual dependency between HL learning processes and sociocultural processes, they differ in that one of them takes a correlational perspective, and the other a social constructivist perspective. This article reviews a selective body of work conducted from each of the two perspectives and concludes with a discussion of the implications of the sociocultural complexity associated with HL learning for research and practice.

Applied linguists are increasingly conducting meta-analysis in their substantive domains, because as a quantitative approach for averaging effect sizes across studies, it is more systematic and replicable than traditional, qualitative literature reviews. Additional strengths, such as increased statistical power, moderator analyses, and model testing, have also contributed to its appeal. The current review describes typical stages of a meta-analysis in second language acquisition (SLA) research: (a) defining the research domain, (b) developing a reliable coding scheme, (c) analyzing data, and (d) interpreting results. Each stage has a host of equally reasonable decisions that can be made; each decision will influence the conduct of the meta-analysis, the nature of the results, and the substantive implications of findings for SLA. We highlight a number of benefits and challenges that inform these decisions. In general, when a meta-analysis in applied linguistics is well planned, employs sound statistical methods, and is based on a thorough understanding of relevant theory, it can provide critical information that informs theory as well as future research, practice, and policy.

This article provides an overview of the ways in which concurrent verbal reports, sometimes referred to as think-alouds, have been used in cognitivist second language acquisition (SLA) research. It addresses two issues related to the validity of verbal reports—reactivity and veridicality—and reviews studies that have examined the validity of verbal reports in SLA. On the basis of the results of a meta-analysis of studies comparing the performance of silent and think-aloud groups (Bowles, 2010), this article concludes with suggestions for further research into the issue of validity and recommendations for the careful use of think-alouds in research.

Interviews have been used for decades in empirical inquiry across the social sciences as one or the primary means of generating data. In applied linguistics, interview research has increased dramatically in recent years, particularly in qualitative studies that aim to investigate participants’ identities, experiences, beliefs, and orientations toward a range of phenomena. However, despite the proliferation of interview research in qualitative applied linguistics, it has become equally apparent that there is a profound inconsistency in how the interview has been and continues to be theorized in the field. This article critically reviews a selection of applied linguistics research from the past 5 years that uses interviews in case study, ethnographic, narrative, (auto)biographical, and related qualitative frameworks, focusing in particular on the ideologies of language, communication, and the interview, or the communicable cartographies of interviewing, that are evident in them. By contrasting what is referred to as an interview as research instrument perspective with a research interview as social practice orientation, the article argues for greater reflexivity about the interview methods that qualitative applied linguists use in their studies, the status ascribed to interview data, and how those data are analyzed and represented.

When hearing or reading words and sentences in a second language (L2), we face many uncertainties about how the people and objects referred to are connected to one another. So what do we do under these conditions of uncertainty? Because relatively proficient L2 speakers have access to the grammar and lexicon of each language when comprehending words and sentences or when planning spoken utterances, and because the recent research suggests that these linguistic systems are not entirely independent, there is a critical question about how the knowledge of two languages affects basic aspects of language processing. In this article, I review how eye-tracking methodology has been used as a tool to address this question. I begin by discussing why eye movements are a useful methodology in language processing research, and I provide a description of one experimental paradigm developed to explore eye movements during reading. Second, I present recent developments in the use of eye tracking to study L2 spoken-language comprehension. I also highlight the importance of using multiple measures of online sentence processing by discussing results obtained using a moving window task and eye-tracking records while L2 speakers read syntactically ambiguous relative clauses. Next, I discuss research investigating syntactic processing when L2 speakers process mixed language. I end with suggestions for future research directions.

Although much has been written about academic discourse from diverse theoretical perspectives over the past two decades, and especially about English academic discourse, research on socialization into academic discourse or literacies in one's first or subsequently learned languages or into new discourse communities has received far less attention. Academic discourse socialization is a dynamic, socially situated process that in contemporary contexts is often multimodal, multilingual, and highly intertextual as well. The process is characterized by variable amounts of modeling, feedback, and uptake; different levels of investment and agency on the part of learners; by the negotiation of power and identities; and, often, important personal transformations for at least some participants. However, the consequences and outcomes of academic discourse socialization are also quite unpredictable, both in the shorter term and longer term. In this review I provide a brief historical overview of research on language socialization into academic communities and describe, in turn, developments in research on socialization into oral, written, and online discourse and the social practices associated with each mode. I highlight issues of conformity or reproduction to local norms and practices versus resistance and contestation of these. Next, studies of socialization into academic publication and into particular textual identities are reviewed. I conclude with a short discussion of race, culture, gender, and academic discourse socialization, pointing out how social positioning by oneself and others can affect participants’ engagement and performance in their various learning communities.

Although schools have long been recognized as primary sites for creating citizens of the modern nation-state, in recent years traditional assimilationist and exclusionist notions of national identity have been challenged by competing values of multiculturalism, hybridity, and transnationalism. This article surveys recent language socialization research that has examined classrooms as sites for socializing novices into political identities associated with membership in a national or transnational community. It explores five broad themes: (a) socialization into the national language, (b) socialization of immigrants, (c) socialization into new forms of national identity, (d) socialization of minority political identities within nation-states, and (e) socialization and transnational identities. The survey concludes with a review of the contributions of a language socialization approach to the study of these issues as well as suggested directions for future research.

This survey article looks first at the changing demands of the workplace in a globalized economy. The new work order creates a new word order, and the workforce has become a “wordforce” (Heller, in press) with new genres of language and communication. These changes have taken place at a time when global flows of people, from less wealthy and secure societies to more wealthy and secure ones, have created multilingual workplaces. Both sets of changes challenge the traditional notion of second language socialization, and this is the focus of the next section. The workplace represents a complex, dynamic setting where migrants experience a double socialization: into the hybrid discourses of the workplace, which all newcomers experience, and into the specific language and cultural practices that realize these discourses. The new language requirements of the workplace produce for migrant workers and professionals a “linguistic penalty” (Roberts & Campbell, 2006) since the communicative demands of the selection process may be greater than those of the job itself. The last section of the article is concerned with language socialization in multilingual settings where language socialization into the dominant language is only part of the story. There is a contrast between the low status multilingualism of migrant workers, and staff in globalized and international organizations who are being socialized into new lingua franca interaction. The article concludes with an example of how the complex linguistic and technical environment of a high-tech multilingual company produces radically different conditions for language socialization which challenge how this notion can be used in the 21st century.

The article identifies four different types of meaning situated in different modules of language. Such a modular view of language architecture suggests that there may be differential difficulties of acquisition for the different modules. It is argued that second language (L2) acquisition of meaning involves acquiring interpretive mismatches at the first and second language (L1-L2) syntax-semantics interfaces. In acquiring meaning, learners face two types of learning situations. One situation where the sentence syntax presents less difficulty but different pieces of functional morphology subsume different primitives of meaning is dubbed simple syntax–complex semantics. Another type of learning situation is exemplified in less frequent, dispreferred, or syntactically complex sentences where the sentential semantics offers no mismatch; these are labeled complex syntax–simple semantics. Studies representative of these learning situations are reviewed. The issues of importance of explicit instruction with respect to interpretive properties and the effect of the native language are addressed. Studies looking at acquisition of language-specific discourse properties and universal pragmatics are also reviewed. These representative studies and numerous other studies on the L2 acquisition of meaning point to no visible barrier to ultimate success in the acquisition of semantics and pragmatics.

Syntactic theory has played a role in second language acquisition (SLA) research since the early 1980s, when the principles and parameters model of generative grammar was implemented. However, it was the so-called functional parameterization hypothesis together with the debate on whether second language learners activated new features or switched their value that led to detailed and in-depth analyses of the syntactic properties of many different nonnative grammars. In the last 10 years, with the minimalist program as background, these analyses have diverted more and more from looking at those syntactic properties that argued for or against the various versions of the UG-access versus non-UG-access debate (UG for Universal Grammar) and have more recently delved into the status of nonnative grammars in the cognitive science field. Thus, using features (i.e., gender, case, verb, and determiner) as the basic units and paying special attention to the quality of input as well as to processing principles and constraints, nonnative grammars have been compared to the language contact paradigms that underlie subsequent bilingualism, child SLA, creole formation, and diachronic change. Taking Chomsky's I-language/E-language construct as the framework, this article provides a review of these recent developments in SLA research.

Over the past 20 years, many in the field of second language learning and pedagogy have become familiar with models of language that emphasize its communicative nature. These models are often referred to as usage-based because they emphasize the notion that actual language use is a primary shaper of linguistic form. Supporters of these models also argue that making meaning, that is, the use to which language is put, is central to how language is configured. Usage-based models share several other underlying assumptions as well. While these usage models have a number of ideas in common, several distinct approaches have emerged. They often use similar terms, such as cognition and metaphor, but the precise interpretations can vary from model to model. The overall result is that without extensive reading, it is not always clear just how these models differ and what unique insights each offer. This article attempts to address this situation by examining three major usage-based models—systemic functional linguistics, discourse functionalism, and cognitive linguistics. First, the common, underlying tenets shared by the three models are discussed. Second, an overview of the unique tenets and concerns of each approach is presented in order to distinguish key differences among them. Within the discussion of each approach, I also discuss various attempts to apply the model to issues in second language learning.

Boldface numerals indicate the ARAL volume in which the contributor's work appears; numbers following the backslash indicate the beginning page number of the contributor's chapter. For example, Clapham, C. 2000. Assessment and testing 20/147 means that C. Clapham's 2000 chapter on Assessment and testing begins on page 147 of volume 20.