Swansea University Linguistics Journal (updated) - Issue 2, Spring/Summer 2019

Issue 2. Spring/Summer Issue 1. Spring2019 2018

Swansea Linguistics Journal

The Student-led Journal for the Applied Linguistics Department

Letter from the Editor Now in its 2nd issue, the editor has just a few things he would like to share!

Page 2

The Bibliographies

The Articles Massive thank you to everyone who has kindly submitted his or her academic work. We have been inundated with submissions which is just brilliant!

Page 5

Kept separate from the papers for ease of reading, check here for further sources or to find papers you are interested in.

Page 39

Swansea Linguistics Journal

Letter from the Editor Welcome to the 2nd edition of the Swansea Linguistics Journal!

After the successful inauguration of the journal last year, we could not wait to get started working on this year’s edition!

Similarly to last year, the team behind the journal are all budding Linguistic students, who wanted to help celebrate the work of their fellow peers.

We have compiled a wide variety of work; focusing on topics ranging from the history and origins of language, to the causes of different types of language impairments. As well as celebrating the work of our fellow students, the goal of the journal is to show any future students of Applied Linguistics the potential achievements they can accomplish. We hope you enjoy reading it as much as we have enjoyed the process of creating it!

Special thanks goes out to Dr. Alexia Bowler who helped bring the team together!

2

Swansea Linguistics Journal

Meet the Team My name is Ed Clark, I am studying English Language because it was the subject I found most enjoyable at ALevel. I also liked how many modules there are that investigate different and contrasting aspects of English Language. I have greatly enjoyed editing the Applied Linguistics Journal as it has exemplified the wide variety of topics that Applied Linguistics students study. After my degree, I am in interested in continuing my studies in Linguistics..

My name is Tamera, but people call me Tam, as it is far easier to pronounce! I am a ‘mature’ student here at Swansea University, and am in my 1st year of the Applied Linguistics and TESOL degree. I am also the Subject Rep and a Student Ambassador.

Hi, my name is Beatrice and I am a third year Applied Linguistics student here at Swansea University. I am originally from Italy, but I have been lucky enough to move to the UK and study here. I really enjoyed every module I took during this past three years, but I am particularly interested in Discourse Analysis, Psycholinguistics, and TESOL and this is why I have decided to stay in Swansea for a Masters in TESOL.

Hello! My name is Atlee Deeming. I am studying English Language and chose this subject because it was something I enjoyed studying at A level. I am really enjoying the course because of how diverse the modules are. After the degree, I would like to continue studying.

3

Swansea Linguistics Journal

Table of Contents The Homeland of Indo-European, and its Geographical Spread…………….…p.5 The Origin and Evolution of Language………………………………….…….....p.9 Perceptual Dialectology……………………………………………………….....p.13 Psycholinguistics and Aphasia……………………………………………..……p.16 Leadership and Management in Education……………………………..………p.22 The Practice of English Language Teaching……………………………………p.28 Teaching English: Intensive Reading……………………………………….……p31 Teaching English: Benefits and Limitations of a “What Does What” Intensive Reading Task…………………………………………………………...…………p.35 Bibliographies…………………………………………………………….........…p.39

4

Swansea Linguistics Journal

Have scholars found any answers to the following questions?

Where is the homeland of Indo-European?

Moreover, how did Indo-European spread so far geographically?

By James Barry

Research into the origin of the Indo-European homeland has been conducted by linguists, archaeologists and biologists for over a century. This has resulted in multiple hypotheses that attempt to explain this origin, as well as how Proto-Indo-European (PIE) spread so far geographically. Throughout this assignment, I will be briefly exploring the pre-20th century pioneers of linguistic palaeontology, including the works of Kuhn, Pictet and Schrader and their subsequent impact on Indo-European studies. Following this, I discuss the Kurgan hypothesis developed by Childe, and expanded on by Gimbutas, by investigating their theories of Kurgan cultures and reasons for migrating. In contrast to the Kurgan hypothesis, I investigate the research of Renfrew involving the Anatolian theory, including the “wave” model, as well as investigating further research that has been conducted using computational linguistics. Finally, I explore the relatively new Armenian theory which, while it was criticized when the study was released, has recently been revitalised with new evidence arising in 2018. As linguists and archaeologists have been debating the origin of the Indo-European homeland, scientific improvements have resulted in new evidence that draws us closer to getting a definitive answer.

However, this would not have been possible without 19th century philologists, who founded linguistic palaeontology.

James Barry

During the rise of comparative philology in the 19th century, German philologist Adalbert Kuhn laid the foundations of linguistic palaeontology with his 1845 book Zur ältesten Geschichte der Indogermanischen Völker, which roughly translates to The Oldest History of the Indo-European Peoples (Swiggers, 2017, p. 181). Kuhn, along with Jacob Grimm, primarily set out to determine the culture of the Indo-Europeans by studying the ensuing languages, which led to discovering commonalities between them, for example, “dog” and “town” (McGetchin, 2009). Kuhn further applied this methodology to identify common terms which included types of plant, fish and animals. It was through this method that they deduced that the Indo-European Urheimat (homeland) was near snow and water, however, this still left a vast area in which their Urheimat could be (McGetchin, 2009). Following Kuhn’s work, Adolphe Pictet studied the origins of the Indo-Germanic and Aryan race, further developing the methodology used in linguistic palaeontology with his series of publications Les Origines IndoEuropéennes (1859-63), which entirely covered the Indo-European cognates. By studying the etymology of various words Pictet claimed that he knew how the Indo-Europeans dressed, their social life, what utensils they used, as well as claiming they were settled farmers, who also had a “desire for freedom” (Arvidsson, 2006, p. 55). As Pictet studied the Indo-Europeans he believed, as well as other philologers of the time, the Indo-European Urheimat to be located between the “Hindo- Cooch, the Oxus and the Jaxartes”, which would place it in modern day Uzbekistan (McCormac, 1860, p. 62). By studying various words for flora and fauna, he discovered that there was a ‘split’ between the indigenous Indo-Europeans. Pictet achieved this by examining the word flax and noticed that it is distinctly different between the languages of Europe and that of the Asian languages. Pictet concluded that due to Europeans being “more addicted to agriculture”, in contrast to the other tribes who “continued into the East in a pastoral state”, there must have been a separation within the Indo-Europeans (McCormac, 1860, p. 61).

5

Swansea Linguistics Journal However, one of the precursors to Gimbutas’ Kurgan Theory is that of German philologist Otto Schrader, who believed that the original Urheimat of the Indo-Europeans (whom he called the Indo-Germanics) was on the northern shores of the Black Sea, in Southern Russia (Charpentier, 1926, p. 163). In his book Prehistoric Antiquities of the Aryan Peoples (1890), Schrader analysed PIE vocabulary in great detail, which was instrumental in developing his hypothesis of the location of the Urheimat and consequent migration of the Indo-Europeans (Schrader & Jevons, 1890). It was the original work of Schrader which inspired Gimbutas to develop the Kurgan Hypothesis.

Expanding on the research of the philologists mentioned above, Vere Gordon Childe continued to search for the origins of the Indo-Europeans (whom he referred to as the Aryans). Childe concurred with the findings of Shrader in that he believed the Indo-European Urheimat to also be in the Steppes by South Russia (Childe, 1926, p. 183). Childe arrived at this conclusion by studying the graves of post-glacial societies, which were “covered in red-ochre” and “surmounted by a mound or kurgan” (ibid.). By searching through archaeological and linguistic evidence, Childe came to the conclusion that large scale migrations would account for the diffusion of PIE. Through this, he searched for a “material culture horizon”, which evidence suggested would be “located in a temperate zone, represent a culture familiar with copper/bronze and wheels, and should predate 2d millennium B.C.” (2000-1001 B.C.) (Anthony et al., 1986, p. 291).

Building on Childe’s ideas, archaeologist Marija Gimbutas used her knowledge of linguistic palaeontology and archaeology to search for the Urheimat and consequent migration of the Indo-Europeans. Gimbutas studied the burial mounds of various cultures including the Yamna, Corded, Battle-Axe and Single Grave cultures and collated the findings to develop the idea of Kurgan Cultures, who has lived more than two millennia ago. It was through this research that Gimbutas came to the conclusion that no archaeological evidence existed for the Indo-European Urheimat being in Europe (Gimbutas, 1963). However, Gimbutas argued that the expansion of the Kurgans over three waves (over 1400 years) began in the Eurasian Steppes and expanded into the regions of Anatolia, the Baltic, Central and North-Western Europe, as well as Central Russia (Gimbutas, 1963, p. 833-834). Gimbutas’ theory states that the Kurgans were mounted warriors, “who were the first to domesticate the horse [and] used their martial advantages to impose their culture on their neighbours in Old Europe” (Bryant, 2004, p. 39). It was through this warlike and conquering approach that the Kurgans dominated the indigenous Neolithic cultures and imposed their own culture and language, being that of PIE. The most conclusive of these ‘waves’ is that of the third, consisting of the Yamna culture, which spread from the Pontic Steppes to the Danube and East Balkans (Mallory & Adams, 1997, p.

339). Archaeologist J.P Mallory affirms that the ‘wave’ theory is the most credible hypothesis to the IndoEuropean migration, due to parallels of burial formations existing within the Steppelands, Balkans, Albania and Northern Greece (Mallory & Adams, 1997). Gimbutas noticed that these burial formations can be found throughout Western Europe, as well as similarities between metal objects, solar motifs and horse domestication, which suggests that Europe was consequently conquered by the Indo-Europeans (Anthony et al., 1986). Because of these war-like and violent intrusions, Gimbutas believed that the PIE language spread as wide and became as prominent as it did. However, Krell argues against this hypothesis from a linguistic perspective stating that it relies on ‘questionable assumptions’, as well as avoiding actual PIE data and having “unfounded assumptions concerning language change” (Krell, 2003, p. 267).

One of the main opposers to Gimbutas’ Kurgan theory is that of the Anatolian Hypothesis propositioned by Colin Renfrew. In his article The Origins of the Indo-Europeans, Renfrew remarks that the search for the location of the Indo-European Urheimat lays chiefly in linguistic palaeontology, rather than traditional archaeology (Renfrew, 1989, p. 107). This is on account that we can already observe the similarities in European and Asian languages, thus it can be assumed they came from a “common progenitor” (ibid.).

Through his research, Renfrew argues that the Indo-European Urheimat is based in Anatolia, as well as existing much earlier than the Kurgans, at around 6500 BC, “several thousand years earlier than has generally been accepted” (Renfrew, 1989, p. 113).

6

Swansea Linguistics Journal This hypothesis has been backed by the comprehensive study of Russell Gray and Quentin Atkinson, who agreed with Renfrew’s timeframe by analysing “linguistic data using computational methods derived from evolutionary biology” (Gray & Atkinson, 2003, p. 435). Using computational methods, as opposed to the traditional glottochronology methods, Gray and Atkinson used lexical data and the known divergence times encountered in West Germanic and the Romance languages (among others) to code a program that plotted the divergences that happened previously to the known languages, e.g *Tocharian (Gray, Atkinson & Greenhill, 2011). However, it is noted that while the study agrees with Renfrew’s timeframe, there exist difficulties in achieving accurate results, such as the existence of loan words as well as the rate of “cognate gain and loss” being equal, which is not realistic (Gray, Atkinson & Greenhill, 2011). It is also argued that these techniques relied on the Dyen database “which tracks word changes but not grammar or construction changes” (Balter, 2003). However, Renfrew also argues that the spread of PIE was not because of conquest, as was originally hypothesised, but, instead, due to the spread of agriculture (Renfrew, 1994). He based this hypothesis on the “wave of advance” model (Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza, 1984) and suggested that “agriculture can support densities far greater than those of hunter-gatherer groups”, which leads to reason that while the population is increasing, a linguistic “wave” radiates outwards (Renfrew, 1989, p. 113). Renfrew also hypothesised that due to archaeological evidence, it is likely that the PIE speakers of the Steppes, as proposed by Childe and Gimbutas, spoke a variety of Anatolian, due to the farmers travelling from Anatolia through Greece and the Balkans, and had arrived at the Steppes (Renfrew, 1989 P.113).

Another proposition which challenges the Kurgan hypothesis and the Anatolian theory is that of the Armenian hypothesis, which was proposed by Tamaz V. Gamkrelidze and Vyacheslav Ivanov in 1980, of which an English translation was not available until 1990. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov concur with Renfrew that PIE spread across Europe and Asia due to migrations and cultural diffusion (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov, 1990). Nonetheless, they contradict two points from the Anatolian theory, the first being that the Urheimat was in Armenia and the second that the latest date for PIE is approximately a millennium later than the widely accepted Kurgan hypothesis (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov, 2010). Gamkrelidze and Ivanov speculate that the IndoEuropean Urhiemat is located in an area east of Anatolia, south of Caucasus and north of Mesopotamia (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov, 1990, p. 112). They came to this conclusion by analysing the vocabulary of PIE and determined that it described a mountainous area with mountain lakes and flowing rivers, as well as recognising that PIE had such words for ‘leopard’, ‘lion’, ‘monkey’ and ‘elephant’, all of which are not natively found in Europe (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov, 2010, p.

114). They also suggested the date of the Indo-European cultures to be much later than the one previously hypothesised. They suggested that the PIE societies in Armenia began to fragment from about 3000 B.C., with the various daughter languages migrating to their present locations, while the Armenians remained where they were (ibid.). The Armenian hypothesis, though, was disregarded by many scholars (Drews, 1995; Pereltsvaig & Lewis, 2015; Margaryan et al., 2017).

However, during 2018 there has been a surge of new evidence brought on by advances in biological studies suggesting there is viable evidence to support the Armenian Hypothesis. One such study, which analysed the biology of Bronze Age individuals, states that “individuals buried in kurgans” are “more closely related to ancient individuals from regions further south in today’s Armenia” (Wang et al., 2018, p. 12). The study conducted by Wang and collegues rejects the Kurgan hypothesis, while supporting the Armenian one. Moreover, DNA research from geneticist David Reich concurs with this theory suggesting that “Anatolia shows no evidence of Steppe ancestry similar to that of the Yamnaya” (Reich, 2018, p. 120). Reich also proposes that “the most likely location of the population that first spoke an Indo-European language was south of the Caucasus Mountains”, which concurs with the Armenian hypothesis (Reich, 2018 P.120).

7

Swansea Linguistics Journal From its origins in the mid-19th century, linguistic palaeontology has taken great steps in identifying the Indo-European Urheimat and its subsequent migration. There have been many hypotheses attempting to answer this question; however, none have been able to provide a definitive answer. Early linguistic palaeontologists paved the way for modern theories, including the Kurgan hypothesis developed by Childe and Gimbutas, who claimed that the Indo-European Urheimat was in the Pontic-Steppes and the migration happened due to their war-like, conquering culture. Opposed to this was Renfrew’s Anatolian theory, which placed the Urheimat in Anatolia and explained that the migration of the Indo-Europeans was due to the spread of agriculture and that the language diverged as part of a “wave� model. This theory was backed up by a study from Gray and Atkinson using computational linguistics. Nevertheless, the most recent Armenian hypothesis, while receiving criticism in its early days, is proving to be more instrumental in determining the location of the Indo-European Urheimat. This is due to new DNA evidence that has been released in 2018 which studied the individuals of the Bronze Age era and placed them in modern day Armenia. While scholars have not definitively answered the question regarding the location of the IndoEuropean Urheimat, as well as the reason for its migration, with this new rise of archaeological DNA evidence and the advances in science, we may be closer to discovering the definitive location of the Urheimat and the reason for the dispersal of Indo-European cultures.

8

Swansea Linguistics Journal

Prehistory of Language: Are researchers and scholars any closer to discovering the origin and evolution of language?

By James Barry The origin and evolution of language has eluded, and continues to elude, researchers and scholars alike for as long as language has existed. Famously, in 1866, the Linguistic Society of Paris banned the study on the origin of language and refused to accept any subsequent research papers on the topic (Dediu & de Boer, 2015). Throughout this article I will examine various theories that address the origin and evolution of language. I will begin this by exploring The Continuity Theory, including the subsequent ‘continuity paradox’, which was first proposed by Bickerton. Following this, I explore its counterpart, The Discontinuity Theory, which was proposed by Lenneberg. Chomsky, being a supporter of The Discontinuity Theory, adapted this theory and with Fitch and Hauser they explored the Faculty of Language, of which I address, as well as the distinctions made by them. Through my exploration of the theories I will analyse the idea of recursion and its importance to the evolution of language, including Pinker and Jackendoff’s reply to Chomsky, Fitch and Hauser. Following this, I have a brief look at Deacons’ The Symbolic Species and how he explores the necessity of representations as the basis of language origin.

Finally, I explore modern techniques of the implementation and simulation of language evolution in artificial intelligence and robots, and whether this brings us closer to discovering the origin and evolution of language.

Mike Kettle

The Continuity Theory of the origin of language suggests that there is no fundamental difference between the evolution of human language and that of animal communication. In this way, the Continuity Theory closely resembles Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. This is due to language evolving over time, similar to other traits that exist in humans, as opposed to animals. Ib Ulbaek furthers this hypothesis, suggesting that due to language being such a complex system, it is unfeasible to suggest that it evolved from nothing, much in the same way that “we cannot conceive of the eye jumping into existence, so we cannot conceive of language as having no precursors” (Ulbaek, 1998). Christopher Routledge (2009) also suggests that there is little to no hard evidence to suggest that the faculty of language exists in animals to the same degree as humans. Further expanding on this difference, Bickerton (1991) proposes that animals’ communication is purely holistic (suggesting that animals communicate whole situations), while human language is focused primarily on entities (whether it be objects, ideas, events, states or processes, among others). However, while animals have the ability to communicate through sounds and body language, which can be limited, humans have the ability to produce complex language, which can be both imaginative and unlimited.

The Continuity Theory proposes that language must have evolved incrementally through evolution, and yet, it is unique to humans. This is known as the ‘continuity paradox’. This paradox was first coined by Derek Bickerton, who suggested that “language must have evolved out of some prior system, and yet there does not seem to be any such system out of which it could have evolved” (Bickerton, 1991, p.8). Bickerton attempts to resolve this paradox by suggesting that human language focuses primarily on representation, rather than communication, further suggesting that “everything we seem to perceive is in fact only a representation” and that “if any representation exists there must also exist someone to perceive it” (Bickerton, 1991, p.19). Bickertons’ theory suggests that communication is a by-product of humans linguistic function of representation, albeit, a useful by-product. Bickertons’ evidence for this is that, as mentioned above, animals only communicate ‘real life’ situations, while humans have the ability to communicate abstract ideas, such as dragons, infinity or even ‘God’, which are all representations of the language we communicate. While the idea of linguistic evolution as a basis of our language is a valid hypothesis, the opposing discontinuity hypothesis would suggest language originated as a mutation, creating a Universal Grammar.

9

Swansea Linguistics Journal In contrast to the evolutionary based Continuity Theory, the Discontinuity Theory, first proposed by Eric Lenneberg and supported by Noam Chomsky, suggests that language is a unique trait to humans and not found in any other animals. However, Lenneberg does not believe that the capacity for language was created ‘out of thin air’, remarking that “the discontinuity theory is not the same as a special creation theory” (Lenneberg, 1967, p.234). Lenneberg explains his position of the discontinuity theory, by suggesting that there should be present antecedents to human language, and yet, none are “in the least obvious” (Lenneberg, 1967, p.234). Bates, Thai & Marchman (1989) and Lieberman (1987) further this hypothesis by suggesting that if language in humans naturally evolved, then some of our closest biologically related species, such as Bonobos or Chimpanzees, should have antecedents, as they share many of the same genetic markers as humans. However, as these antecedents of language do not exist in other animals, Steven Pinker and Paul Bloom suggest that the “modern human language may have appeared in a species . . . such as Australopithecus Afarensis or any of the subsequent hominid groups that led to our species” (Pinker & Bloom, 1990).

One of the more prominent proponents to the discontinuity theory is that of Noam Chomsky. Chomsky, along with evolutionary biologists Mark Hauser and William Tecumseh Fitch, wrote The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve? (2002), which explored the evolution of language and, has since, become an incredibly influential article in this regard. Chomsky, Hauser and Fitch (CHF) explore the faculty of language (communication system) and suggest that there needs to be a clear distinction between the Faculty of Language in a Broad Sense (FLB) and the Faculty of Language in a Narrow Sense (FLN). The main component of FLB “includes an internal computational system combined with at least two other organism-internal systems, which we call “sensory-motor” and “conceptual-intentional.”” (Hauser, Chomsky & Fitch, 2002, p.1570). However, the main component of FLN (a subset of FLB) is the “computational system (narrow syntax) that generates internal representations and maps them into the sensory-motor interface by the phonological system, and into the conceptual-intentional interface by the (formal) semantic system” (Hauser, Chomsky & Fitch, 2002, p.1570). Through this, CHF suggest that language is produced in the brain by generating a representation, which then gets translated to the physical parts of speech to create sound. Furthermore, they argue that elements of the FLB can be seen in non-human animals (such as chimpanzees), while the components of FLN (most notably recursion) are uniquely human and elements of this cannot be seen in any other animals.

CHF also looked at three distinctions within language evolution, which included “shared vs. unique”, “gradual vs. saltational” and “continuity vs. exaptation” (Hauser, Chomsky & Fitch, 2002, p.1570). As mentioned above the shared vs. unique distinction proposes that while FLB can be seen in various nonhuman animals, there exists something new in human minds, in regards to language, as humans “have such properties as “stimulus-independent rich expressivity and recursion” (Doğru, 2013). Secondly, CHF looked at the distinction between gradual vs. saltational, which argues whether language evolved gradually over time or whether the evolution happened in a short time, or even instantly. They suggest that parts of FLB could have evolved gradually, yet, recursion (which is uniquely human) evolved saltationally, and thus, creating a paradox, as language evolution cannot be both gradual and saltational.

The final distinction that is addressed is that of continuity vs. exaptation. This distinction is similar to the gradual vs. saltational distinction, yet, “focuses primarily whether human language evolved by gradual extension of pre-existing communication systems or whether important aspects of language have been exapted away from their previous adaptive function” (Hauser, Chomsky & Fitch, 2002, p.1570). While there are various distinctions and arguments for language evolution, CHF argue that recursion is the most prominent feature of language that is entirely unique to humans.

10

Swansea Linguistics Journal A 2010 article focused on recursion by Frederick Coolidge, Karen-Leigh Overmann and Thomas Wynn (COW) defined linguistic recursion in two ways. Firstly, they described recursion as the “embeddedness, in which the object embedded is a word, phrase, or sentence, and this creates long distance dependencies and the need to keep track, or add to memory” (Coolidge, Overmann & Wynn, 2010). This definition is the more prominent in linguistics and defines the forms embeddedness can take, for example, tail recursion (which can be seen in possessives and relative clauses), as well as nested recursion “which leaves material on both sides of the embedded component” (Coolidge, Overmann & Wynn, 2010). The second definition that is proposed is “this sense of recursion that specifies the computed output string itself and gives language its power to generate new utterances by enabling the combination of discrete units into larger units” (Coolidge, Overmann & Wynn, 2010). This form of recursion is commonly known as Merge in linguistics and suggests that there is an infinite amount of possibilities when constructing language, as more than one linguistic unit can be merged and become available for the following merges, with no limit. These uses of recursion are interesting to scholars as they are found in all forms of human language, although they are not present in any animal communication. However, the debate still continues whether this recursion was developed from gradual evolution or from saltation, where-by, there was an evolutionary ‘leap’ from one generation to the next. As discussed previously, Chomsky is a supporter of recursion and that it was developed saltationally, while Pinker and Jackendoff (in their reply to CHF), suggested that “the only reason language needs to be recursive is because its function is to express recursive thoughts” (Pinker & Jackendoff, 2005).

In response to the article released by Chomsky, Hauser and Fitch (CHF), psychologist Steven Pinker and linguist Ray Jackendoff released The Faculty of Language: What's Special about it? (2005). This article stated that the hypothesis proposed by CHF, that only syntactic recursion is uniquely human, is problematic.

However, Pinker and Jackendoff suggest that there is a considerable amount more to human language and “that there are non-syntactic aspects of language that are uniquely human” (Kirby, 2007). These aspects of FLN include the size and speed of acquisition of the lexicon, the unique development of the vocal tract, as well as certain concepts, such as the concept of time, that they argue could not be “developed or learned without the mediation of language” (Pinker & Jackendoff, 2005). Pinker and Jackendoff agree with some of the theories suggested by CHF, which include the need to distinguish between FLB and FLN, as well as that language is for the mental representations of concepts. Furthermore, CHF hypothesise that language is not primarily for communication, as well as suggesting that the FLN evolved for the purpose of other cognitive abilities, as opposed to language (Hauser, Chomsky & Fitch, 2002). However, Pinker and Jackendoff contradict this argument by suggesting that the faculty of language evolved for the specific purpose of communication, adapting to more knowledge gained through social interaction and communication (Pinker & Jackendoff, 2005). Neuroanthropologist Terrence Deacon furthers this theory that language “did not involve a language organ or instinct, and did not result simply from a larger, more complex brain” but rather language originated from symbolic thinking (Deacon, 1997).

Terrence Deacons’ extensive work The Symbolic Species (1997) looks at the question of the origin of language through the medium of biology and neuroscience. Deacon proposes that “biologically, we are just another ape. However, mentally we are a new phylum or organism” (Deacon, 1997), suggesting that the origin of language lies entirely with our mental constructions of the world around us. Deacon theorises that the evolution of the human brain enabled the ability to create and manipulate symbols and that this ability to think symbolically is the key to language development. Some scholars “believe that language is limited to humans because of its complex structure and the demands that it puts on memory and learning”, while others believe that due to an increase in brain size and intelligence, humans acquired the faculty of language (De Villiers, 2006). However, Deacon proposes that the greatest difference between human language and animal communication is that of symbolic representation. Deacon believes that due to this symbolic representation, animals are incapable of learning language and that human language is an “evolutionary anomaly” (Deacon, 1997, p.21).

11

Swansea Linguistics Journal Furthermore, Deacon rejects Chomsky’s theory of Universal Grammar to account for humans’ linguistic abilities and instead remarks that Universal Grammar only accounts for the inexplicable features of language, for example, the acquisition of complex grammar at such a young age (De Villiars, 2006, p.214). Instead, Deacon theorises that there is a hierarchical aspect to language evolution and that there are “three categories of referential associations” which are the icon, index and symbol (Deacon, 1997 p.70). In this theory, icons represent the similarity between the sign and the object, for example, a landscape or a picture. Indices represent something that is casually liked to something else, for example, a bad smell or a thermometer to tell the heat. Finally, symbols represent something that has been mutually agreed to link to something else, for example, wedding rings to represent marriage or a cross to represent religion. Deacon argues that these elements of language can be seen in all languages across the world and the representations can be translated from one language to another. However, there exist no animals to our knowledge that have the ability to communicate these representations.

The idea of replicating representations of icons, indices and symbols in artificial intelligence (AI) and robotic beings has been undertaken and studied in modern times to gain insight into the origin of language. However, as of yet no-one has been able to successfully create or embed language into an AI, with Vasco Pedro remarking that “A computer can know the definition of a word, but it doesn’t understand the meaning of words within a larger context” (Pedro, 2015). As of yet, simulating the evolution of language in automated machines has proven to be too complex. Domenico Parisi expresses that “the critical issue is if, and to what extent, two organisms that communicate with each other must have the same “worldview”” (Parisi, 2009, p.31). This seems to concur with Deacons theory that for effective communication there needs to exist a level of symbolic reference to rely upon and without that joint reference, there can’t be effective language. Linguist and computer scientist Luc Steels has been monumental in researching the origin of language through the medium of AI. Steels’ The Talking Heads Experiment explores how “a cognitive system . . . might be able to bootstrap itself into interaction with other cognitive systems [by being] driven by increasing challenges from the environment” (Steels, 2015, p.6). Steels achieved this by establishing two robotic “talking heads” which are then engaged in a variety of language games, either with themselves or with human interlocutors, which focus “on real world scenes they perceive through their sensors” (Steels, 2011, 2015). Through these games Steels discovered that “a shared lexicon and an underlying conceptual repertoire emerged, enabling successful communication” (Steels, 2015, p.222). Steels further concluded through these experiments that “without empathy, respect and a common purpose, a shared language will not come off the ground” (Steels, 2015, p.265). By continuing to study language evolution in robotics and artificial intelligence, researchers may be able to unlock the key to human language evolution. However, as of yet, this is still a mystery.

“The subject of the origin of language forms the base of neuro-linguistics, psycholinguistics and human evolution” as well as animal behaviour, neurobiology, anthropology, and computer science (Nehal & Afzal, 2012, p.116-117) From the theories presented in this assignment we can conclude that there is still a rigorous debate when answering the question of the origin of language. Advances have been made in the interdisciplinary pursuit for the answer; yet, we are no closer to discovering whether language evolved gradually or saltationally, or whether recursion is a uniquely human trait, as well as if symbols and representation are the key to language. Recent developments into simulating the evolution of language in robots and AI has proven fruitful in discovering the roots of language and with continuous experimenting, researchers may unlock the key to language origin through these means. However, as Facebook recently discovered with their experiments into AI, we need to be careful on how much language we give artificially intelligent beings, as they may start communicating in a language known only to them (Griffin, 2017).

12

Swansea Linguistics Journal

Studying Dialect: What is ‘perceptual dialectology?’ How did it come about? What are the reasons for doing it?

By Neil Roberts Perceptual dialectology (PD) is a fascinating branch of dialectology that started receiving scholarly attention in the second quarter of the twentieth century and gained traction, as a branch of dialectology, in the 1980s. Dennis R. Preston (b.1940)—the “major proponent” of PD (Wales, 2006) since the 1980s— offers a succinct definition, stating PD is “…concerned with what people believe about the distribution and character of linguistic objects in space rather than the facts of such distribution, i.e., a perceptual rather than production dialectology.” (Preston, 2010, p.121). PDs position in the wider field of dialectology is considered to be a sub-topic of folk linguistics; the term ‘folk’ refers to people who are non-linguists (Penhallurick, 2018, p.103). Preston, who claims to have coined the phrase ‘perceptual dialectology’, later wrote (Preston, 2010, p.121) he had come to prefer the term ‘folk dialectology’; possibly representing a better indicator of PDs fit into the wider context.

It is important to appreciate the ‘people’ and the ‘folk’ to which Preston refers are not dialectologists or even scholars from any one of the other linguistic disciplines. Rather, these are members of the public who are also members of the same speaking community (the ‘speakers’). PD is primarily concerned with what speakers believe in relation to geographical, social, and class variations in phonology and pronunciation (Penhallurick, 2018, p.93). The beliefs held by the speakers can include: (1) variations according to geography or location; (2) ideas about what is acceptable; (3) the “perception of degrees of difference between a local variety and surrounding varieties”; (4) “imitations of features of other varieties”; and importantly (5) how these beliefs or perceptions came, and continue, to be held (Preston, 1989a, p.4).

When considering when speakers’ beliefs and perceptions came into existence, in the case of English, we have a range of source documents that can help to estimate a starting point. Thanks to the work of the nineteenth century philological dialectologists, we have evidence of linguistic perceptions about correctness dating back almost nine hundred years. In his 1125 work, De Gestis Pontificum Anglorum, William of Malmesbury complained about the ‘strident’, ‘uncouth’ and ‘slitting’ language spoken by the people of York (Penhallurick & Willmott, 2000, p.27). Malmesbury is certainly: aware of the geographical variation; has clear ideas about what is acceptable; and is demonstrating a keen perception of the differences between dialects.

This was not an isolated incident; in the 1387 translation of the Polychronicon, John of Trevisa echoed—almost verbatim—the sentiments first recorded by William in 1125 (Penhallurick & Willmott, 2000, p.27). This suggests an early preference for the southern variety of English in comparison to the northern variety. The perception that southern English is superior to the regional versions of the north is something that still exists today. One theory regarding the source of this antagonism, and an attempt to answer Preston’s question (Preston, 1989a, p.4) regarding how these beliefs came to be held, is rooted in the ecclesiastical rivalry between York and Canterbury for church supremacy in England (Penhallurick & Willmott, 2000 pp.28, 35). The scholars had allegiance to Canterbury—as opposed to York—adding weight to the argument that the north / south divide started as a result of a theocratic power struggle. The perception of acceptable and unacceptable variants of English was also present in 1596 when Edmund Coote, a headteacher of an East Anglian school, wrote The English Schoole-Master. Coote uses the adjective ‘barbarous’ (Penhallurick, 2018, p. 253) to describe dialects he considers inferior to his own.

Dialect lexicographers in the following centuries continued to work on identifying the different variants of English and moved towards establishing a preferred variant, never really deviating from that original north/south idea.

13

Swansea Linguistics Journal The historic evidence clearly points to conceptualised perceptions held by English speakers in relation to regional dialects that differ from the variety they use. Whatever the origin, perceptions of superior / inferior varieties of English dialect have existed for hundreds of years. The next question should be when, and possibly where, did PD—as an academic discipline—actually commence.

The earliest PD research using “linguistically naïve” respondents (Preston, 2010, p.122) began in Japan in the first quarter of the twentieth century, closely followed by further research in the Netherlands in the 1930s. The early PD works were examples of dialect cartography, however, now the focus was on speakers’ perception not production. There were two key differences in approach; the Dutch study asked respondents to map perceived similarities (Rensink, 1999) while the Japanese study mapped “degrees of difference” (Mase, 1999). For the Dutch study, Antonius Weijnen developed the “little arrow method” in 1946 to analyse Rensink’s data. Weijnen’s system also included the use of maps where respondents would mark a PD map to show ‘unities’. A unity being a perceived similarity between one dialect variety and a second from a geographically dispersed area connected on the map with an arrow (Preston, 2010, p.122).

Work led by Wallace Lambert of McGill University, Montreal in the 1950s led to one of the first techniques used in PD that didn’t involve the use of dialect maps; the “matched-guise technique” (Penhallurick, 2018, p.256). Wallace developed the technique initially to assess perceptions towards English and French Canadian speakers, although later work would include many other languages. The technique used short audio clips where one person would make lexically identical utterances using different dialects or languages. The evidence showed respondents (called ‘judges’ by Lambert during this study) had preferences and attached positive characteristics to some varieties and negative characteristics to others; a perceived notion of prestigious and non-prestigious varieties was being expressed. Later matched-guise studies would take place in the UK led by the Language and Communication section of Cardiff University (Penhallurick, 2018, p.257).

The 1960s was the era that saw the birth and ascendance of sociolinguistics. William Labov, in 1966, published the findings from his project The Social Stratification of English in New York City.

Labov performed two distinct tests on respondents; a subjective evaluation and a self-evaluation. Labov was of the view that his tests would reveal an understanding of prestigious varieties and that they would be in use by the respondents (Penhallurick, 2018, p.195). Labov’s work included two interesting discoveries in relation to PD; the presence of covert prestige and hypercorrection by the lower middle classes. Differentiating between overt and covert prestige added a new dimension to PD. Overt prestige being attitudes towards a language variety that may provide opportunities for career advancement and development, the traditionally desirable variety. Meanwhile, covert prestige focusses on using a nonstandard variety that will indicate belonging. Labov found “profound linguistic insecurity” amongst his respondents; he felt the ‘doctrine of correctness’ was facilitating the process of linguistic change or, explained simply, usage of the prestigious variety of English is essential for social mobility. This could offer an explanation why there was hypercorrection notably amongst the lower-middle class group (Penhallurick, 2018, p.191). Covert prestige was also identified by Trudgill during his work in Norwich, although the work in Norwich suggests that men may lead change based on this type of prestige (Preston, 1989b, p.7) and as he writes (Trudgill, 1971, p.525) “privately or subconsciously, a large number of speakers find the need for group solidarity more important than the need for prestige, in the more usual sense of the word.” Shortly afterwards, in 1973, Howard Giles led the development of Speech Accommodation Theory (White, 1993). The theory, later renamed Communication Accommodation Theory, provided a simple explanation for speakers varietal convergence and divergence between acrolect (prestigious) and basilect (inferior) forms. Convergence could occur in an upward, downward or symmetrical manner.

14

Swansea Linguistics Journal In spite of the early academic endeavours in the Netherlands and Japan, PD can be regarded as a “postsociolinguistics” discipline (Penhallurick, 2018, p.202); it wasn’t until the 1980s when Preston started the revival of the discipline. The earliest work in this period was a return to cartography and studies in the USA focussed on ‘degrees of difference’ as well as hand-drawn maps; hitherto an unknown activity in dialectology but already well regarded and used in cultural geography (Preston, 2010, p.128-129). A major milestone in the history of PD was Preston’s publication of the first volume of the Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology in 1999. Preston used the handbook to document the different approaches he had been using for PD research spanning back to the 1980s (Preston, 1999, p.xxxiv). He called this his ‘five point method’, it included: (1) ‘draw-a-map’ where respondents marked up blank maps to show where they believe dialect differences existed; (2) ‘degree of difference’ where respondents used a four-point scale to indicate similarities or differences between regional dialects; (3) ‘correct and pleasant’ where respondents rank according to their subjective opinions on dialects; (4) ‘dialect identification’ required respondents to listen to audio clips and allocate a position on a map to the dialect they heard; and (5) ‘qualitative data’ at the end of the research the respondents were encouraged to talk about the tasks they had just completed as well as a more general conversation about dialect varieties and the speakers of the different dialects. With the exception of Peter Trudgill’s work in East Anglia, the work of Labov and Preston already described was confined to the USA. That is not to say that there has been an absence of activity in the UK. The scholars in Cardiff, already mentioned for their matched-guise work, further refined their approach in the 1990s with their ‘laudable’ (Hernández-Campoy, 2005) activities which moved away from simple audio clips to narratives using the ‘verbal-guise’ technique; a modification of the earlier matched-guise technique. Further innovation in studying PD in the context of British English came from Inoue’s approach adopting a multi-dimensional standard differential test for assessing English dialects (Penhallurick, 2018 pp.268-269) and Montgomery’s starburst charts. Montgomery (Penhallurick, 2018, pp.270271) presented his findings—he asked respondents to listen to a dialect and place it on a map of the UK—using starburst charts which clearly show the differences between reality and perception.

Up until this point we have focused on the first two parts of the question posed; the third and final element of the question asks us to consider the reasons for doing PD, or put another way, why should we bother with PD. It is true, historically at least, that PD was largely ignored by American scholars, particularly the structuralists, for many years. However, there are many reasons for—and benefits arising from— undertaking PD which we will explore next.

Preston (2010, p.123) highlighted the motivation behind the early Dutch research was essentially the aspiration to refine the boundaries on traditional (production-focussed) dialect maps. Academic opinions on the benefits of PD have developed greatly in the last eighty years. Hoenigswald (1996, p.20) is very clear that, in his view, it would be unacceptable to disregard how nonlinguists react to, and what they say about, language.

Ignoring speakers’ perceptions as “sources of error”, according to Hoenigswald, simply “will not do”. The search for theories of linguistic change may conceivably come to fruition with work undertaken in PD. Labov believed—and continues to believe—“prestige is a force that can stimulate linguistic change” (Penhallurick, 2018, p.253). The presence of linguistic change is a recurring theme in PD. Accommodation theory could indicate linguistic change; if non-standard varieties are perpetuated in the mass media and take hold amongst a speech community we could see linguistic change. PD could also offer explanations about why ‘tightly-knit social networks’ (citation needed) are resistant to linguistic change.

The attitude of speakers’ towards a particular dialect is also worthy of further research. Preston (1999, p.360) notes that when a dialect is associated with a particular group of people, the attributes of the people are transferred to the dialect, resulting in situations where a dialect is—or becomes—considered: industrious or lazy; intelligent or stupid; or friendly or aloof. When dialects start to ‘index’ attributes in this manner, people adopting the dialect are perceived to adopt the attributes associated with the group—consider Labov’s hypercorrecting social climbers in New York as a prime example. Preston (1993 p.252) goes on to make a compelling argument for future PD in relation to language attitude studies. Preston argues that knowledge of: classifications, status, function, perceived major and minor differences, and how people use their belief system in relation to the production are all necessary if studies into language attitudes want to avoid becoming 15 distorting speakers’ realities, partial truths or “theatrically exaggerated speech caricatures”.

Swansea Linguistics Journal

PD also has a role to play in the future of language teaching, Jenkins (2012) highlights English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) and its emergence as a new variety of English; the attitudes and perceptions of ELF learners—traditionally non-native English speakers (NNES) learning English with the view to communicating with other NNES—will, in the fullness of time, be another area worthy of academic interest. Preston (1999, p.xxiv-xxv) makes an interesting point when he compares language teachers to physicians, making the point that physicians need to know both the terms used and beliefs held by their patients in relation to health matters; Preston believes this level of knowledge is also vital for language teachers.

This paper started by describing PD as ‘fascinating’; it is the point where linguistics meets the other disciplines and sciences concerning human speech, thought and behaviour.

PD’s relevance to linguistic change is already widely accepted (Penhallurick, 2018, p.103); it isn’t impossible to imagine future situations where PD will continue to contribute to furthering our understanding of the “patterned universal phenomenon” (Cameron, 2015) that is language change.

Psycholinguistics: What is Aphasia?

By Hei Man Tiffany Ng Aphasia is a spectrum disorder in which there is an impairment of language caused by damage of the left hemisphere of the brain, where the sections responsible for language production and perception are normally located.

Depending on the damaged area, aphasia affects patients from the production or comprehension of speech to the ability to read or write. Aphasia is usually caused by brain injuries, most commonly from a stroke, but it could also arise from other brain injuries such as brain tumour, head trauma, or infections etc. Aphasia can affect people of all age, but it is particularly common in older individuals aged over 65, as strokes and infection tend to affect older individuals. This study defines the three common types of aphasia, as well as examines the video data of different patients, thus identify the types of aphasia each patient is suffering from.

2. Types of Aphasia There are various types of aphasia depending on the damaged area of the brain. The most common ones are Broca’s, Wernicke’s and Anomic aphasia.

Depending on patients’ difficulties in language, aphasia is categorised as expressive or receptive, regarding their difficulties are with comprehension – understanding language, or production producing language, or both.

16

Swansea Linguistics Journal

2.1 Broca’s Aphasia Broca’s aphasia, also known as the expressive and nonfluent aphasia, is caused by injury in Broca’s area, which is the frontal temporal lobe, left hemisphere (Sedivy, 2014). The symptoms include the patients have difficulties in producing language, however their comprehension can be relatively maintained. (Sedivy, 2014) Patients struggle to put their thoughts into words, they cannot translate their mental images to words, therefore, affecting their fluency of speech (Acharya & Wroten, 2019). Patients also have trouble in producing grammatically correct sentences, and their speech is normally limited to short utterances. Agrammatism is a typical characteristic, patients’ speech often lacks function words and contains mostly content words (Goodglass, 1993). The use of function words such as conjunctions, prepositions and transitions are usually lost. For instance, the sentence ‘I took the dog for a walk." would become "I walk dog." (Acharya & Wroten, 2019) Some patients had difficulty using verbs than nouns, so their speech may exhibit ‘paragrammatic’.Comparably, their ability to comprehend is intact, patients can understand speech relatively well. However, they might have difficulties to understand sentences with more complex grammatical structures, e.g. passive sentences. According to Geschwind (1965), patients with Broca’s aphasia might be able to read but their writing ability is very restricted.

Broca’s aphasia was named after Paul Broca who conducted a research on the patient, Leborgne, who had speech impairment. Leborgne was able to comprehend with Broca but his language production was very weak.

He could answer Broca’s question regarding the length of his hospitalisation by using his fingers to express the number 21, but he could not say the answer. This was due to a lesion in the frontal convolution of the left hemisphere (Code, 1989). After examining eight more patients with damaged left hemisphere, Broca concluded that lesions of the left frontal lobe is the fundamental cause lead to an impairment of articulate language (Broca, 1861). In addition, Watari et. al. examined a patient that has Broca’s aphasia in 2014 which also provided evidence of the symptoms. The patient “spoke hesitantly and non-fluently” (Watari, et. al., 2014: 01) and she displayed word-finding difficulties when answering researchers’ question in both writing and speaking. Lastly, to questions with complex syntax, she highlighted impaired abilities.

2.2 Wernicke’s Aphasia Wernicke’s aphasia, also known as the receptive and non-fluent aphasia, is caused by the damage of the Wernicke’s area, located at the temporal lobe of left hemisphere, left posterior, superior temporal gyrus (Sedivy, 2014). Such areas are important for processing the meaning of language. Symptoms included patients experience difficulties with comprehension , yet their ability to produce language is intact.

Patients with Wernicke’s aphasia lost their ability to understand the meaning of spoken words or sentences. Patients can produce great amount of words and they usually speak in a correct grammatical structure with normal speed and rate (Tarulli, 2010).

Despite their speech fluency and great quantity of output, what they say is often spontaneous and does not make any sense; hence, the content of their speech consists of non-sense or irrelevant words (Tarulli, 2010). Additionally, the patients’ reading, writing, and their ability to repeat sentences are also impaired (Code, 1989). Paraphasic error is another typical symptom, patients would produce unintended words, phrases or sounds while they are speaking (Code, 1989). Some patients often do not realise their speech does not make sense, and upon responding, they are unaware of using the wrong words or even non-sense words.

Wernicke’s aphasia is named after Carl Wernicke who conducted a study of two patients with impairment in their comprehension of spoken language. The two patients could produce speech fluently, however, the content was unrelated to any known words. This is resulting from an injury at the posterior of the superior temporal lobe (Wernicke, 1874).

In Ellis’s et. al. (1983) case study, a patient suffering from Wernicke’s aphasia was unable to answer long questions or even simple yes/no questions as his speech was full of non-sense words. Repeating sentences was also a difficult process for this patient.

17

Swansea Linguistics Journal

2.3 Anomic Aphasia Anomic aphasia, also known as nominal/amnesic aphasia is a fluent type of aphasia. The specific areas that cause anomic aphasia is hard to identify, but it involves a wide range of areas in the left hemisphere (Dronkers & Baldo, 2009). A recent study by Fridriksson et. al. in 2010 indicates that the damage in the left parietal lobe is the fundamental cause of anomic aphasia.

The symptom of anomic aphasia includes an impairment of word-finding, patients struggle to retrieve words, particularly nouns and verbs, especially with lower frequency words. All aphasia patients have difficulties in retrieving words or naming problems somehow, but word-finding difficulty is the primary problem for patients with Anomic aphasia (Code, 1989). Their comprehension, fluency of speech, reading ability are relatively preserved, and their writing only reflects the word-finding difficulty. Patients with anomic aphasia are also able to repeat spoken sentences when asked to. Despite their fluent and grammatically correct speech, its content is very empty as it lacks substantive words like nouns and verbs, and it is full of vague and nonspecific words like ‘thing’(Swanberg, 2007). Their speech also includes many circumlocutions, which means they often try to describe the word they cannot retrieve (Darley, 1982).

3. Results and findings of patients: 3.1 Patient 1 Type of aphasia diagnosed: Broca’s Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) 1023/189 = 5.4 Table 1

Number of pauses 97

Number of sentences uttered 189

Examples from Transcript: 19 *PAR but maybe writing no .

46 *PAR I just a stroke .

71 *PAR sometimes and sometimes no but slowly slowly .

18

Swansea Linguistics Journal

3.2 Patient 2 Type of aphasia diagnosed: Anomic Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) 1535/154 = 9.9 Table 2

Number of pauses 26

Number of sentences uttered 154

Examples from transcript: 12 *PAR I still have some problems with certain words that I'm remembering from the past .

13 *PAR I can't get a hold of it while I'm doing something .

14 *PAR but I'll usually make a a way to resolve it .

15 *PAR in other words if I can't make the name I'll say something .

16 *PAR and the person I'll be talking to says okay .

81 *PAR the only limitation is with my memory related to things .

82 *PAR if if I'm try to remember certain things I have to you_know go around it if I can't get it .

48 *PAR and then they they treated me there with the doctors and whoever was was doing the speech .

3.3 Patient 3 Type of aphasia diagnosed: Anomic Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) 722/78 = 9.2 Table 3

Number of pauses 40

Number of sentences uttered 78

Examples of long pauses from Transcript: 29 *PAR I I used to have to get myself +...

109 *PAR and his daughter was very +...

110 *PAR her +...

Vague/unclear words Thing/things Unclear words marked ‘xxx’ You know

Times occurred 9 20 3

Table 4

Examples of vague/unclear word/phase from Transcript: 20 *PAR I was in a thing called leaving me in Philadelphia .

48 *PAR I mean I xxx always you know that thing .

61 *PAR and right here is the xxx it went through .

62 *PAR and it went through a gaffe to this gentleman who the xxx xxx went right from him 19

Swansea Linguistics Journal 3.4. Patient 4 Type of aphasia diagnosed: Wernicke’s Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) 780/109 = 7.1 Table 5

Number of pauses 12

Number of sentences uttered 109

Examples of non-sense utterances from transcript: When asked about how is his speech like these days, some of his responses are: 17 *PAR so I got soften .

18 *PAR and then it came up .

19 *PAR at night North_Star had to give it and (th)en it came up .

4. Analysis of patients: In order to diagnose the type of aphasia the patients are suffering from, their speech fluency and accuracy level, as well as their ability to comprehend have been reviewed from the videos and transcripts. The patients’ mean length of utterance (MLU), number of pauses, and number of sentences uttered are also examined to help with the diagnosis. According to Goodglass et. al (1964), MLU is a significant factor to distinguish the types of aphasia. They discovered that 90% of the patients they have investigated with long MLU were classified as either anomic or Wernicke’s type of aphasia, whereas patients with short MLU were characterised as Broco’s type of aphasia.

Patient 1 is diagnosed as having Broca’s due to the fluency and accuracy of his speech being impaired. In the video, his speech are mostly short utterances with no more than four words and it also included many pauses and grammatical problems. Table 1 displays that there were 97 pauses occurred during the interview, indicating that his speech was non-fluent - a symptom of Broca’s aphasia. On the other hand, his comprehension is intact as he was able to understand and answer the questions correctly despite his language was very limited. He also used lots of gestures to describe his answers due to his disability to produce language. During 3:25 and 6:19 of the video, he was able to use his finger to write the answer of the question, but he could not utter it. The same situation happened when he was asked to name the pictures, he wrote the word ‘house’ which is the correct name with his finger. This is very similar to Leborgne, who was also able to answer Broca with his finger, but unable to utter the answer. The patient also has a short MLU (5.4) compared to other patients and according to Goodglass (1964), this classifies as Broca’s aphasia.

20

Swansea Linguistics Journal

Patient 2 and 3 are both diagnosed as having anomic aphasia since they both showed evidence of wordfinding difficulties, good comprehension and production of language in the videos. Moreover, table 2 shown that both patients have a long MLU which is 9.9 and 9.2, indicateing the type of aphasia they suffer from is anomic.

There is only a small impairment in patient 2’s speech since he was very fluent with only little grammatical errors. The patient mentioned himself that he only has problem with remembering certain words, and this is the only limitation he has with his speech (see example), which is clearly the primary problem of anomic aphasia – word-finding difficulty. Furthermore, Table 2 shown that there were not many pauses in his speech, in fact, it only occurred more often when he needs to tell the story of Cinderella, which he needed to retrieve from his memory.

Patient 3’s speech was fluent and were mostly grammatically correct, however many long pauses occurred in his speech. There were 40 pauses occurred out of 70 utterances according to table 3, and seems like this was due to his difficulties in retrieving words (see examples). Nonetheless, the comprehension was fine, he clearly understands and able to answer most of the questions, though his speech included many vague words like ‘thing’, ‘you know’ as shown in table 4. As mentioned previously, Swanberg et. al. (2007) define this as one of the symptoms of anomic aphasia. In addition, there are many unclear words marked ‘xxx’ in the transcript, and the video revealed the patient making up sounds to replace words, possibly due to a problem in word-finding.

Patient 4 is diagnosed as having Wernicke’s aphasia. He showed a great output of language, and the grammatical structure of his sentences were usually correct. One important factor that determined the diagnosis is the patient’s MLU and number of pauses. Table 5 demonstrates the patient having longer MLU of 7.1 in comparison to patient 1 who suffers from Broca’s aphasia, and there were only 12 pauses.

This indicates that his speech was fluent, and his ability to produce language is intact. Despite having a fluent speech, the content of the patient’s speech did not make much sense. Although he seemed to understand the questions, his answers were irrelevant and unrated, which is presented in the examples from the transcript. He also seemed to know his speech often do not make sense when he asked the examiner if his speech make sense to her. In addition, when asked to repeat certain words and sentences spoken by the examiner, he could not repeat most of them. For example, when asked to repeat the word “duck”, he said “dawk”; when asked to repeat the sentence “the bus is coming”, he replied “someone talk...” and then he gave up. This is very similar to Ellis’s et. al. (1983) study in which the patient also could not repeat sentences.

5. Conclusions: In order to provide an accurate diagnosis, this study looked at various factors such as the varying symptoms of the patients, their mean length of utterance and number of pauses etc. To conclude, I have found that patient 1 is suffering from Broca’s aphasia due to his disability to produce language, yet intact in comprehension. Patient 2 & 3 were unable to retrieve words from their memory, but the production and comprehension were preserved, therefore they are diagnosed with anomic aphasia.

Lastly, Patient 4 had no difficulty in producing language, though his ability to comprehend was impaired as his speech did not make much sense, thus, he is diagnosed as Wernicke’s aphasia.

21

Swansea Linguistics Journal

Leadership and Management in Education: Compare and contrast Transformational Leadership and Instructional Leadership in various educational contexts.

By James Barry Introduction Leadership and management have represented an interest to scholars and academics for nearly two centuries, encompassing a multitude of sectors including politics, healthcare, businesses and education, among others. From the origins of the “Great Man Theory”, developed by Robert Carlyle in 1840, followed by the “Trait Theory” of the early 20th Century, research into leadership and management has been continuously evolving. Two of the more prominent leadership and management comparisons to arise in recent history are that of instructional and distributed leadership, as well as transformational and transactional leadership. However, throughout this assignment I will be comparing and contrasting transformational leadership with instructional leadership. Both of these leadership theories have distinctive differences that set them apart from one another, as well as some similarities. Initially, I will be providing a definition and brief history of each theory, followed by a general comparison between them, analysing the similarities and differences. Following this, I will be comparing and contrasting both theories in a range of contexts, including the effects on student achievement and performance, as well as their impact on school climate. Finally, I will be exploring the effectiveness of transformational leadership and instructional leadership in an English Language Teaching (ELT) framework. I will be exploring this by analysing a variety of studies that aim to provide whether or not there is a correlation between leadership theories and the different contexts that are being examined.

Definitions Transformational Leadership Transformational leadership is entrenched to the idea that by inspiration and stimulation of the followers, which will enable a positive change from the followers, they will develop into leaders themselves. Transformational leadership aims to enhance self-worth, motivation and improved performance from the followers, as they take more ownership and accountability for their work.

It was conceptualized by James MacGregor Burns (1978), who first used the term to describe politicians and observed that “transforming leaders “raise” their followers up through levels of morality”, as well as being “more concerned with end-values, such as liberty, justice [and] equality” (Burns, 1978). This theory was further developed by Bernard M. Bass (2006), who expanded on Burns’ ideas and applied them to the organisational sector, including businesses, health care and the military, among others. Bass remarks that through transformational leadership, followers are likely to become “more creative, more resistant to stress, more flexible and open to change”, suggesting that followers of a transformational leader are “more likely to become transformational leaders themselves” (Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. 56). Bass further argues that transformational leadership has positive effects on organisational cultures and that this theory is likely to bring about an improvement in “strategic planning, corporate image, recruitment, selection, and transfer of personnel” (Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. 141). Bass’ four elements of transformational leadership can be seen overleaf, in Table 1.

22

Swansea Linguistics Journal

Element of Transformational Leadership Individualised Consideration

Intellectual Stimulation

Inspirational Motivation

Idealised Influence

Explanation The extent in which the leader acts on the individual needs of a follower. This can be done through mentoring and coaching as well as listening to their concerns and needs.

The extent that the leader takes risks and assumptions as well as employing suggestions from their followers.

The extent that the leader expresses their vision as well as the extent to which leaders challenge their followers and provide clear motivation for the task at hand.

The extent to which the leader provides high ethical and moral behaviour, while being an effective role-model and instilling pride among the followers.

(Adapted from: Avolio & Bass, 1993) Furthering the research of Burns and Bass, Kenneth Leithwood applied transformational leadership theory to the education sector, studying the theories’ effects on student engagement, among other factors. Leithwood originally acknowledged three fundamental goals of this theory, including “maintaining a collaborative culture”, “fostering teacher development” and “improving group problem solving” (Leithwood, 1992). Through his extensive studies (Leithwood, 1992, Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000), Leithwood proposed that transformational leadership has positive effects on student engagement, as well as educational leadership, promoting individual and group growth for the collective prosperity of the school.

Instructional Leadership 1979 saw the introduction of the ‘effective schools movement’, which aimed to study effective national schools and associate specific characteristics, which led to this effectiveness (D'Amico, 1982). One of these characteristics of effective school management constituted instructional leadership, which put the attention on principals as effective leaders of a school.

Following on from this, policymakers in America focused on instructional leadership in an effort to improve educational quality and thus created “Principal leadership Academies”, which also led onto further research into “principal instruction leadership” (Hallinger & Wang, 2015).

Phillip Hallinger and Joseph Murphy developed the theory of instructional leaders and suggested that there are three dimensions in the framework of instructional leadership, which include “defining the school mission”, “managing the curriculum and instructions” and “promoting the school climate” (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985). These dimensions, with the corresponding functions, can be seen overleaf, in Table 2.

23

Swansea Linguistics Journal Table 2 Dimensions Defines the Mission Manages Instructional Program

Promotes School Climate

Functions Framing school goals Communicating school goals Supervising and evaluating instruction Co-ordinating curriculum Monitoring student progress Protecting instructional time Promoting professional development Maintaining high visibility Providing incentives for teachers Enforcing academic standards Providing incentives for students

(Hallinger & Murphy, 1985) By collating numerous studies of instructional leadership, Hallinger suggests that instructional leaders are viewed as “culture builders” that aim to foster “high expectations and standards of the students […] and teachers” (Hallinger & Wang, 2015). Hallinger also proposes that instructional leaders are goal-orientated, with an ability to define a clear direction, while motivating others to strive for the collective prosperity of the school (Hallinger & Wang, 2015).

General comparison of both theories:

24

Swansea Linguistics Journal As we can see from Table 3, transformational leadership focuses more on the teachers by creating an environment where a clear vision and goals can be achieved. This is obtained by ensuring that the staff have all the necessary resources to enable them to teach effectively and efficiently. However, instructional leadership focuses more on the students, by being concerned with the positive impact from the teachers and how this improves student learning outcomes. Tony Bush further explains this difference, by suggesting that instructional leadership is more concerned about “the direction of the leaders’ influence”, as it has a clear focus on improving teaching and learning, while the processes by which improvement happens is secondary to this (Bush, 2014). He further explains that contrary to instructional leadership, transformational leadership is more concerned with “how leaders exert their influence on followers”, which is achieved by leaders inspiring their followers to increase their commitment to the common goal (ibid.).

Effects on Student Achievement and Performance Transformational Leadership Various studies (Allen, Grigsby & Peters, 2015; Heck & Hallinger, 2005; Finnigan & Stewart, 2009; Jacobson, Johnson, Ylimaki & Giles, 2005; Mulford et al., 2008; Murakami-Ramalho, Garza & Merchant, 2010) have shown that there is no direct correlation between transformational leadership and student performance. However, these studies also suggest that due to a focus on teacher development and the creation of “followers”, student achievement is indirectly determined by the resulting teacher satisfaction.

Teacher satisfaction is achieved through the principal, who sets a clear goal and shares the “power” with the teachers, which in turn enables a sense of camaraderie throughout the school. This improved “internal state” of the teachers is shown to have benefits to students’ reading and math skills, as well as certain approaches, such as individualised support, which are shown to improve student achievement (Anderson, 2017). The varied studies note that teacher commitment and job satisfaction has a positive, albeit minor, indirect influence on student achievement. However, there remains a need for further study to assess whether there is a more definitive correlation between transformational leadership and student achievement.

Instructional Leadership In contrast to transformational leadership, studies have shown that there is a positive correlation between principals that adhere to instructional leadership and student achievement. The four areas of instructional leadership that were shown to improve student achievement are the “framing of school goals, protecting instructional time, maintaining high visibility and promoting professional development” (Johnson, 2006).

Furthermore, it is shown that when principals put an effective administrator in place as well as “fostering a shared vision among the faculty and administration of the school” then student achievement is improved (Matz, 2017). However, Robert O’Donnell and George White argue that the only aspects of instructional leadership that have a positive effect on student achievement are “promoting the school learning environment” and “defining the school mission” (O'Donnell & White, 2005). Certain conditions of “promoting the school learning environment” are shown to have a positive effect on student achievement; these include the providing of incentives to teachers and students, as well as promoting professional development. By providing incentives, and honouring teachers and students that perform exceptionally,

principals are able to identify the various strengths and weaknesses of the staff (and students to an extent). This will be able to identify areas related to promoting the school learning climate that need improving. Leithwood and Jantzi describe instructional leadership as activities that the principal gives to others to stimulate student achievement, which is proven by the research papers showing evidence that when the principal takes a “hands on” approach, student achievement is improved as a result (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000).

25

Swansea Linguistics Journal Effects on School Climate Transformational Leadership School climate can be explained as the beliefs (including the attitudes, behaviours and feelings) that the students and teachers have in the school and the principal. Betty Tableman further suggests that “school climate reflects the physical and psychological aspects of the school that are more susceptible to change and that provide the preconditions necessary for teaching and learning to take place” (Tableman, 2004). It would stand to reason then, that the fundamental practices of transformational leadership will have a positive effect on school climate. The studies that researched a correlation between transformational leadership and school climate, confirm that there is a positive correlation and that transformational leaders “have an impact on teacher’s perception on school climate” (Allen, Grigsby & Peters, 2015). Furthermore, the findings also suggest that the greater the principals’ enthusiasm for a particular initiative, the more motivated and encouraged the staff feel, thus promoting a positive feeling within the school climate (ibid.). McCarley, Peters and Decman further this theory suggesting, in their extensive study, that “transformational leadership behaviours can increase the intimacy and cohesion of staff”, as well as finding that “open climate principals are supportive and perceived as both non-directive and non-restrictive” (McCarley, Peters & Decman, 2014, p. 335). The findings from these studies indicate that the functions of transformational leadership, including creating a shared vision and the creation of leaders from “followers”, have a direct correlation to a positive school climate.

Instructional Leadership While Instructional leadership also has a focus on creating a positive school environment, the theory addresses different functions when compared to transformational leadership. One of the key aspects of instructional leadership is the ability for the principal to maintain visibility throughout the school, including being a part of classroom observations. Through this visibility, the principal is able to observe the teachers lessons and aid them when needed, as well as being able to do so with students’ work and progress throughout the learning day. It is from this observation and aiding that teachers feel more comfortable with the principal and their own teaching methods, creating a positive school climate. It is observed that principals that adhere to the instructional leadership theory need to be more than administrators, they need to become “a facilitator of learning”, by leading by example and building on the strengths of the teachers (Grizzard, 2007). Berhane Tedla expands on this notion by suggesting that instructional leaders need to “maintain a healthy and positive school climate through honesty and open communication, tolerance of different ideas, modelling a proper human relations skills, building up and upholding high morale and acknowledging the accomplishment of others” (Tedla, 2012). This suggests that, to create a positive school climate, principals need to be at the forefront of the school, modelling ways on which to teach and interact with the students, as well as keeping morale healthy.

Comparison in the English Language Teaching (ELT) Context Transformational Leadership Due to the varying and constantly evolving nature of English Language Teaching (ELT), when compared to “traditional” teaching, a need for leaders to be transcultural and creative is required. Transformational leadership lends itself well to ELT, as the teaching method tends to be more student centred, therefore, it is beneficial for the teacher to have the qualities noted by Bass as charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration and idealized influence (Bass, 1985).

26

Swansea Linguistics Journal These transformational leadership qualities have been found in administrators and leaders throughout the ELT profession and across the world within many cultures. The varied cultures that ELT teachers possibly encounter throughout their careers implores the question of which leadership style is most beneficial to meet the demand of a multi-cultural classroom. Studies have suggested that transformational leadership is the most beneficial in a cross-culture environment with Fernando and Yang proposing, that the “leader’s people-orientated behaviours have a positive impact on followers’ attitudes such as their general satisfaction and trust in their leader” (Fernando & Yang, 2006). Within an ELT classroom, the teacher is the leader and this leader would benefit greatly from the transformational leadership approach, delivering lessons with passion and commitment, which empowers the students to “follow” and facilitate learning. Developing an individualised action plan that meets the needs of the students is an implication that can be derived from transformational leadership, as well as encouraging individual students from a variety of cultures to build their confidence in their learning, which aids the class as a whole through their contribution and class commitment.

Instructional Leadership Along with transformational leadership, Leithwood notes that instructional leadership is one of the “most frequently mentioned specific concepts of leadership” (Leithwood, Jantzi & Steinbach, 1999). It is of no surprise then that instructional leadership has its place within ELT and while there are some similarities with transformational leadership, there are also some differences. The threat to English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers “individuality” when teaching is one that is at the forefront of instructional leadership and while this form of leadership is meant to offer support and assistance in the classroom, some EFL teachers may find the practice intrusive (Rahmany, Hasani & Parhoodeh, 2014). Shah and Harthi (2014) concur with this disadvantage of instructional leadership and state that during instructional observations there is a lack of autonomy, lack of trust and an overwhelming element of threat and insecurity. However, while instructional leadership may not be seen as being beneficial to the teachers, the theories can be applied to student learning to facilitate a productive atmosphere of English language learning. As instructional leaders develop their knowledge about cultural diversity within the classroom, they can empower the teachers through observations and instructional leadership, to ensure the best is being produced from an EFL classroom. Furthermore, by setting clear goals for EFL students and providing incentives, the students’ desire to progress will be enhanced and as such they will be able to contribute to the class more effectively.

Conclusion By analysing, comparing and contrasting transformational leadership to instructional leadership, we can observe that there are a multitude of differences that aid the education process in a variety of ways. We can see that instructional leaders tend to focus on the learning environment, while transformational leaders focus on the development of the teaching staff and students, to create a positive learning environment. By analysing a variety of studies I have found that there is no direct correlation between transformational leadership and positive student achievement; however, there appears to be an indirect positive correlation. The studies have also suggested that instructional leadership has a more direct influence on student achievement. Nonetheless, with regards to the school climate it appears that both transformational and instructional leadership, have a positive correlation on an improved school climate, albeit, in different approaches. During my research, I noticed a limited amount of literature with regards to leadership practices in the ELT field. It is noted, though, that transformational leadership is proven to be effective in a cross-cultural environment, as well as empowering teachers and students to contribute more to the class experience. The limited studies that I found on instructional leadership within the ELT sector have shown that teachers feel “oppressed” when undergoing observations from principals.

However, instructional leadership seems to promote a positive learning environment for the students.

27

Swansea Linguistics Journal Further Study Due to the limited research into leadership styles within the ELT sector I believe that this is a mostly ‘untapped market’ and it would reveal interesting results due to the intrinsic differences of teaching methods employed, when compared to ‘traditional’ teaching. Furthermore, my research has shown that instructional leadership tends to focus on the institution, while transformational leadership tends to focus on the development of the teachers and students. From this, research into principals that adopt certain elements of both these leadership theories may produce an effective leadership style that will benefit both the institution and the development of staff and students equally.

English Language Teaching Methodology: The Practice of English Language Teaching.

By Hei Man Tiffany Ng Jeremy Harmer argues that the activities are the keys that make teaching and learning communicative but not the syllabus or the methodology, this essay will identify and analysis four different materials whether they are more communicative or non-communicative. Furthermore, provides ways to make those materials that are less communicative to become more communicative.

In order to identify those given materials, there are a few criteria that need to define. The first one is ‘A communicative purpose’. A communicative purpose is ‘The primary goals and intentions of those involved in acts of communication on a given occasion.’ (Communicative Purpose, 2017) By this it means that in general, we all have an objective or a purpose when we speak or write. And Harmer (1982) suggested that in order to do so, we need to choose from our own language store the language that we think will best help to achieve the purpose. For example, I would like to ask my mum to cook for me and there are various ways I could ask my mum, e.g. ‘Can you cook something, mum?’ ‘Mum, I am hungry!’ ‘It is food time mum’, etc. These are all different ways to request her to cook, however, they all shared the same purpose, i.e. I would like my mum to cook for me.

The second one is ‘A desire to communicate’. A desire to communicate is the concept of language students who are learning a second language are desire to communicate in the target second language, therefore they search for chances to communicate in the target language. According to Harmer (1982), ‘when two people are involved in a conversation, we can fairly certain that the one who is speaking wants to do so. Wants is used here in a general sense, since speaking may be forced on the participants in some way but they must still feel a desire to speak it, otherwise they would keep quiet.’ However, these do not only just apply to spoken response. It can also apply to written response like writing and receiving letters. ‘Form’ and ‘Content’ are also need to define. The ‘Form’ is the language form, by this it means the grammatical form of the language that the learners speak. And the ‘Content’ is the details and the meanings of what the learners say. And these are related to content-focus and form-focus. In a communicative activity, students and teachers are focusing on content rather than form. In the opposite, form is focused in a non28 communicative activity, not the content.

Swansea Linguistics Journal ‘A language item’ is a small self-contained pieces of language which you can teach or practice in a lesson. Language items are the building blocks needed to build a whole language lesson, therefore the teacher can achieve the lesson targets.

‘Teacher intervention’ is how the teacher involves in the learning process. Teachers have the responsibility to help learners in their language learning process. In a communicative activity, they had to assume the role of facilitator and monitor and not just correct speeches and writings. ‘The teacher had to develop a different view of learners’ errors and of her/his own role in facilitating language learning.’ (Communicative Language Teaching Today, 2006) Last by not least, ‘Materials control’ – Materials can be the things that used in lesson to help teachers to teach the target language It can also be the things that help learners to understand and adopt the language. These could be books, videos, textbooks, worksheets, etc. Allwright (1990) argues that materials control learning and teaching. O'Neill (1990) also emphasizes that they help learning and teaching. Material control is the materials control the learners’ language such as certain grammatical form, etc. and we would not expect that a material controls students’ language in a communicative activity.

As we covered the definitions of the useful terms, we are now going to evaluate the four given materials.

‘Approaches’ by Johnson and Morrow: - This material has a communicative purpose and there are different aims in different sections of the material which combine as one purpose. In section A, the purpose is to talk to or impress strangers when you first meet them. This section starts with the oral exercise, which students need to do a roleplay. Students have to pretend they are Sven and a girl and start a conversation. Then it follows by a set of examples that shows how people often say to strangers and some form-based grammar practice.

In Section B, its purpose is to talk about yourself. It starts with an exercise about generalisations of different countries. Then followed by a pair-work that requires the students to talk about personal details and fill in a given form. The whole material then finishes with a listening exercise which focus on speaking to strangers you meet for the first time again.

- Students are desire to achieve a communicative objective.

- The material is content based rather than form based as the exercises are mostly require learners to use their own languages but not follow a certain grammar pattern. This made the material more communicative since it is content based rather than form based.

- There is a variety if language items used in the material. The whole material is divided into different sections of exercises in order to achieve the target, which is to teach learners to talk about themselves to people they first meet.

- There is no teacher intervention of this material as the exercises in the material are mostly involved with the learners themselves and no teacher involved. Students are doing the exercises in pair-work or by themselves. Moreover, teachers might only need to provide help when needed rather than taking control. Besides, teachers do not need to correct the grammatical form of what the students say or write.

- There is no materials control since the material is not controlling students’ language in certain grammatical forms and it is a communicative activity which material control is not expected in this.

As a result, this material is toward the communicative continuum.

29

Swansea Linguistics Journal ‘How to Teach Grammar’ by S. Thornby - This material has a communicative purpose which it asks students to share their experiences between the class.

- Students have a desire to achieve a communicative objective since they can share their own experiences to others.

- The material is form based rather than content based as it requires teachers to provide the given table of a certain grammar form to the students which ask them to form sentences by using the ‘rule’.

- There is only one language item provided which is the table of the grammar rule.

- The extent of teacher intervention is high as the teacher has to present the grammar rule table given by the material. Besides, the teacher has to give examples of the language form. Teacher also needs to elicits other verbs that could fill the forth column of the table. In addition, the teacher needs to monitoring the whole learning process from giving instructions, checking the students are on task, providing help with vocabulary to finally, asking students to elaborate their experiences. These actions all highly requested teacher interventions.

- The extent of material control is semi because the material is controlling learners’ language as it requires them to use a certain language form to share their experiences. However, students might answer questions asked by teachers which elaborate their experiences which is not controlled.

Jing Yang

Since there is a communicative purpose and a desire to communicate, also teacher highly intervene and semi-material controlled, I believe this is a ‘communicative drill’. Therefore, this material is in the middle between the non-communicative and the communicative continuum.

‘Streamline English - Departures’ by Hartley and Viney - This material has no communicative purpose since it only asks students to use two language patterns such as: asking ‘Is he/she …?’ and ‘Can you/she/he … ’He/she is/isn’t …’, ‘He/she can/can’t …’. These are drills that are all controlled language form therefore there is no communicative purpose in this material.

- Students have no desire to achieve a communicative objective since they just have to speak in a given grammar form or rule. However, instead of communicative objective, they attain accuracy of the language.

- The material is form based rather than content based as it has certain language forms that all students have to follow.

-There is only one language item provided which is the conversation between the Jane and Sally, which presents the target language form of the question-answer exercise.

- The extend of teacher intervention is high because the teacher needs to cross-reference between the teacher’s instructions and the materials that students have in order to interact with the students using the target form. Furthermore, teachers have to involve the whole learning process, as the teachers have to ask questions or response to the learners’ question. Not only that, teachers also need to check on the students while they are doing pair-work, giving them instructions and provide related vocabulary.

- The extent of material control is high as well since the material is controlling learners’ language by only allow students to use the given target language to discuss.

In consequences, this material is toward the non-communicative continuum.

After all four materials are characterized, we now have to suggest ways of adapting the materials, which are at the non-communicative end of the continuum to make these more communicative. For ‘Streamline English - Departures’, rather than just simply answer and asking questions in the same form, the exercise should let learners to discuss their own personal information to make it more communicative and create a desire for them to communicate. This is done by making the material less controllable.

30

Swansea Linguistics Journal For ‘Global Intermediate’, this material is extremely controlled so we have to reduce how controllable it is. Firstly, instead of filling the exercises with answers, ask students to use ‘will’ and ‘be going to’ form different sentences. Or ask them to complete sentences with their own thoughts or experience, these not only can make it less controllable, also making it has a communicative purpose and learners can have a desire to communicate with each other using the target language but not just repetitively doing drills.

Teaching English as a Foreign Language: Theory and Practice – Intensive Reading

By Hei Man Tiffany Ng

1. Introduction This essay will focus on the decisions made to create the intensive reading activity in appendix A with a theoretical basis. As well as discussing how this activity can benefit the L2 learners in their learning process, also the possible limitations of the activity. The essay will also discuss about applying the four strands to language learning and how the activity designed meet the strands.

2. Benefits for the learners 2.1. Benefits - Intensive Reading There were many considerations when designing the activity in appendix A, and focusing on what elements from the activity can benefit learners was the priority and main goal.

Intensive reading means over and detailed reading of the text to fully understand the meaning and substance of the text. According to Carrell and Carson (1997; p.53), intensive reading can help L2 learners to develop reading strategies/skills such as close reading for important details, identifying main ideas and summarising a text, etc. which are necessary to acquire in order to succeed in academic studies. A good intensive reading activity should help learners to develop these reading strategies/skills. The activity in Appendix A is to identify the main ideas and write a summary of the given text, also learning some useful vocabulary. The activity does not focus just on the comprehension of the text, but also the vocabulary used, as an intensive reading activity should not just focus on comprehension and it should further linguistic development.

31

Swansea Linguistics Journal As Nation (2009; p.28) suggested, we want learners to “gain knowledge of the language and ways of dealing with the language rather than an understanding of a particular message”, in which the activity included summarising and identifying main points of a given text and these are the skills that can apply to all the text but not just one particular text. This benefits the learners as they could acquire a skill which is helpful for their future studies.

Furthermore, Nation (2009; p.28) also suggested that a good intensive reading activity should lead the learners to focus on the text, which is they have to read the text in order to do the activity. Writing a summary requires a good understanding of the text, therefore learners need to read the text very carefully in order to produce a well-structured summary.

Moreover, a good intensive reading activity should provide useful feedback about the learners’ performance on the activity for both the teacher and learners. As for the activity in Appendix A., teacher can know the strength and weakness of the learners from their summaries and provide guidance to help them improve (not only writing, but also reading as how to identify the main points of a text). Learners can then comprehend what they have to learn or improve so they can do better with other texts.

In addition, the activity in Appendix A included a little bit of vocabulary teaching in the activity which ae useful for learners. This can help them learn vocabularies that will occur in different other texts, not only in the given text.

2.2. Discussion of the main ideas In the proposed activity, learners have to discuss and identify the main points of the given text with in their group. Discussing with other learners and sharing ideas can help learners to learn how to interact in a meaningful way, improving the learners’ speaking ability. The activity also helps to develop fluency, as they have the opportunity to speak and they need to convey their message to each other.

3. Limitations Although the activity in appendix A included various benefits for learners, there are also a few limitations of the activity.

First of all, as the proposed activity need to divide learners into only 3 groups, it might be hard to use in a big class. If there are 30 learners in one class, there will be 10 people in one group and therefore, everyone has little chance to discuss the text.

Plus, looking at the proficiency level of the learners, some L2 learners might not be confidence on their oral performance, or even have anxiety according to Lee & Park (n.d.). Nevertheless, there are also learners that are more advance than others, and possibly, a few learners will take control of the activity and the others might just sit there and listen to them, which do not benefit all the learners in class. The activity needs to be done in smaller classes (maximum 12 people), so that every learner can get involved and learn.

Another limitation is that the teacher needs to control the timing very well to avoid not be able to finish the whole activity. The proposed activity is rather a detailed and long session, and it is hard to skip any part of it, as it is very important to finish the whole activity. Otherwise, learners may not benefit from the activity as they could not receive all the useful language; thus, the teacher has to be very careful with the time.

Furthermore, according to Nation (2009; p.29), comprehension question can be not very effective for teaching learners to read, although it helps with practising reading, the usefulness is limited to the text given. As writing a summary is a form of comprehension question, the proposed activity might be not so useful for learners. The summary learners need to write is about a given text, focusing on not the language but the meaning or message of one particular text. Therefore, it is not helping learners to develop knowledge of the language and the use or strategies of it, thus the learners will not be able to 32 deal with any other texts.

Swansea Linguistics Journal

4. The four strands According to Nation and Newton, “a well-planned language course should include an appropriate balance of four strands” (2009) and these four strands are meaning-focused input, meaning-focused output, language-focused learning, and fluency development.

Firstly, meaning-focused input refers to learning through reading and listening which is focus on understanding and gaining knowledge or enjoyment. For example, activities such as extensive reading, listening to stories, etc. On the other hand, meaning-focused output refers to learning through writing and speaking which focus on using language meaningfully. Activities like talking in conversation, writing a letter, giving a speech, etc. are meaning-focused output. Thirdly, language-focused leaning refers to the “deliberate learning of language features such as pronunciation, spelling, vocabulary, grammar, and discourse.” (Nation & Newton, 2009; p.7) Intensive reading, practicing pronunciation and learning vocabulary are example activities of language-focused learning. Lastly, fluency development refers to receiving and convey message. It should involves all four language skills (reading, writing, listening and speaking).

Although a good language course should include the four strands, an activity from a course does not necessarily need to include all the four strands. The activity in appendix A has included two strands which are Language-focused learning (as the designed activity is an intensive reading activity) and meaning-focus output which benefit the learners. Language-focused learning involves learning language features (E.g. vocabulary) and developing language use strategies, which the proposed activities included, learning useful vocabulary and learning a strategy – summarising, which meets the languagefocused strand. The activity also meets the meaning-focused output strand as it requires learners to discuss the main points about the given text, write a summary and present it to the whole class, giving them opportunities to produce language. The main goal of meaning-focused output is to convey a message to others, which is done in the activity when they discuss the main ideas within their group, and present the summary they wrote to the whole class and the teacher. Additionally, the language they need to write and talk is familiar, as it should be covered in the given text.

5. Conclusion In conclusion, a well-organised course should include various activities that have a balance of the four strands and the purposed activity has included two strands which are language-focused learning and meaning-focused output. The activity also benefits L2 learners in various way, such as learners can develop skills/ strategies like writing a summary from intensive reading; developing fluency and improving their speaking ability by discussing the main points of the text. However, there are also a few limitations of the purposed activity such as time limit; the activity can only be done in a smaller class and learners might have different personalities that can affect them in absorbing knowledge. For example, some learners have less self-confidence.

33

Swansea Linguistics Journal

Route Map

Instructions

1. Before the lesson

- Familiarise yourself with the material (readings) and activity (How do I present it to student) - Read through the material or any teacher’s notes - The activity is to write a summary about the focused texts.

- Make notes about the main ideas in the texts (Eg. Dublin is the capital of the Republic of Ireland) - Make a list of useful vocabularies in the text that needs to be taught In class: - Introduce the topic of the text (Places) by asking 1-2 students if they have travelled Leadto somewhere or if they would like to travel to somewhere in/prepare - Ask students why they want to go there or if they have been, and what do they like for the about that place. activity, - Possibly talk about your own experience of travelling (Where have I been, what do I introduce like, etc.) the - Pre-teach some useful vocabularies that are in the text. activity Setting up & Running the activity

- Divide the learners into 3 groups equally - Hand out the material - Organise which text in the material the groups need to read (E.g. Group 1 read Dublin; Group 2 read Canterbury and Leeds, etc.) and ask them to read it carefully - Ask learners to discuss in their group and make notes about the main ideas of the text and write a precise (summary) of the text.

- Remind them that they will have to present their summary to the whole class - Monitor at the start of the activity to check that the task has been understood and that learners are doing what I intended them to do.

- Go on to every group quickly to see what main points they have included and answer any questions.

- Let learners do the activity without leaning on my help too much.

- After checking with each group, ask the groups to present their summary to the whole class(other groups need to understand) and teacher write it on the blackboard.

Closing

-See if other groups understand and if they have any questions.

Postactivity

- Finish up the lesson - Ask learners to write a 150 words paragraph about a place that they would like to go (similar to the texts from the material and use the vocabularies taught) 34

Swansea Linguistics Journal

Teaching English as a Foreign Language: Theory and Practice – The Benefits and limitations of a “what does what” intensive reading task.

Author Unknown

1. Introduction The purpose of this essay is to justify the intensive reading (IR) task outlined in appendix A. An IR task is a task assigned to a text that is aimed at assisting learners to understand features of the target language so that those features can be applied to future reading. This essay will also show how this task fulfils the ‘language-focused learning’ element of Nation’s (2009a, p.9) 4 strands. Language-focused learning is the deliberate teaching of language features, such as, grammar or pronunciation (Nation 2009a, p.9). Nation’s (2009a, p.9) 4 strands is a theory for constructing a well-balanced language course, including ‘meaning-focused input’ (learning through listening and reading), ‘meaning-focused output’ (learning through speaking and writing), ‘language-focused learning’ and ‘fluency’ (practise that encourages the learner to use the target language at a greater speed) and demonstrate the task’s adherence to Nation’s (2009b, p.28), “features of a good intensive reading exercise”. These four features are: 1) the study of language features that can help learners with future texts; 2) a task that requires the learners to read the text to answer the questions; 3) a task that shows both the teacher and learners how well they are performing; 4) A task that is easy to make.

The learners in the class are adult refugees whose first language is Arabic and who now live in the UK permanently. There are ten learners in the class; they are currently at beginner level in English language learning. The task is entitled ‘What does what?’ (Nation, 2009b p.41) and provides the learners with a list of verbs from three different texts. The learners have to identify the subject and the object that the verb refers to and write both in a sentence using the active form of the verb. The aim of this activity is to assist the learner with the next step in their learning, or as Nation describes it: ‘tomorrow’s text’ (2009b, p.28).

2. Before the Lesson and Lead-in The preparation required for this task is quick and simple, in line with Nation’s (2009b, p.28) good IR task guideline. The teacher needs only to find an appropriate text, highlight the suitable verbs and write a brief description of the task. As this task is quick and easy to prepare, the teacher will be able to give this type of task at regular intervals. Nation (2009a, p.9) affirms this type of repetition is a condition for effective ‘language-focused learning’. The task requires the that creating an environment conducive to learning might be the teacher’s most important job. This can be achieved simply by asking the students how they are. Creating this opportunity for engagement as a class without the pressure of a task can stimulate whole-class discussion and encourage participation from learners who may feel uncomfortable speaking in a whole-class environment.

To lead in to the main task the teacher provides several practice verbs to demonstrate how to complete the task. The learners’ response to this lead-in has three purposes. It enables the teacher to explain how to complete the task in addition to providing an opportunity to gauge the difficulty of the task for the learners. It also serves to boost the students’ confidence in their abilities after they have completed the practice successfully. Scrivener (1994, p.28) highlights the usefulness of this type of a pre-activity by suggesting that it might help increase the motivation of the learners. The lead-in also highlights the specific language features required to complete the main task, which is Nation’s (2009b, p.28) first requirement for a good IR exercise. Furthermore, the intentional focus on a language feature is a condition of Nation’s (2009a, p.9) language-focused learning. Although there are many theoretical benefits to this lead-in activity, in practice some learners may not feel comfortable contributing at the beginning of the lesson in a whole-class discussion. However, within the lead-in there is also the opportunity for the teacher to give formative feedback. This is feedback aimed at helping the student 35 perform better in the future (Harmer 2015, p.154),

Swansea Linguistics Journal

which may provide encouragement and boost self-esteem for those learners lacking the confidence to participate. Another potential disadvantage to using a lead-in is that these can easily take up too much time. Most classes are time-pressured therefore, it is also important to teach efficiently in order to capitalise on valuable learning time.

3. Set-Up The teacher explains the activity before giving the learners the hand-out that details the task. This gives the teacher more control over the class and reduces distraction. As Brinton (2014) asserts, a task that is well set-up and communicated can create a positive atmosphere, communicate a theme and reduce anxiety. This type of set-up will also demonstrate to the learners that the lead-in activity provided them with all the knowledge needed to complete the task, which is one of the language-focused learning conditions outlined by Nation (2009a, p.9). The learners are initially required to read the texts to gain an understanding of the context for the questions that follow. They have the opportunity to ask the teacher to define any unknown vocabulary and write these definitions on the board. The text is a graded reader (a text designed for a particular level of language proficiency) so although these definitions are useful, it is important for the teacher to do this concisely as vocabulary is not the main focus of the task.

The on-going interaction provided within the lead-in, feedback and learner questions, is useful to both the learners and the teacher. These activities have elements of the communicative teaching approach. This is a language teaching approach that focuses on using the target language the way it would be used in everyday interactions to communicate effectively (Harmer, 2015, p.57). These types of interactions provide regular feedback to the teacher about the learners’ development. It enables the teacher to target their dialogue with the student and informs their strategy for providing an appropriate level of challenge for each learner.

Following the vocabulary exercise, the teacher communicates the format for the remaining activities, including explaining that the first text will be completed as a whole class together, the second in pairs and the final text individually. Breaking down the task into three parts has many advantages. Firstly, group work and pair work both create an opportunity for the class to bond (Brinton, 2013). Secondly, the teacher’s role in leading the first task gives the opportunity to resolve any confusion or problems regarding the task. Scrivener (1994, p.30) suggests that a good way to give a clear and concise explanation of the task is to give an example. Finally, it allows the learners to repeat their learning in three different forms without seeming overly repetitive. The on-going opportunity for feedback and discussion within the task also fulfils two of Nation’s (2009a, p.9) conditions for language-focused learning: engaging with the language features in an in-depth approach and repeated attention to these features.

4. Delivering the Activity After the whole-class stage of the activity is complete and the learners begin the pair work, the teacher is able to move around and monitor the learners’ conversations. This further enables the teacher to assess the learners’ abilities. Additionally, the learners gain a greater insight into their own language knowledge as they begin to engage in conversation and discuss their thoughts with their partner. This part of the task achieves Nation’s (2009b, p.28) criteria for a good IR exercise by giving the opportunity for both the teacher and the learners to become aware of the learners’ performance. One argument for the benefit of pair-work is that it provides an environment where learners must interact to understand each other and share their opinion (Brinton, 2013). Brinton (2013) also argues that it could aid less confident learners in their language practice as pair work is less intimidating than speaking in a whole-class environment.

However, despite the opportunity for the teacher to be aware of the conversations in pairs, it could be difficult to accurately assess how all the learners are coping with the task because more confident learners could dominate the conversation. Nevertheless, pair work is beneficial in giving learners the opportunity to engage with the language features at a deeper level, which is another condition of Nation’s language36 focused learning (2009a p.9).

Swansea Linguistics Journal The feedback session following this part of the task gives an opportunity for the class to discuss the challenges. Carell and Carson (1997) argue that learners require strategies to effectively develop their ability to read in their second language (L2) so they suggest a strategic approach is needed to target specific language features. When giving feedback the teacher has the opportunity to offer these strategies to learners before they attempt the final part of the task. The learners complete the final element of the task individually. By this stage the task has been clearly outlined and there have been repeated opportunities for assistance and learning during the feedback elements of the task. Scrivener (1993, p.30) highlights the importance for the learners to have the opportunity to work without any teacher input, even if some of the learners find the task challenging. This part of the task will be beneficial to some of the students but if the level of challenge is too great for other learners, it could lead to loss of confidence in students who struggle with the activity and feel insecure in their L2 ability.

5. Evaluation and Homework The verbal feedback at the end of the task gives the learners the opportunity to evaluate the task as a whole, including what they found easy, what they liked and what they disliked. The clear benefit of group discussion at the end of the class is that learners and teachers are able to discuss in greater depth their strategies for completing the task. Hui, Caixia and Hua (2014) argue that in order for learners to achieve in English reading they need to deploy a combination of language learning strategies. A limitation associated with this type of feedback is that in contrast to written corrective feedback, it does not highlight the errors made by those learners who might contribute less or possibly not at all to the evaluation. In addition to this, verbal feedback is not easily recorded or easily referred to at a later date.

The homework reiterates the purpose of the exercise, which is to provide the learners with a skill that is applicable to any text, and therefore requires students to select two texts of their own choosing to repeat the exercise. They then record what they found easy and what was challenging in order to elicit analysis of their own learning. This metacognitive approach is suggested by Carrell and Carson (1997) to be a necessary component to learning specific language features.

6. Conclusion As shown in this essay, the task achieved all four parts of Nation’s (2009b, p.28) criteria for a good IR task as well as the conditions for his language-focused learning task. However, there are clear limitations inherent to this task, as with all IR tasks. Although the delivery method selected for the task attempts to encompass many different styles of learning, it does favour the learners who are more confident speaking in a whole-class discussion. Whilst this is a limitation, the task succeeds in targeting a specific element of grammar that is applicable to other texts, therefore helping learners with ‘tomorrow’s reading’ as Nation recommends (2009b, p.28).

37

Swansea Linguistics Journal

The layout of this route map is based on the route map outlined in Scrivener (2011, pp. 40-43.).

38

Swansea Linguistics Journal

Bibliographies for Journal Articles The Homeland of Indo-European, and its Geographical Spread: Ammerman, A., & Cavalli-Sforza, L. (1984). The Neolithic Transition and the Genetics of Populations in Europe (pp. 63-84). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Anthony, D., Bogucki, P., Comşa, E., Gimbutas, M., Jovanović, B., Mallory, J., & Milisaukas, S. (1986).

The "Kurgan Culture," Indo-European Origins, and the Domestication of the Horse: A Reconsideration [and Comments and Replies]. Current Anthropology, 27(4), 291-313. doi: 10.1086/203441 Arvidsson, S. (2006). Aryan Idols (p. 55). Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.

Balter, M. (2003). LINGUISTICS: Early Date for the Birth of Indo-European Languages. Science, 302(5650), 1490a-1491. doi: 10.1126/science.302.5650.1490a Bryant, E. (2004). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture (p. 39). New York: Oxford University Press, Incorporated.

Charpentier, J. (1926). The Original Home of the Indo-Europeans. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 4(01), 163. doi: 10.1017/s0041977x00102666 Childe, V. (1926). The Aryans: A Study of Indo-European Origins. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Drews, R. (1995). The Coming of the Greeks. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Pr. Gamkrelidze, T., & Ivanov, V. (1990). The Early History of Indo-European Languages. Scientific American, 262(3), 110-116. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0390-110 Gamkrelidze, T., & Ivanov, V. (2010). Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-Language and Proto-Culture. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Gimbutas, M. (1963). The Indo-Europeans: Archaeological Problems. American Anthropologist, 65(4), 815836. doi: 10.1525/aa.1963.65.4.02a00030 Gray, R., & Atkinson, Q. (2003). Language-Tree Divergence Times Support the Anatolian Theory of IndoEuropean Origin. Nature, 426(6965), 435-439. doi: 10.1038/nature02029 Gray, R., Atkinson, Q., & Greenhill, S. (2011). Language Evolution and Human History: What a Difference a Date Makes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1567), 1090-1100. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0378 Krell, K. (2003). Gimbutas' Kurgan-PIE Homeland Hypothesis. In R. Blench & M. Spriggs, Archaeology and Language II: Archaeological Data and Linguistic Hypotheses. Abingdom: Routledge.

Kuhn, F. (1845). Zur ältesten Geschichte der indogermanischen Völker. Berlin: Nauck.

Mallory, J., & Adams, D. (1997). Encyclopaedia of Indo-European Culture (p. 339). London: Fitzroy Dearborn.

39

Swansea Linguistics Journal

Margaryan, A., Derenko, M., Hovhannisyan, H., Malyarchuk, B., Heller, R., & Khachatryan, Z. et al.

(2017). Eight Millennia of Matrilineal Genetic Continuity in the South Caucasus. Current Biology, 27(13), 2023-2028.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.05.087 McCormac, H. (1860). The Aryan Unity. Ulster Journal of Archaeology, 8(1), 62.

McGetchin, D. (2009). Indology, Indomania, and Orientalism (p. 155). Madison [N.J.]: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.

Pereltsvaig, A., & Lewis, M. (2015). The Indo-European Controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Reich, D. (2018). Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past (1st ed., p. 120). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Renfrew, C. (1989). The Origins of Indo-European Languages. Scientific American, 261(4), 106-114. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican1089-106 Renfrew, C. (1994). World Linguistic Diversity. Scientific American, 270(1), 116-123. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0194-116 Schrader, O., & Jevons, F. (1890). Prehistoric Antiquities of the Aryan Peoples: A Manual of Comparative Philology and the Earliest Culture. New York: Scribner & Welford.

Swiggers, P. (2017). Indo-European Linguistics in the 19th and 20th Centuries: Beginnings, Establishment, Remodeling, Refinement and Extension (s). In J. Klein, B. Joseph & M. Fritz, Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics: An International Handbook (p. 181). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. Wang, C., Reinhold, S., Kalmykov, A., Wissgott, A., Brandt, G., & Jeong, C. et al. (2018). The Genetic Prehistory of the Greater Caucasus. Pre-Print. doi: 10.1101/322347

The Origin and Evolution of Language: Bates, E., Thai, D., & Marchman, V. (1989). Symbols and Syntax: A Darwinian Approach to Language Development. In N. Krasnegor, D. Rumbaugh, R. Schiefelbusch, M. Studdert-Kennedy & E. Thelen, Biological and Behavioural Determinants of Language Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bickerton, D. (1991). Language & Species. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Coolidge, F., Overmann, K., & Wynn, T. (2010). Recursion: What is it, Who has it, and How did it Evolve?. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2(5), 547-554. doi: 10.1002/wcs.131 De Villiers, T. (2006). Mind and Language: Evolution in Contemporary Theories of Cognition(Ph.D).

Stellenbosch University.

Deacon, T. (1996). Prefrontal Cortex and Symbol Learning: Why a Brain Capable of Language Evolved Only Once. In B. VelichkovskiÄ­ & D. Rumbaugh, Communicating Meaning: The Evolution and Development of Language. London: Psychology Press.

40

Swansea Linguistics Journal Dediu, D., & de Boer, B. (2015). Language Evolution Needs its Own Journal. Journal of Language Evolution, 1(1), 1-6. doi: 10.1093/jole/lzv001 DoÄ&#x;ru, G. (2013). Review of The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve? by M. Hauser, N. Chomsky W. T. Fitch (Masters). Bogazici University.

Griffin, A. (2017). Facebook Robots Shut Down After They Talk to Each Other in Language Only they Understand. Retrieved from https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-andtech/news/facebook-artificial-intelligence-ai-chatbot-new-language-research-openai-googlea7869706.html Hauser, M., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. (2002). The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve?. Science, 298(5598), 1569-1579. doi: 10.1126/science.298.5598.1569 Jackendoff, R., & Pinker, S. (2005). The Nature of the Language Faculty and its Implications for Evolution of Language (Reply to Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky). Cognition, 97(2), 211-225. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2005.04.006 Kirby, S. (2007). The Evolution of Language. In R. Dunbar & L. Barrett, Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (pp. 669-681). Oxford: OUP. Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley.

Lieberman, P. (1987). The Biology and Evolution of Language. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Nehal, M., & Afzal, M. (2012). Origin and Evolution of Human Language - A Brief Survey of Some Theories and Approaches. LANGUAGE IN INDIA, 12.

Parisi, D. (2009). Artificial Organisms with Human Language. In S. Nolfi & M. Mirolli, Evolution of Communication and Language in Embodied Agents (pp. 13-33). Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.

Pedro, V. (2015). Artificial Intelligence and Language. Retrieved from https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/12/artificial-intelligence-and-language/ Pinker, S., & Bloom, P. (1990). Natural Language and Natural Selection. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 13(04), 707-727. doi: 10.1017/s0140525x00081061 Pinker, S., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). The Faculty of Language: What's Special About it?. Cognition, 95(2), 201-236. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.08.004 Routledge, C. (2009). Continuity. In S. Chapman, Key Ideas in Linguistics and the Philosophy of Language (pp. 26-28). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Steels, L. (2001). Language Games for Autonomous Robots. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 16(5), 16-22. doi: 10.1109/mis.2001.956077 Steels, L. (2015). The Talking Heads Experiment: Origins of Words and Meanings. Berlin: Language Science Press.

Ulbaek, I. (1998). The Origin of Language and Cognition. In J. Hurford, M. Studdert-Kennedy & C. Knight, Approaches to the Evolution of Language (pp. 30-43). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

41

Swansea Linguistics Journal

Perceptual Dialectology: Cameron, D. (2015). Forked tongues: Deborah Cameron on Guy Deutscher’s account of linguistic evolution, the unfolding of language. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/ books/2005/ jul/02/featuresreviews.guardianreview13 Jenkins, J. (2012). English as a Lingua Franca from the classroom to the classroom. ELT Journal, Vol. 66, 4(1), 486–494, doi: 10.1093/elt/ccs040 Hernández-Campoy, J. M. (2005). Reviewed work: Investigating language attitudes: social meanings of dialect, ethnicity and performance by P. Garrett, N. Coupland, & A. Williams. Language in Society, 34(3), 467-470. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/ stable/4169436 Hoenigswald, H. (1966). A Proposal for the Study of Folk-Linguistics. In W. Bright (Ed.) Sociolinguistics. (pp. 16–26). The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.

Mase, Y. (1999). Dialect consciousness and dialect divisions. In D. Preston (Ed.), Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology (1st ed.) (pp.71-99). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Penhallurick, R. (2018). Studying dialect. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Penhallurick, R., & Willmott, A. (2000). Dialect England’s dreaming. In R. Penhallurick (Ed.), Debating dialect, essays on the philosophy of dialect study. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

Preston, D. R. (1989a). Perceptual dialectology: nonlinguists' views of areal linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris.

Retrieved from ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral. proquest.com/lib/swanseaebooks/detail.action?docID=3042196 Preston, D. R. (1989b). Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Preston, D. R. (1993). The uses of folk linguistics. International journal of applied linguistics, 3(2), 181259. doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.1993.tb00049.x Preston, D.R. (1999). Handbook of perceptual dialectology (1st ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/swansea-ebooks/ detail.action?docID=622638 Preston, D. R. (2010). Mapping the geolinguistic spaces in your brain. In A. Lameli, R.Kehrein, & S. Rabanus (Eds.), Language and space: an international handbook of linguistic variation. Vol. 2.

Language Mapping, Part II: Maps. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Retrieved from https://www-degruyter-com.openathens-proxy.swan. ac.uk/view/product/41593 Rensink, W.G. (1999). Informant classification of dialects. In D. Preston (Ed.), Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology (1st ed.) (pp. 3–7).

42

Swansea Linguistics Journal Wales, K. (2006). Dialects in mental contact: a critique of perceptual dialectology. In H. Grabes & W. Viereck (Eds.), The Wider Scope of English. Frankfurt: Peter Lang White, M. (1993). Reviewed work: contexts of accommodation by H. Giles, J. Coupland, & N. Coupland. Language 69(4), 857. doi:10.2307/416913

Psycholinguistics and Aphasia: Acharya, A. B., & Wroten., M. (2019). Broca's Aphasia. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK436010/ Broca, P. (1861). Remarks on the Seat of the Faculty of Articulated Language,. Bulletin de la Société Anatomique, 330-357. Retrieved from https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Broca/aphemie-e.htm Code, C. (1989). Symptoms, Syndromes, Models: The Nature of Aphasia. In C. Code (Ed.), The Characteristics of Aphasia. London: Taylor & Francis Ltd. Darley, F. (1982). Aphasia. Philadelphia: Saunders.

Dronkers, N., & Baldo, J. (2009). Language: Aphasia. Encyclopedia of Neuroscience, 343-348.

Ellis, A. W., Miller, D., & Sin, G. (1984). Wernicke's aphasia and normal language processing: A case study in cognitive neuropsychology. Cognition, 15(1-3), 111-144.

Fridriksson, J., Kjartansson, O., Morgan, P., Hjaltason, H., Magnusdotti, S., Bonilha, L., & Rorden, C. (2010). Impaired speech repetition and left parietal lobe damage. The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscienc, 30(33), 11057–11061. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1120-10.2010 Geschwind, N. (1965). Disconnection Syndromes in Animals and Man - Part I. Brain, 88, 237-94.

Goodglass, H. (1993). Understanding aphasia. San Diego (CA): Academic press.

Goodglass, H., Quadfasel, F. A., & Timberlake, W. H. (1964). Phrase length and the type and severity of aphasia. Cortex: A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior, 1(2), 133-153. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(64)80018-6 Swanberg, M., Nasreddine, Z., Mendez, M., & Cummings, J. (2007). Speech and Language. In C. Goetz (Ed.), Textbook of Clinical Neurology (3rd ed., pp. 79-98). Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier.

Tarulli, A. (2010). Neurology : A clinician's approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com Watari, T., Shimizu, T., & Tokuda, Y. (2014). Broca aphasia. Case Reports 2014.

43

Swansea Linguistics Journal

Leadership and Management in Education: Allen, N., Grigsby, B., & Peters, M. (2015). Does Leadership Matter? Examining the Relationship Among Transformational Leadership, School Climate, and Student Achievement. NCPEA International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 10(2).

Anderson, M. (2017). Transformational Leadership in Education: A Review of Existing Literature. International Social Science Review, 93(1), 4.

Avolio, B., & Bass, B. (1993). Transformational Leadership and Organisational Culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 112-121. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/40862298?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B., & Riggio, R. (2006). Transformational Leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Bush, T. (2014). Instructional and Transformational Leadership: Alternative and Complementary Models?. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(4), 443-444. doi: 10.1177/1741143214526830 Carlyle, T. (1905). On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History, by Thomas Carlyle. London: Chapman and Hall.

Christison, M. (2009). Leadership in English Language Education. New York, NY: Routledge.

D'Amico, J. (1982). The Effective Schools Movement. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Better Schools, Inc. Fernando, M., & Yang, Y. (2006). Transformational Leadership in a Cross-Cultural Setting. In 20th Annual Australia New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM) Conference (pp. 1-21). Yeppoon: Central Queensland University.

Finnigan, K., & Stewart, T. (2009). Leading Change Under Pressure: An Examination of Principal Leadership in Low-Performing Schools. Journal of School Leadership,, 19(5), 586-618. doi: 10.1177/0013124511431570 Grizzard, T. (2007). The Impact of Instructional Leadership on School Climate: A Model for Principal and Teacher Improvement (PhD). Tennessee State University.

Hallinger, P. (2007). "Research on the Practice of Instructional and Transformational Leadership: Retrospect and Prospect". Presentation.

Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the Instructional Management Behaviour of Principals. The Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217-247. doi: 10.1086/461445 Hallinger, P., & Wang, W. (2015). Assessing Instructional Leadership with the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale. New York: Springer.

44

Swansea Linguistics Journal Hattie, J. (2015). High-Impact Leadership. Educational Leadership, 72(5), 36-40.

Heck, R., & Hallinger, P. (2005). The Study of Educational Leadership and Management. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 33(2), 229-244. doi: 10.1177/1741143205051055 Jacobson, S., Johnson, L., Ylimaki, R., & Giles, C. (2005). Successful Leadership in Challenging US Schools: Enabling Principles, Enabling Schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(6), 607-618. doi: 10.1108/09578230510625700 Johnson, D. (2006). Instructional Leadership and Academic Performance in Tennessee High Schools (PhD).

University of Tennessee.

Leithwood, K. (1992). The Move Toward Transformational Leadership. Educational Ledership, 49(5), 8-12.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The Effects of Transformational Leadership on Organizational Conditions and Student Engagement with School. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 112-129. doi: 10.1108/09578230010320064 Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing Leadership for Changing Times. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Matz, A. (2017). Instructional Leadership and Student Achievement—How Preparation Builds the Foundation for New Teachers - NCTR. Retrieved from https://nctresidencies.org/instructional-leadershipstudent-achievement-preparation-builds-foundation-new-teachers/ McCarley, T., Peters, M., & Decman, J. (2014). Transformational Leadership Related to School Climate. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(2), 322-342. doi: 10.1177/1741143214549966 Mulford, B., Kendall, D., Ewington, J., Edmunds, B., Kendall, L., & Silins, H. (2008). Successful Principalship of High‐Performance Schools in High‐Poverty Communities. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(4), 461-480. doi: 10.1108/09578230810882009 Murakami-Ramalho, E., Garza, E., & Merchant, B. (2010). Successful School Leadership in SocioEconomically Challenging Contexts: School Principals Creating and Sustaining Successful School Improvement. International Studies in Educational Administration, 32(3), 35-55.

O'Donnell, R., & White, G. (2005). Within the Accountability Era: Principals' Instructional Leadership Behaviours and Student Achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 89(645), 56-71. doi: 10.1177/019263650508964505 Rahmany, R., Hasani, M., & Parhoodeh, K. (2014). EFL Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Being Supervised in an EFL Context. Journal of Language Teaching And Research, 5(2), 348-359. doi: 10.4304/jltr.5.2.348-359 Shah, S., & Harthi, K. (2014). TESOL Classroom Observations: A Boon or a Bane? An Exploratory Study at a Saudi Arabian University. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(8). doi: 10.4304/tpls.4.8.15931602 Tableman, B. (2004). School Culture and School Climate. Best Practice Briefs, 31.

Tedla, B. (2012). Instructional Leadership and School Climate: A Case Study of a Secondary School in Eritrea. Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal, Special 1(1), 846-855. doi: 10.20533/licej.2040.2589.2012.0112

45

Swansea Linguistics Journal

Teaching English: Intensive Reading Communicative purposes. (2017, June 16). Retrieved January 07, 2018, from http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095627947 Richards, J. C. (2006) – Communicative Language Teaching Today. CUP Harmer, J. (1991) - The Practice of English Language Teaching, 2nd ed. Harlow: Longman Harmer, J. (2007) - The Practice of English Language Teaching, 4th ed. Harlow: Longman Harmer, J. (1982) – What is communicative? ELT Journal, Volume 36, Issue 3, Pages 164– 168, https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/36.3.164 Selecting and Developing Teaching/Learning Materials. (n.d.). Retrieved January 07, 2018, from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Kitao-Materials.html

The Practice of English Language Teaching: Scrivener, J. (2011) Learning Teaching: The essential guide to English language teaching (3rd ed.).

Macmillan: Oxford Nation, I. S. P., & Newton, J. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL Listening and Speaking. New York: Routledge.

Nation, I.S.P. (2009) Teaching ESL/EFL Reading and Writing. Routledge: London Carrell, P. & Carson, J. (1997) Extensive and intensive reading in an EAP setting. English for Specific Purposes, 16 (1), pp. 47 – 60.

Park, H., & Lee, A. R. (n.d.). L2's Anxiety, Self-Confidence and Oral Performance. Retrieved December 04, 2018, from http://www.paaljapan.org/resources/proceedings/PAAL10/pdfs/hyesook.pdf

Teaching English: The Benefits and Limitations of a “What Does What” Task.

Carrell, P. & Carson, J. (1997) Extensive and Intensive Reading in an EAP setting. English for Specific Purposes, 16 (1), 47–60.

Brinton, D. M. (2014). Tools and Techniques of Effective Second/Foreign Language Teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), (2014). Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (4th ed., pp. 340-361). Boston: National Geographic Learning.

Harmer, J. (2015). The Practice of English Language Teaching (5th). Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

Hui, H., Caixia, H., & Hua, L. (2014). On The Significance of Learner Strategies in English Reading on Learners’ Language Achievement. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(2), 323-328.

46

Swansea Linguistics Journal Scrivener, J. (2011). Learning Teaching: The Essential Guide to English language Teaching (3rd ed.). Oxford: Macmillan.

Scrivener, J. (1994). Learning teaching: A guide Book for English language Teachers. Oxford: Macmillan.

Nation, I.S.P., & Newton, J. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL Listening and Speaking. London: Routledge.

Nation, I.S.P. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL Reading and Writing. London: Routledge.

47

Swansea Linguistics Journal

48