169 10 3494 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Extent The size or duration of the resource. 2868 Title A name given to the resource LANGUAGE AND IDENTITY IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE CLASSES Author Author Karkili, Ferhat Abstract A summary of the resource. The current sociolinguistic study focuses on Language identity in foreign language classes. This research primarily focused on practical study for the constructs of language, culture, and identity in foreign language classes. In addition, this research also provided theoretical contributions for identity while embracing the existing body of knowledge. With a growing number of cosmopolitan cultures sending students into new locations, the need for knowledge about how individuals and students effectively combine and connect to their host country is paramount. Have you ever considered what number of diverse languages, religions, cultures there are on the planet? Make that inquiry or maybe goggle it; however we are certain the response won't really can't be observed that effortlessly. The relationship between language, identity and social distinction is a significant sympathy toward numerous sociolinguists and analysts. As it is well-known, language, identity and cultural variation are nearly joined and influence one another. Individuals who talk more than one foreign language, or who basically talk a foreign language realize that itis not simply enough to know that specific language. At the point when getting a foreign language it is exceptionally vital to think about the province where that specific language is talked, and afterward to learn something about the society displayed in that nation. Since there are various diverse languages and they all fit in with a certain group where certain outflows are not quite the same as in alternate groups. Consider British and American English, for some individuals they are one language having distinctive articulation, for some they are totally diverse dialects, and maybe for some these two speak to something completely different. What is identity and how it identified with the language we talk, are a few perspectives that are managed throughout this paper. This study suggests a need to draw stronger theoretical connections between the constructs of language and identity. On the individual level of study, language and identity form and reform constantly to emerge as new individual. However, as this study has suggested, the entity may greatly influence the group’s fundamental ideas of culture and identity. Key words: Language, culture, foreign language teaching language, identity. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2014 Keywords Keywords. Thesis NonPeerReviewed L Education (General) https://omeka.ibu.edu.ba/files/original/c1a1727e073774bb33d86af5e1d683d3.pdf 9b8fb69ba777b7730dea5ba4e46e1e4d PDF Text Text LANGUAGE AND INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION FOR MOBILITY: INSIGHT FROM THE IEREST PROJECT Ana Beaven & Lucia Livatino Università di Bologna, Italy Article History: Submitted: 07.06.2015 Accepted: 21.06.2015 Abstract The increase in the number of students taking part in study abroad programmes worldwide has highlighted the need to offer intercultural preparation for this specific group of students. The IEREST European project (Intercultural Education Resources for Erasmus Students and their Teachers) has produced a set of teaching resources to help students benefit from their sojourn in terms of personal growth and intercultural learning. The theoretical approach underlying such resources is linked to a concept of interculturality that promotes the idea of multiple identities, and to the notion that identities are co-constructed in interaction (Holiday, 2011, 2013). Furthermore, the learners are taught to recognize the subjectivity and instability of worldviews. In this sense, the activities are culture-general, and can be taught to students regardless of their specific destination. This paper presents the activity “Meeting people abroad”. Although originally not designed for the language classroom, it was adapted for use in an Englishlanguage course for a group of future Erasmus students. Central to the activity is the learners’ engagement with other mobile students through the task of carrying out an interview from potentially non-essentialist perspectives. The target language is thus seen not as an aim in itself, but as the means to develop the learners’ intercultural communication skills and understanding. In their new format for the foreign language classroom, the activity was tested at the University of Bologna in September 2014. Feedback was collected through focus groups at the end of the course, and was used to evaluate the materials and reflect on ways of introducing the intercultural in foreign language education (Byram, 2008), in particular in the context of student mobility. �1. Introduction Since its creation in 1987, the Erasmus programme has enabled over three million students to study abroad for a period between three and twelve months as part of their university studies. Nevertheless, often the only preparation they receiveis in terms of language courses to enable them to study in the target language or learn the basics of the local language, when English is the medium of instruction. Nevertheless, it has become increasingly clear that studying abroad doesnot provide only an academic experience, but also – and perhaps primarily – an intercultural one. It is also evident from the literature that contact with people from different cultures does not in itself ensure the reduction of stereotypical perceptions nor the development of intercultural skills (Byram & Zarate, 1995; Coleman, 1998; Alred et al, 2003;Shaules, 2007) and scholars have called for preparation and support actions which can be help students from this point of view(Abdallah-Pretceille, 2008). It was therefore as an answer to this call that the IEREST (Intercultural Education Resources for Erasmus Students and their Teachers) European project1 was developed, aiming at a producing a set of teaching resources to help students benefit as much as possible from their study abroad experience in terms of their personal and intercultural development. The IEREST resources, however, were not developed for foreign language teaching. Nevertheless, we believe that they can fruitfully be adapted to the language classroom, in order to offer mobile students effective preparation from an intercultural as well as linguistic point of view. In the next sections of this paper, we will offer a brief outline of the theoretical underpinnings of the IEREST resources, followed by an overview of intercultural language teaching. We will then describe how one of the pre-departure activities was adapted to the English language classroom, and discuss the feedback provided by the students during the focus-group that followed the course. Finally, we will consider the implications of our pilot study. 2. The IEREST educational resources As mentioned above, the resources produced within the IEREST project, called ‘intercultural paths’, are designed to be taught before, during and after the sojourn abroad. They are ‘culture general’ in that they prepare mobile students for their intercultural experience rather than to travel to a specific destination. The materials, written in English, are published as Open Educational Resources and can therefore be adapted and translated into other languages. However, they have not been designed as language learning materials. �The theoretical approach underlying such resources is linked to a critical approach to interculturality, and in particular to culture, identity and power. 2.1 Culture Culture is often conceptualised from an essentialist perspective, whereby people are identified according to the ‘essence’ of their national culture (or “large culture”). This is often a stereotypical and reified concept of culture, which constrains individuals and reduces them to less than what they are. However, culture can also be conceptualised – and this is the IEREST approach – from a non-essentialist perspective. Cultures are therefore seen not as something solid and external to the individuals that ‘belong’ to it, but rather, from a social-constructivist viewpoint, as something that is co-created, agreed upon or transformed by individuals in interaction. Thus, the concept of “small culture” (Holliday, 1999) signifying any cohesive grouping (e.g., a neighbourhood, a work group, an Erasmus community) can be a useful notion to attempt to understand social behaviour. 2.2 Multiple identities Here, identity (like culture) is not seen as something solid and unchangeable, but rather as something that is constructed in context and that changes with context. People constantly (re)negotiate and (re)construct who they are in interaction with others (Holiday, 2011, 2013). Age, gender, social class, language or ethnic background, among others, all contribute to the creation of impressions of oneself and of others. People therefore construct a multiplicity of identities, where some of these aspects may be more relevant than others in different contexts, and can change. 2.3 Power in language Finally, an underlying idea of the project is that certain discourses limit the opportunity that some people have to enjoy multiplicity and to construct their identities in their own terms. Therefore, a critical approach is needed to deconstruct dominant discourses about otherness (Andreotti& de Souza, 2008; Guilherme, 2002). 3. Intercultural language teaching Before describing how the activities were adapted to the foreign language classroom for this specific study, a brief excursus into intercultural language teaching is necessary. Foreign language teaching, particularly since the advent of the communicative approach in the 1970’s, has been seen primarily in its instrumental role of enabling people to communicate �across languages in a socially appropriate way. In this context, culture has been seen as corollary to the teaching of effective communication with people from a specific cultural background, usually meaning specific countries where the target language is spoken. Thus, culture has been – and still is in much foreign language teaching – seen as equivalent to knowledge about specific countries, their high culture (mainly literature), history, landmarks and norms. In this perspective, study abroad has been seen as the ideal opportunity to learn a language and its ‘culture’, used in the singular. The move to an intercultural approach to language education (Byram 1989, 1997) has attempted to shift the emphasis from learning about a target culture to acquiring, through and in the foreign language, the knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary to be an interculturally competent person. More recently, Risager’s transnational paradigm (2007) questioned the one-to-one correspondence between a language and its (national) culture. Finally, some scholars have emphasised the need to place identity at the core of intercultural language teaching (Guilherme, 2002; Block, 2007; Norton and Toohey, 2011). It is within this framework that the IEREST materials – with the necessary adaptation – are considered highly suitable to the foreign language classroom. 4. The study This paper describes the adaptation and implementation of one of the pre-departure activities entitled “Meeting people abroad”, whose objectives are: • to enable students to critically respond to situations where they experience a need tomeet – or on the contrary avoid – “local” people, other international students, or other co-nationals; • to enable students tointeract with people from other cultural backgrounds from potentially non-essentialist perspectives. The activity was taught as part of a pilot Englishlanguagecourse in the autumn of 2014 at the University of Bologna, to a group of seven future Erasmus students. The students’ level in English was intermediate (B1-B1+ of the Common European Framework of Reference). The course lasted three lessons of three hours each for a total of nine hours. 4.1 The tasks The activity includes three tasks. In the first, the students are asked to analyse the brochures and/or websites of their destination country or university, including photographs or descriptions of the local people. Through this, they become aware of ways of stereotyping or idealising others. In the second task, the students analyse a video of an Erasmus student in Portugal interviewing her fellow students. By concentrating on aspects of culture that the interviewer (or the interviewees) �choose to highlight or ignore, the students become aware of how people provide their listeners with a subjective view of themselves or of others. The students then carry out and video-record an interview to an incoming student from their destination country before they come to class. In class, they analyse the video-recordings in groups, paying attention to how successful they were to avoid an essentialist interviewing style, to whether the interviewee used stereotypes, and to how stereotyping can happen as a result of leading questions asked by the interviewers. During the course described here, the original intercultural objectives were supplemented with linguistic objectives as follows: Intercultural objectives Task 1 Linguistic objectives Understanding ways of stereotyping and Practising idealising others comprehension skills on authentic materials for authentic purposes Oral production/interaction during class discussion Pragmatics: hedging and mitigation of claims though the use of modals, adverbial phrases and indirect speech. Task 2 Interpreting what people say about their Practising written comprehension skills culture as evidence of what they wish (English subtitles) and oral others to see about themselves, and which (inter)comprehension(Portuguese and may not be applicable to others from that French) culture or group Note-taking on completing a grid and during mini-lecture Oral production/interaction during group discussion Task 3 Interacting with othersby adopting a non- Pragmatics: essentialist style. Noticing Expressing politeness how (interview preparation) stereotyping can be the result of a leading Morphosyntax: Question formation question. Reflect on ways in which (interview preparation) stereotyping can be deconstructed. Language/communication awareness: Interacting through English as Lingua Franca (interview preparation) Oral interaction during the interviews �Oral production/interaction during class discussion Table 1 – Intercultural and language objectives. 4.2 Data collection Following the 9-hour course, the students were asked to take part in a focus group to collect their feedback. The students were asked about their perceived learning resulting from the interviewing task, their intercultural and language learning, and their overall satisfaction with the course. 4.3 Feedback on the interview task All the students stated they had enjoyed carrying out an interview in English to an incoming student from their destination country. Specifically, one student (Elena) – who had interviewed two Belgian students at the same time – commented on her ability to notice contradictions between the students, and to think critically about this: ‘So she underlined the positive aspects, but when the other guy came, she said “No, for me it’s not the same”… there were differences and they came up […]Before doing this course, I wouldn’t have noticed these aspects, so I would hear their explanations without being critical to what she was saying to me.’ Another student (Andrea) had noticed how his leading question had been the cause of his interviewee’s generalisation about ‘the English’: ‘I tried not to ask something that generalised. I think only the first question: “What’s the relationship between the English people and Erasmus people”, maybe she tried to answer me in a contextual way, in a … “well, we aren’t very… we live separately, but if you want to live the English life, we’re open to other people, to other cultures”.’ Michel reported becoming aware of how making questions more specific can help one’s interlocutor provide answers which avoid generalisations: ‘I noticed when she said for three times “it depends”, in three different questions. I wouldn’t have noticed that before, and so when she said “it depends” I was trying to be �more specific with the questions, like “it depends on what?” Before I wouldn’t have focused on this.’ Finally, Francesca commented on how she was able to interpret what her interlocutor said in the light of the theoretical concepts discussed in class: ‘In my experience this aspect came when we talked about the traditional customs in Portugal, and she told me that some people like and some people don’t like the traditional customs. So she [wanted me to understand] that each experience is personal […] She wants [me] to understand that I [shouldn’t] listen to one part of the [general] context, I must hear one side and then another side.’ 4.4. Language Learning In terms of language learning, and despite the brevity of the course, the students appreciated the possibility to practice aspects of language related to communicating in real contexts, and get a taste of what they would have to do once abroad: ‘Trying to speak with other international students, because usually we can’t do this at university, because usually I attend with other Italian students, so this is an opportunity to contact, to speak with international students.’ (Matteo) ‘Also learning about starting a conversation. Because answering a question is easier than starting a new conversation. So starting it, and keeping it going, yeah… (Michel) ‘… And find a way to structure the phrases, so if I don’t remember a word, I try another way. Now I feel more confident with English.’ (Francesca) ‘Maybe also more brave to speak with others.’ (Elena) ‘Being able to speak in class, and speak about topics we don’t usually discuss in language lessons.’ (Andrea) 4.5 Intercultural learning �The intercultural objectives had been a novelty to all of the participants, who felt that this facet of the course was particularly useful for their preparation to go abroad. They mentioned having developed their awareness of the dangers of generalisations (both positive and negative) as well as being more open to listening to what their interlocutors said rather than jumping to conclusions. More than a specific preparation, what I got out of this is a forma mentis, about the idea of arriving in a different country, different from mine, and in particular relating to others and trying not to generalise… “We, Italians, we do things this way”. Maybe being more open, but also more critical, more careful about what others tell us, but also what we tell others… maybe we’ll notice that others generalise “oh, yes, we’re like this…”, but having done this course, we’ll try not to do that. (Elena) I underline the fact that now we’re much more careful about what we hear, but also what we say and how we say it… It was useful to interview an Erasmus student, because during the interview I paid a lot of attention to when she generalised, but also to when I had to reformulate a sentence in order to avoid generalising. (Michel) 5. Conclusion The present study has shown how intercultural language education should not imply prioritising the language over the intercultural objectives by, for example, adding ‘token’ intercultural aims to a pre-existing language syllabus. Acknowledging the importance of intercultural development as a way to access other worldviews is crucial when preparing students to study abroad, but not only. After all, the foreign language classroom is the ideal place to explore and put into practice intercultural communication. As Liddicoat and Scarino put it, “learners are from the beginning of their learning users of language, in fact users of languages, through which they present themselves and construct and explore their worlds. Language is not a thing to be studied but a way of seeing, understanding, and communicating about the world” (Liddicoat & Scarino 2013). References Abdallah-Pretceille, M. (2008) Mobilité sans conscience…! In F. Dervin and M. Byram (Eds.) Echangesetmobilitésacadémiques – Quelbilan?(pp. 215-231) Paris: L’Harmattan. �Alred, G., M. Byram, and M. Fleming (Eds.)(2003). Intercultural Experience and Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Andreotti, V. & de Souza, L.M.T.M. (2008). Translating theory into practice and walking minefields: lessons from the project ‘Through Other Eyes’. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning. 1(1), 23-36. Block, D. (2007). Second language identities. London: Continuum. Byram, M. (1989). Intercultural education and foreign language teaching.World Studies Journal,7(2), 4-7. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. and Zarate, G (1995) Young people facing difference – Some proposals for teachers. Council of Europe Publishing. Coleman, J.A. (1998) Language learning and study abroad: the European perspective. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 4, 1-21. Guilherme, M. (2002). Critical citizens for an intercultural world. Foreign language education as cultural politics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Holliday, A. R. (1999). Small cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20(2), 237-64. Holliday, A. R. (2011). Intercultural communication & ideology. London: Sage. Holliday, A. R. (2013). Understanding intercultural communication: negotiating a grammar of culture. London: Routledge. Liddicoat, A.J. and A. Sacrino (2013) Intercultural Language Teaching and Learning. New York: Wiley and Sons. Norton, B., &Toohey, K. (2011). Identity, language learning, and social change. Language Teaching, 44(4), 412–446. Risager, K., 2007. Language and Culture Pedagogy: From a National to a Transnational Paradigm. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Shaules, J. (2007) Deep Culture. The Hidden Challenges of Global Living. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 1www.ierest-project.eu � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Extent The size or duration of the resource. 2885 Title A name given to the resource LANGUAGE AND INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION FOR MOBILITY: INSIGHT FROM THE IEREST PROJECT Author Author Beaven, Ana Livatino, Lucia Abstract A summary of the resource. The increase in the number of students taking part in study abroad programmes worldwide has highlighted the need to offer intercultural preparation for this specific group of students. The IEREST European project (Intercultural Education Resources for Erasmus Students and their Teachers) has produced a set of teaching resources to help students benefit from their sojourn in terms of personal growth and intercultural learning. The theoretical approach underlying such resources is linked to a concept of interculturality that promotes the idea of multiple identities, and to the notion that identities are co-constructed in interaction (Holiday, 2011, 2013). Furthermore, the learners are taught to recognize the subjectivity and instability of worldviews. In this sense, the activities are culture-general, and can be taught to students regardless of their specific destination. This paper presents the activity “Meeting people abroad”. Although originally not designed for the language classroom, it was adapted for use in an Englishlanguage course for a group of future Erasmus students. Central to the activity is the learners’ engagement with other mobile students through the task of carrying out an interview from potentially non-essentialist perspectives. The target language is thus seen not as an aim in itself, but as the means to develop the learners’ intercultural communication skills and understanding. In their new format for the foreign language classroom, the activity was tested at the University of Bologna in September 2014. Feedback was collected through focus groups at the end of the course, and was used to evaluate the materials and reflect on ways of introducing the intercultural in foreign language education (Byram, 2008), in particular in the context of student mobility. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available International Burch University Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2015-07 Keywords Keywords. Article PeerReviewed P Philology. Linguistics Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Extent The size or duration of the resource. 3431 Title A name given to the resource LANGUAGE ATTRITION AND CODE-SWITCHING AMONG KURDISH PEOPLE LIVING IN SOUTHEASTERN ANATOLIA OF TURKEY Author Author Başkan, Fuat Abstract A summary of the resource. Language is in the process of change in the course of time. Most of the languages have taken several steps of modifications by changing or by borrowing words. Kurdish language like other languages in the world passed through a number of stages until reaches the present position. We can see different words in Kurdish language which were borrowed from different languages , such as, Persian, English, Turkish and Arabic. The aim of this study is to examine the first language attrition, code-switching words from Turkish to Kurdish. Owing to geographical influence and being neighbor of each other, Kurdish language has taken a good deal of Turkish words. There are numerous causes behind availability of Turkish words in Kurdish language. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2014 Keywords Keywords. Conference or Workshop Item PeerReviewed PE English https://omeka.ibu.edu.ba/files/original/bd2c701e85c3afde42432905ff633934.pdf a4aca9148d48a9c53fb40bf4da06c1ee PDF Text Text 1st International Conference on Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics May 5-7 2011 Sarajevo Language Change Amra HodţiĤ Jejna Department of English Language and Literature International University of Novi Pazar amrajejna@gmail.com Abstract: Every language changes constantly. English has been changing throughout its history and it is still changing today. New words are coming into use every day. The input of those words changes vocabulary, pronunciation, grammar and spelling of language. Of course, old forms and old pronunciations are dropping out of use as time goes by. This work is about language change. There is a great variety of reasons for language change: influence of the mass media, influence of travel and global communications, computers and technology, social change, scientific and technological discoveries, new concepts. First language has an effect on the pronunciation of the English as a Second language as well. This work gives brief answers to questions: why language changes, what are types of language change, how language changes spread through communities, how historical circumstances influence language change, what is the relationship between language learning and change, what is the evolutionary path of a language etc. Key Words: language, linguistics, change, grammar, pronunciation, spelling, vocabulary, influence, relationship. Introduction Languages change over time. It perhaps sounds a bit uncommon, but linguists find out that, for example, Japanese has not evolved a lot over centuries. On the other hand, English language changed very quickly in a relatively short period of time. Historical development of English language is long-lasting, permanent, versatile, but above all fruitful, because of its rich lexicon in comparison to other language systems. Different changes happened in phonetics, morphology, syntax and semantics and they are more radical than it actually appears. The pronunciation of English has changed a lot in past five centuries. The spelling has altered very little over the same period. So, we can conclude that English spelling is not the best marker for language change. Of course, we cannot predict the path of change, but we can describe one when it appears (Crystal, 2001). That is the way to find causes of change and to identify them. It is not easy to set a rule or pattern for an exact alteration, but when once done it becomes very important because of the application of those rules to other words, and also for building and expanding the vocabulary. According to Grzega and Schoner (2007), lexical change may be based on the prestige of another language or another variety of the same language or simply certain fashionable word-formation patterns. In their study they say that the kernel of this force is mostly found outside of language and is often the prestige of a culture, the superiority of a group or politics which cause speakers to adopt linguistic elements (words, morphemes, morphs, sounds) from the prestigious group‘s speech. Example: English, for instance, borrowed heavily from French during the Middle English period because the upper social classes were made up of French people: garment, flower, rose, face, prince, hour, question, dance, fork, royal, loyal, fine, zero are all Gallicisms. Today, English is the most prestigious language in many parts of the world. Why Languages Change Languages change for a great number of reasons. Various shifts usually happen in response to economic, social and political situation. Throughout history many examples of language change were caused 128 �1st International Conference on Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics May 5-7 2011 Sarajevo by invasions, colonization and migration. Of course, even without these extreme circumstances a language can change if enough speakers alter it. Very often, users‘ needs cause language change. Information technology, industry and some individual personal experiences require new notions and therefore, new words. For example, all the neologisms connected with cell phones or the Internet didn‘t exist in Middle English period. No two individuals use a language in exactly the same way. That is also a great source of language change. The vocabulary and phrases people use are linked to where they live, their age, education level, social status and sometimes to their membership in a particular group or community. Through conversation, we absorb new words and endings and later use them in our own speech. Types of Change There are three main domains of language change: vocabulary, syntactic structures and pronunciation. In the process of borrowing words from other languages, vocabulary changes very quickly. Some other ways are shortening, abbreviation or combining words. We also have examples of word creation by mistake. On the contrary, syntactic structure does not change that quickly. But if we compare Shakespeare‘s language to modern English — differences are more than visible. The sounds of the language transform as well. Pronunciation changes are more difficult to track down, but we can notice that words first written phonetically are now pronounced differently than their spellings suggest. Borrowed Words The simplest kind of influence that one language may have on another is the ―borrowing‖ of words. When there is cultural borrowing, there is always the likelihood that the associated words may be borrowed too (Sapir, 1921). Jamil Daher (2003) writes that ―languages use various strategies in borrowing: perhaps adopting and preserving the form used in the donor language, sometimes adapting the borrowed word to conform more closely to their own phonological and morphological systems, and sometimes creating a new word through loan translation. It is part of the cultural history of English speakers that they have always adopted loanwords from the languages of whatever cultures they have come in contact with‖. Approximately 10 percent of English words are actually of Anglo-Saxon origin. During its history, English has come into contact with many other languages and has adopted words from many of them (Daher, 2003). Though most of the additions were borrowed from Latin and Greek — either directly from those languages or through French — English has also borrowed words from other European languages, as well as from the languages of South Asia (e.g. bungalow), the Americas (e.g. tobacco, tomato, and potato), and Africa (e.g. zebra). The following is only a small selection illustrating the range of languages that have contributed to English vocabulary: American Indian (caucus, moose), Arabic (alcohol, assassin, zero), Chinese (ketchup, tea, wok), Czech (gherkin, robot, vampire), Dutch (brandy. cookie, landscape), Finnish (mink, sauna), German (kindergarten, sauerkraut. snorkel), Hebrew (cherub, jubilee), Hindi (bungalow, dinghy, shampoo), Hungarian (goulash), Italian (aria, balcony, lava, mafia, opera, piano. spaghetti), Japanese (futon, soy, sushi), Mexican (avocado, chocolate, tomato), Persian (arsenic, lilac), Portuguese (buffalo, marmalade, port), Russian (bistro, mammoth, sputnik, vodka), Sanskrit (candy, indigo, jungle), Spanish (cafeteria, cash, cockroach, sherry, siesta), Tahitian (tattoo), Tamil (catamaran, cheroot, mango), Tongan (taboo), Turkish (caftan, coffee, scarlet, yogurt), Yiddish (bagel, glitzy, kosher, schlep, schmooze, yenta) (Hogg, 2006). English still borrows, and is likely to continue borrowing from other languages of the world. However, borrowing in recent times is characterized by two main factors: the frequency of borrowing is considerably reduced; and English seems to be spreading its tentacles to reach and borrow from less and less known languages (Jackson and Ze Amvela, 2004). A study by Garland Cannon (1987) of more than a thousand recent loanwords from 84 languages shows that "about 25% are from French, 8% each from Japanese and Spanish, 7% each from Italian and Latin, 6% each from African languages, German and Greek, 4% each from Russian and Yiddish, 3% from Chinese, and progressively smaller percentages from Arabic, Portuguese, Hindi, Sanskrit, Hebrew, Afrikaans, Malayo-Polynesian, Vietnamese, Amerindian languages, Swedish, Bengali, Danish, Indonesian, Korean, Persian, Amharic, Irish, Norwegian, and 30 other languages". 129 �1st International Conference on Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics May 5-7 2011 Sarajevo Creating Words English has different ways for creating new words from existing resources, like derivation, compounding, conversion etc. There are many different ways in which speakers can coin new words by using only the existing resources of their language. Compounding - combining two existing words and forming a new one. From its earliest days, English has made frequent use of this device. Familiar examples include blackboard, girlfriend, ginger bread, daredevil, paperback, strip-tease, skinhead etc. Occasionally a new word is derived by combining two existing words with a suffix, as in blue-eyed, bookkeeper, sky-diving etc. Some of these compounds have been in the language for centuries, while the others are very recently formed. Among these words are ozone-friendly, laptop etc. (Trask, 1994). Great number of English words is formed by blending of existing words (e.g. brunch from breakfast and lunch) and by back-formations (e.g. donates from donation). Change in Pronunciation Like other aspects of language, pronunciation also changes over time. That is why we have different ‗accents‘- different ways of pronouncing a language. Every speaker of English has an accent. The range of accents in English is impressive. Over the time, the pronunciation has changed at least as much as any other aspect of language, and it has changed in different ways in different places (Trask, 1994). Consider the words farther and father. Do you pronounce these words identically or differently? If you pronounce those words identically you have what linguists call non-rhotic accent. If you pronounce differently, you have rhotic accent. These terms reflect the observation that rothic speakers actually pronounce an R-sound in the first word, though not in the second. Non-rhotic speakers do not pronounce Rsound in any of these words (Trask, 1994). Change in Spelling English spelling is complex and irregular, and it has only been fixed since the eighteen century. Much of this complexity derives from the custom of spelling words as they were pronounced centuries ago, rather than as they are pronounced now. What is the reason for that? There is no single reason. The history of English spelling is a rather complicated affair in which a number of distinct developments and influences can be identified. Of course the language change is the most important factor of the odd-looking spellings. Words like break, night, one, knife and should have spellings which accurately reflect the way they were pronounced centuries ago (Trask, 1994). Their pronunciation has changed, but not their spelling. The change in spelling these words were considered by some people, but so far their arguments have had little effect. Nevertheless, it is perfectly possible for spelling to change, and spelling of English has changed over the centuries. For example, spelling of the word hloefdige was eventually changed to lady to keep up with the newer pronunciation. In other cases spelling conventions have been altered, leading to a change in spelling even without any change in pronunciation, as when Old English cwic was replaced by quick. As an illustration of the complex history of English spelling, consider the word shield. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, this word has various spellings: scild, scyld, sceld, seld, sseld, sheld, cheld, scheld, sceild, scheeld, cheeld,schield,schilde, schylde, shilde, scield, scheild, shielde, shield,and shield. Only in the eighteenth century did the last form become fixed as the only possibility many other words show a similarly complex history (Trask, 1994). Change in Grammar Differences in grammatical forms between varieties of English are perhaps less serious than differences in vocabulary and pronunciation, but nevertheless exist. For example the familiar verb go formerly had an irregular past-tense form yede or yode. In the fifteenth century, however it acquired a new past-tense form: went. Where did this odd-looking form come from? It came from the now rare verb wend, which was formerly inflected wend/went, just like send/sent and spend/spent. But the past tense went was detached from wend and attached to go, which lost its earlier past tense, giving the modern English pattern go/went. 130 �1st International Conference on Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics May 5-7 2011 Sarajevo On the whole, the changes of English in the last several centuries have been less dramatic. At an earlier stage of its history, however, English underwent some changes in its grammar which were decidedly more spectacular and far-reaching. However grammar is continuing to change even today. Agents of Change Before one language changes, speakers absorb new vocabulary, sentence structures and sounds. The next thing is that they spread new altered language through the community and pass it to the next generation. According to linguistic researches, children are main agents for language change. They learn the language from their parents, teachers and relatives, process it and then produce and spread different variation of that language. Throughout the history, language constantly adapts to different circumstances. If we tried to restrict usage of certain foreign vocabulary, our attempts would be unsuccessful. For example, the French society tried to lower the introduction of English borrowings. As a result, le weekend, bouldozeur etc. are in common use and more people use le computer than the officially restricted ordinateur. Influence of the mass media, computers and technology In 1755 Johnson‘s dictionary influenced spelling in the educated society. BBC pronunciation lowered the usage of local non-standard accents and BBC television has been a language standard from the half of the twentieth century onwards. US English has a great influence through film industry. The Internet is predominantly an English / American language medium too. Newspaper language is an ever present influence too: an experienced or able person = ace purpose, object or intention = aim prohibition, refusal, restraint = ban supervisor, governor or manager = chief married = wed There is also a standardization of spelling and grammar under the influence of Microsoft products and their spelling checkers. Communications over the Internet reinforce a common language dominated by an overwhelming number of US speakers and US websites. Social change Whenever one nation‘s culture has predominance in any sphere, its language leads the way. So we have French words for cooking and ballet; German words for war; US words for marketing, rock music, culture, technology. Transformations in formality cause the language to transform too, bringing in slang, jargon, accent, dialect, where it may not have existed before. We refer to one group of words and phrases as politically correct and decide that some are no longer acceptable in society - US army terms such as take out and collateral damage as euphemisms for kill and dead; nigger is replaced by African American; queer is used instead of mad. More changes - simplification of spelling in American English - loss of whom - they instead of he / she - increase in computer vocabulary and effects of internet informal US-based vocabulary - effects from non-native speakers - loss of the apostrophe and the semi colon 131 �1st International Conference on Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics May 5-7 2011 Sarajevo - acronyms, blends and contractions Conclusion Language is always changing — in vocabulary, in pronunciation, in grammar, in semantics, and partially in spelling. Change is a constant process and therefore unavoidable. Language has been changing since it first appeared on earth; it is changing now; it will surely continue to change for as long as human beings survive (Trask, 1994). English language, as any other, is always clarifying itself in order to be more efficient. Of course, that process happens without sacrificing its expressivity, because we know that every change affects various parts, and there is always something else to fix. Languages which changed more than others do not have to be better. They only have different evolving power. Language does not change everywhere in the same manner. When a language is spoken over a wide territory, changes which occur in one area do not necessarily spread to other areas. As a result, as time goes by, differences accumulate among the regional varieties of the language. Throughout history, older and more conservative speakers have objected to changes in the language whenever they have noticed them. Those attitudes are still with us today, but they rarely have much effect on the development of the language. A certain amount of inertia in resisting language change is no bad thing (Trask, 1994). After all, we do not want the language to change so fast that children cannot speak to their grandparents, or so fast that no one can read anything written a hundred years earlier. Language changes in the way that is quite normal and acceptable to all of its speakers. References Coelho, E. (2003). Adding English: A Guide to Teaching in Multilingual Classrooms Crystal, D. (1995). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, Penguin, London Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Culpeper, J. (1996). History of English, Penguin, London Daher, J. (2003). Lexical Borrowing in Arabic and English, New York Gimson, A. C. (1997). Gimson‘s Pronunciation of English, St Martin ‗s Press, New York Hogg, R. M. and D. Denison (2006). A History of the English Language. New York : Cambridge University Press Jackson H. and Ze Amvela E. (2004), Word, meaning and vocabulary, The Cromwell Press, New York Jucker, Andreas H. (2000). History of English and English Historical Linguistics, Ernst Klett. Stuttgart 132 �1st International Conference on Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics May 5-7 2011 Sarajevo Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics, Cambridge University Press, London Romaine, S. (2000). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, Oxford University Press. New York Sapir, E. (1921). Language, New York: Harcourt Brace & Co. Simon and Schuster, (1986). Webster‘s New World Dictionary, Prentice-Hall, New York StojiĤ, S. (2000). Sociolingvistički i sociopsihološki aspekti standardizacije engleskog jezika, Beograd Trask, R.L. (1994). Language Change, Routledge, London Collins Softback English Dictionary, Harper Collins Publishers, Glasgow (1992) The Longman Grammar of Spoken English, Longman, London (1999) www.usingenglish.com http://www.putlearningfirst.com/language/04change/issuesofchange.html www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/caxton_william.shtml www.dictionary.oed.com. www.answers.com www.about.com http://www.soon.org.uk/page18.htm http://www.askoxford.com/worldofwords/history/?view=uk http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0858000.htmlEncyclopedia—English language http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?dsid=2222&dekey=British+English http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/vowels.html http://www.linguist.de/reese/English/america.htmVarieties of English http://www.ling.udel.edu/idsardi/101/notes/phonetics.html http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/estuary/honey-muggles.html 133 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Extent The size or duration of the resource. 23 Title A name given to the resource Language Change Author Author Hodžić Jejna, Amra Abstract A summary of the resource. Every language changes constantly. English has been changing throughout its history and it is still changing today. New words are coming into use every day. The input of those words changes vocabulary, pronunciation, grammar and spelling of language. Of course, old forms and old pronunciations are dropping out of use as time goes by. This work is about language change. There is a great variety of reasons for language change: influence of the mass media, influence of travel and global communications, computers and technology, social change, scientific and technological discoveries, new concepts. First language has an effect on the pronunciation of the English as a Second language as well. This work gives brief answers to questions: why language changes, what are types of language change, how language changes spread through communities, how historical circumstances influence language change, what is the relationship between language learning and change, what is the evolutionary path of a language etc. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2011-05 Keywords Keywords. Conference or Workshop Item PeerReviewed P Philology. Linguistics https://omeka.ibu.edu.ba/files/original/c8e4db14fafe93c83fb9faab24bebb33.pdf bf4c725326a537e5748b4affd1648ab6 PDF Text Text 1 LANGUAGE ECOLOGY RE-ORIENTATION IN A CONTEMPORARY METROLINGUAL FRAMEWORK: A CRITICAL PARADIGM SHIFT TO AN EXPANDED, COMMON STANDARD ALBANIAN Julie M. Kolgjini, PhD Rochester Institute of Technology, New York and A.U.K. Article History: Submitted: 18.06.2015 Accepted: 28.06.2015 Abstract Given present emergent trans-local new media in de-territorialized and poly-lingual milieus, an approach to the current Unified Literary Albanian (ULA) that integrates elements of Gramscianesque and Bakhtinian-esque optics on language would be more in sync with contemporary polyglossic realities of numerous Albanian speech communities in 21st century linguistic marketplaces than the language’s present standard. Such reforms could serve as partial remedies for current linguistic injustices and insecurities regarding various purported dysfluencies of marginalized and disenfranchised speakers of stigmatized Albanian varieties, thereby averting returning to past repressions. This alternative positioning allows younger generations of language learners to exercise their agency in arriving at “their own emergent orders of normativity” (Leppänen et al., 2009, p. 1080). Espousing this perspective encourages language guardians with ortholinguistic tendencies to refocus their energies from “deeply entrenched dogmas” (Del Valle, 2014, p. 370) of standard language ideology focusing on linguistic imposition and denigration, and exclusionary policies that neglected to integrate rich socio-historical realities of the languagers, to an inclusive linguistic regime that embraces the present linguistic diversity of polycentric sociolinguistic spaces. Instead of perpetuating outdated language policies involving inflexible linguistic intolerances of bygone eras that (still) attempt to hermetically seal language and prevent any leakage, cross-contamination, trans-languaging, or codemeshing from one variety (in)to another, mutual accommodation and communicability are advocated here. Given the diffusion of polycentric sociolects in various locales where Albanian is employed, “putting the toothpaste back in the tube” could be rather challenging and futile. Thus, various gatekeeping �2 pedagogies, including many current replacement and appropriateness paradigms, could be ineffectual given contemporary metrolingual realities of many Albanian languagers and learners. (Word count: 265) Key words: Albanian, critical applied linguistics, critical language pedagogies, Albanian, metrolingualism, polycentrism, heteroglossia, language ecology, linguistic diversity, linguistic variation, standard and non-standard linguistic varieties, language policy and planning, standard language ideology �3 1. Introduction Throughout the past few decades, various language scholars have commented that in order for Unified Literary Albanian (ULA) to withstand the test of time, like other normative living languages, it must be “permitted” to undergo considerable reform. Changes could involve ULA incorporating various excluded elements (e.g., Gegisms) during the 1972 standardization process at the Congress of Orthography, thereby resulting in a more cultivated language. Such modifications would distance ULA from its homogeneous and monocentric pedigree and accentuatepoly-, context-, and interlocutor-centric linguistic practices (see Byron, 1976). 2. Standard Language Ideology, Polycentrism, and Heteroglossia in Light of ULA As numerous scholars have observed, standard language ideology plays a considerable, but often implicit, role in how many languagers perceive language, especially standardization polices and planning, and thus (non-)standard(ized) forms (e.g., Ag & Jørgensen, 2012; Heller, 2008; Leeman, 2005; Milroy, 2001; Milroy & Milroy, 2012; Watts, 2010). Milroy (2001, p. 531) explains: “Standardization works by promoting invariance or uniformity in language structure…[and]…consists of the imposition of uniformity upon a class of objects...[T]his definition assumes that the objects concerned (including abstract objects, such as language) are, in the nature of things, not uniform but variable.” This inherent variability is frequently made invariable when language policies are imposed. Standard language ideology often views languages as discrete, fixed objects, consisting of “stable synchronic finite-state idealization[s]” (Milroy, 2001, p. 540), while endorsing invariance, homogeneity1, strict notions of correctness2, proper use campaigns, post-hoc justifications of legitimacy 3 , native speaker ownership, hegemony, modernist notions of “one nation/one (standard) national language” (Ricento, 2000, p. 198), language purity, and monoglot ideologies. Such agendas implicitly (and explicitly) discourage “incorrect” (e.g., non-standard) forms regularly regarded as immoral; often refuse to acknowledge (standard) (factual) variability; and endeavor to eliminate fragmentation within the standard. As Milroy (2001, p. 534) remarks, however, “There cannot be in practical use any such thing as a wholly standardized variety, as total uniformity of usage is never achieved in practice.” For Milroy (2001), standardization involves “a process that is continuously in progress in those languages that undergo the process” (p. 534). 4 Moreover, speakers who fall prey to standard language ideology and culture often attribute elevated prestige to standard dialects. �4 Prestige, however, is a sociocultural construct not inherent to language5 (Jørgensen, Karrebæk, Madsen, & Møller, 2011). Standard language ideology discussions are of relevance to ULA. In 1972 at the Congress of Orthography ULA standardizers, alongside various language guardians and gatekeepers, advocated homogeneity, invariance, strict ortholinguistic adherence, proscribed form eradication, and linguistic purism at the cost of linguistic diversity in pluricentric alternatives, similar to what Gramsci envisioned across the Adriatic for Italian (see Carlucci, 2013; Ives, 2004), so as to codify the communicative practices that likely involved flexible (passive) reciprocal bilingualism and other accommodations concerning written and spoken (literary) Albanian varieties (see Byron, 1976). Gramsci advocated an inclusive, pluricentric language regime originating and resonating with the voices of the languagers of the various dialects (of Italian); such an approach allows languagers to more cogently articulate their thoughts than when limited to imposed monocentric (unitary) systems. Gramsci understood “the importance of working towards [linguistic] unification through a careful consideration of [linguistic] diversity – not through its denigration or coercive elimination” (Carlucci, 2013, p. 200); linguistic ecology was paramount. Bakhtin’s heteroglossia 6 (multispeechedness), inclusion of multiple voices so as to represent authentic language, is also pertinent to Albanian. Heteroglossic language practices 7 involve employing different languages and/or varieties, often within and/or between spoken and/or written utterances and strings of language. Bakhtin’s heteroglossia is “governed by two opposing forces, the centripetal (toward the single ‘center’ implied in the notion of an ‘official’ or ‘national’ language), and the centrifugal (away from that ‘center’ in the direction of the regional dialect, as well as the ‘languages’ used by different classes, generations, and professions that comprise a community of speakers). Bakhtin’s work tends to stress the centrifugal…” (Hayward, 2001). Heteroglossia 8 involves myriad (linguistic) components, beyond standard versus non-standard possibilities, e.g., their interweaving (e.g., Alb. duke shku(e), tu(e/j) shkuar ‘(while) going’, cf. duke shkuar ULA/Tosk; tue/tuj shku(e) Geg); semantic plasticity (e.g., Alb. mollatarta, patëllxhan i kuq ‘tomato’, cf. domate; dru, pemë ‘wood, tree, fruit’; tamël ‘milk’, cf. qumësht; tylnë ‘butter’, cf. gjalpë,); and morphological inhibitioneasing, including frequently stigmatized forms (e.g., Geg infinitive, Alb. me shku(e) ‘to go’; cf. të shkoj ‘(that) I go’); among others. Actual language practices (e.g., sociolects of various speech communities in Tirana and Prishtina) are multifaceted, including societal and contextual elements9 (Tjupa 2009), which play �5 pivotal roles in influencing which forms (e.g., standard, non-standard, formal, casual/informal) “real life languagers” (Jørgensen et al., 2011, p. 29) employ10. Heterglossia allows multiplicities of evolving, dynamic viewpoints to be conveyed through such authentic speech acts rooted in speech diversity (Dentith, 1994), especially concerning authentic expressions of style – and self. Often the case for ULA, however, “dominant political and ideological pressures…keep ‘languages’ [and varieties11] pure and separate” (Lemke, 2002, p. 85; Heller, 2007; Jørgensen et al., 2011). Languages – including varieties – are often “politically prevented” from mixing, meshing, and blending (Creese & Blackledge, 2010)12. Various ULA gatekeepers have attempted to hermetically seal and guard it from unsanctioned leakage (e.g., of non-standard Gegisms). 3. Present Dynamics of Language, Fluid Hybridity, and Linguistic Repertoires Let’s consider the various consequences of globalization, e.g., the migration of people and ideas, on current linguascapes (Blommaert & Rampton, 2011), including Albanian languagers. As Ag and Jørgensen (2012) explain, superdiversity involves the “diversification of diversity…in which populations become increasingly ethnically and linguistically heterogeneous…and the expanding transnational as well as transborder communication over the internet or other new technological phenomena contributes to the dismantling of the idea of simple and clear communications” (pp. 527–8). This superdiversity entails the emergence of rules and norms and their observance – and the appearance of alternative norms (Blommaert, 2013), e.g., in various linguistic landscapes in the Americas and Europe, including (previously) imposed ULA confines. Multiple forms of truncated multilingualism and linguistic repertoires participate (Blommaert, 2010; Kramsch, 2014), where “intrinsic polycentricity…characterizes sociolinguistic systems” (Blommaert, 2013, p. 11), as exhibited in many ULA users’ linguistic practices. Varied linguistic elements enter into the discourse, where polylingualism 13– involving “languagers employ[ing] whatever linguistic features at their disposal to achieve their communicative aims” (Ag & Jørgensen, 2012, p. 528) – and receptive multilingualism – when each interlocutor communicates in his/her mother tongue (in the case of Albanian, “native” variety) while comprehending the utterances of the other individual – may surface, including in virtual linguistic landscapes of new and emerging media (Blommaert, 2013, 2014) involving semiotic fluidity (Kramsch, 2014), which brings us to metrolingualism. �6 Metrolingualism highlights the intersections of linguistic structures, semiotics, identity, new media, local polycentric linguistic practices, multilingualism, among others, in linguascapes that celebrate diversity, multiplicity, and hybridity. Metrolingualism14 embodies “ways in which people of different and mixed backgrounds use, play with and negotiate identities through language; it does not assume connections between language, culture, ethnicity, nationality or geography, but rather seeks to explore how such relations are produced, resisted, defied, or rearranged; its focus is not on language systems but on languages as emergent from contexts of interaction” (Otsuji & Pennycook, 2010, p. 246). When languagers blend often-divergent communicative repertoires in spoken and/or written utterances, codemeshing and translanguaging results; linguistic systems “leak” and “contaminate” others, thereby “undermining…ortholinguistic practices” (Otsuji & Pennycook, 2010, p. 245) and “challeng[ing] particular hierarchies and hegemonies” (Creese & Blackledge, 2010, p. 104). From the lens of metrolingualism 15 , the languagers are not bastardizing the language(s) or dialect(s). These disruptions and destabilizations of dominant ideologies and (re)negotiations of identity are integral components of metrolingualism16, which is “interested in the queering of ortholinguistic practices across time and space that may include urban and rural contexts, elite or minority communities, local or global implications” (Otsuji & Pennycook, 2010, p. 246). Germane to the emergent Albanian norm, this “hybridity-oriented pluralizing strategy” (p. 251) embraces “production[s] of new possibilities” (p. 247) of language as “an emergent property of various social practices” (p. 248), while rejecting rigid cultural fixity, e.g., ortholinguistic ideologies17. 4. Considering Linguistic Regime Re-orientation for ULA The current dynamics of Albanian involve codemeshing and translanguaging, among others, unsurprising given the diglossic18 reality where ULA (and the Tosk variety) enjoys overt prestige compared to often-stigmatized Geg (sub) varieties. ULA is presently undergoing speaker-motivated change (from below), where varied sub-dialects have been in the process of “leaking” into it, where multiple linguistic structures merge with others (e.g., Alb. duke shku(e); tuj shkuar ‘(while) going’). Such dialect meshing (cross-dialectal/language transfer) of linguistic elements (e.g., lexical items and structural features) is well-known in dialect contact contexts, especially when the linguistic systems have been in (intense) contact situations (Lofi, 2007). ULA’s current situation illustrates how, when the languagers are in the drivers’ seats, language �7 can exhibit fluid and dynamic characteristics, particularly given speaker-driven pluricentric and heteroglossic practices, where urban, provincial, and archaic, (un) orthodox, and innovative features are woven into the linguistic repertoires19. Such multi-dialectal (multi/polylingual) and “transidiomatic practices” (Blommaert, 2013, p. 8), including dialect ideology spurts (Watts, 2010), exemplify language choices exhibiting metrolingual speaker agency. Late modern mediascapes, metrolingual landscapes, amongst other contributing factors, have influenced and been shaped by a generation (or more) of languagers who attribute less saliency to national identity than to emerging translocal sets of shared (virtual) experiences, values, interests, and ways of life on and off the grid (Leppänen et al., 2009). Priorities are less oriented toward modernist nation-state notions than other langaugers with whom they share common understandings regarding similar notions of de-territoriality, hybrid communities, and hybrid communication practices largely navigated online. Instead of being identified by what some langaugers associate with affiliations of the modern state (e.g., rigid monocentric standard languages and monoglot ideologies), some prefer to be identified by (and identify themselves with) more dynamic and fluid (semiotic) metrics promoting perpetual malleability given the demands of the day allowing them to determine “their own emergent orders of normativity” (Leppänen et al., 2009, p. 1080), including regarding static standard languages. Some may criticize such re-orientations for lacking rigid rules and fixity. Decisions involving which “rules” to follow, however, are up to the languagers – not a handful of academicians in a conference chamber or stone tower isolated from humans who use the language and possess communicative, translingual, and symbolic competence (see Kramsch, 2014). Such positioning de-emphasizes prescriptivism, not normativity, and reinforces diversity, rather than replacement and appropriateness paradigms, thereby permitting langaugers to redraw their “final horizon[s] to fit a global world of increased semiotic uncertainty and symbolic power struggles…as an adaptive practice that interacts with its cultural and technological mediations” (Kramsch, 2014, p. 306), while recognizing decentered knowledge sources and reflective, situated choices (p. 308). 5. Implications and Conclusions: A Critical Paradigm Shift Less than five decades ago when ULA was approved by language authorities at the Congress of Orthography and had begun to be promulgated to the masses, Byron (1976, p. 120) �8 foresaw integrating alternative linguistic constructions, namely “[the] rejected alternates” (of the Geg variety), into the standard, thus reinforcing that “a standard in time becomes heterogeneous, and isolated from its initial state.” She suggested such alternative elements “be relegated to stylistic functions” (p. 120), which would facilitate “at least a minor attempt to meet the demands of humane communication” (p. 120). Such progression constitutes a paradigm “shift of Albanian language planning from a policy to a cultivation approach to language” (p. 120). Byron’s proposal is in sync with various Gramscian-esque and Bakhtinian-esque optics on language. Such re-orientations do not constitute corruptions, but (re)evolutions, generated by speakers as active agents and vectors in language change, where its social origins are also considered (Milroy, 2001; Blommaert, 2013). Genuine tolerance for this emergent, relaxed norm illuminates Haugen’s (1966) “elaboration of function” (Milroy, 2001, p. 534), while also allowing languagers “freedom to imagine, not obligation to submit” (Blommaert, 2013, p. 10); and reinforcing that “systems change irreversibly” (Blommaert, 2013, p. 13). The old rules are “replaced by a default image of openness, dynamics, multifiliar and nonlinear development, unpredictability – what used to be considered deviant and abnormal has become, in this perspective, normal” (Blommaert, 2013, pp. 13–4). This approach encourages languagers to partake in critical examinations of past and current dominant language policies “to dispel myths about the degeneracy of modern day varieties” (Leeman, 2005, p. 40); languagers “must critically evaluate the dominant norms, determine who is being assimilated and who rejected through the establishment of these norms, and analyze the implications of this standardization process” (Sanchez qtd. in Leeman, 2005, p. 41). Embracing elements of the proposed framework allows for such critical awareness to transpire. “‘Homogeneism’ [is] a fundamental non-acceptance of diversity” including where diversity is seen as a type of societal “pollution,” often involving “intolerant and anti-pluralistic measures” (Blommaert & Verschueren, 1998, pp. i, 122, 125, 126). 2 Jørgensen, Karrebæk, Madsen, and Møller (2011) explain: “[T]here is no such thing as inherently correct language. Correctness is social construction about the characteristics of specific linguistic features. Correctness has nothing to do with the linguistic characteristics of features – correctness is ascribed to the features by (some) speakers. The notion of ‘correct language’ may index specific features in (at least) two different ways… [like] native speakers…” (p. 30). 3 Milroy (2001) remarks: “The standard form becomes the legitimate form, and other forms become, in the popular mind, illegitimate…Urban forms…although probably used by a majority of the population…were at the bottom of the pile…These were not ‘dialects’ at all: they were 1 �9 seen…as vulgar and ignorant attempts to adopt or imitate the standard and were therefore illegitimate…” (p. 547). 4 That is, for Milroy (2001) language standardization does not constitute a stolid, inert state. 5 Jørgensen, Karrebæk, Madsen, and Møller (2011) clarify: “The insight of current sociolinguistics is then that ‘languages’ as neat packages of features that are closely connected and exclude other features, are sociocultural constructions that do not represent language use in the real world very well…Rather than being natural objects, comprising readily identifiable sets of features, ‘dialects’, ‘sociolects’, ‘registers’, ‘varieties’, etc. are sociocultural constructions exactly as ‘languages’ are” (p. 28). Milroy (2001, p. 532) remarks: “[P]restige…attributed by human beings to particular social groups and to inanimate objects, such as…language varieties…depends on the values attributed to such objects. The prestige attributed to the language varieties (by metonymy) is indexical and involved in the social life of speakers.” 6 Otsuji and Pennycook (2010, p. 252) write: “Heteroglossia, as Bailey (2007, p. 258) reminds us, ‘encompasses both mono and multilingual forms’ allowing a ‘level of theorising about the social nature of language that is not possible within the confines of a focus on code-switching.” Blommaert (2010) explains: “The intrinsic hybridity of utterances (something, of course, introduced by Bakhtin a long ago) is an effect of interactions within a much larger polycentric system” (p. 12). Hayward (2001) comments: “Postmodern appropriations of Bakhtin’s work are too diverse to summarize briefly. In its implication that language carries within itself ideological orientations accreted from previous usage, but also that it can be modified in and by any new speech act, the concept of heteroglossia enables queer, feminist and post-colonial theories to interrogate dynamics of power without replicating them, and to elaborate the problems as well as the possibilities for subjects attempting to assert themselves ideologically and politically.” 7 Hayward (2001) comments: “Heteroglossia is a concept denoting the stratification of the different ‘languages’ practiced by the speakers of a single (official or national) language, and the dynamic produced by their intersection and interaction.” 8 Bailey remarks: “Heteroglossia can encompass socially meaningful forms in both bilingual and monolingual talk; it can account for the multiple meanings and readings of forms that are possible, depending on one’s subject position; and it can connect historical power hierarchies to the meanings and valences of particular forms in the here-and-now” (qtd. in Creese & Blackledge, 2010, p. 106). Creese and Blackledge (2010) explain: “Bailey demonstrated that the perspective of heteroglossia allows one to distinguish between local functions of particular codeswitches and their functions in relation to their social, political, and historical contexts, in ways that formal codeswitching analysis does not. He convincingly argued that the perspective of heteroglossia ‘explicitly bridges the linguistic and the sociohistorical, enriching analysis of human interaction’ p. 269) and is ‘fundamentally about intertextuality, the ways that talk in the here-and-now draws meanings from past instances of talk’ (p. 272)” (in Creese and Blackledge 2010:106). Bahktin writes that “‘language is something that is historically real, a process of heterglot development, a process teeming with future and former languages, with prim but moribund aristocratic-languages, with parvenu-languages and with countless pretenders to the status of language which are all more or less successful, depending on their degree of social scope and on the ideological area in which they are employed’ (Baxtin 01943/35] 1981: 356– 57)” (qtd. in Tjupa, 2009, p. 124). 9 Tjupa (2009, p. 124) explains: “According to Ba[kh]tin’s understanding of language use, a ‘social person,’ who is also a speaking person, operates not with language as an abstract �10 regulatory norm, but with a multitude of discourse practices that form in their totality a dynamic verbal culture belonging to the society concerned.” 10 Bahktin clarifies that “‘language is something that is historically real, a process of heterglot development, a process teeming with future and former languages, with prim but moribund aristocratic-languages, with parvenu-languages and with countless pretenders to the status of language which are all more or less successful, depending on their degree of social scope and on the ideological area in which they are employed’ (Baxtin 01943/35] 1981: 356–57)” (qtd. in Tjupa, 2009, p. 124). 11 Jørgensen , Karrebæk, Madsen, and Møller (2011) point out: (2011) “Heller (2007: 1) explicitly argues ‘against the notion that languages are objectively speaking whole, bounded, systems,’ and…prefers to understand language use as the phenomenon that speakers ‘draw on linguistic resources which are organized in ways that make sense under specific social circumstances” (pp. 27–8). They continue: “Blommaert (2010: 102) similarly refers to ‘resources’ as the level of analysis. He observes that ‘[s]hifting our focus from ‘languages’ (primarily an ideological and institutional construct) to resources (the actual and observable ways of using languages) has important implications for notions such as ‘competence’’ (p. 28). 12 “[T]he teacher avoids, it is argued, cross-contamination, thus making it easier for the child to acquire a new linguistic system as he/she internalizes a given lesson…It was felt that the inappropriateness of the concurrent use [of two linguistic systems] was so self-evident that no research had to be conducted to prove this fact. (p. 4)” (Jacobson and Faltis 1990, qtd. in Creese & Blackledge, 2010, p. 104). 13 Similarly, poly-languaging is “the use of features associated with different ‘languages’ even when speakers know only few features associated with (some of) these ‘languages’” (Jørgensen, Karrebæk, Madsen, & Møller, 2011, pp. 33, 34). 14 Otsuji and Pennycook (2010, pp. 245–6) write: “We do not, however, want to limit the notion of metrolingualism only to the urban…[W]e want to avoid an idealization of the urban metrolingual landscapes set against the assumed narrowness of rural living. This has tow corollaries: on the one hand, metrolingualism as a practice is not confined to the city; and on the other, it is intended as a broad, descriptive category for data analysis rather than a term of cosmopolitan idealism…[M]etrolingualism may be rural, mobile, local and fragile.” 15 Otsuji and Pennycook (2010) explain: “The focus in not so much on language systems as on languages as emergent from contexts of interaction…The notion of metrolingualism gives ways of moving beyond common frameworks of language, providing insights into contemporary, urban language practices, and accommodating both fixity and fluidity in its approach to language use” (p. 240). 16 As Jaworski (2014, p. 139) remarks, metrolingualism is the “manifestation of linguistic performances,” e.g., polycentric and heteroglossic practices, “in which self-consciously deployed linguistic forms index recurrent situations of use or specific social categories” such as gender and region, thereby “creating new indexical meanings and new symbolic values (Rampton, 2009a), where none may have been hearable before (Jonstone, 2009; Silverstein, 2003).” Such linguistic behaviors entail “the recontextualization…or transplantation and relocation of linguistic resources from one domain into another, frequently with artful overtones…[S]uch manipulation of the relatively fixed,…social categories is the cornerstone of metrolingual usage which aims to challenge and destabilize traditional and fixed identity ascriptions, ‘ortholinguistic’ ideologies and practices” (Jaworski, 2014, p. 139). �11 17 Such a situation is relevant for Albanian, especially considering the migration practices of Albanian speakers. Whereas one speaker grew up speaking Swiss German or standard French at school or work and ULA/Geg at home, another speaker was raised speaking a local variety of Arabic or Italian of the community and French, Albanian and/or English at a brick-and-mortar institution of learning, perhaps even later in life as an adult language learner. 18 Ferguson defines diglossia as involving “the coexistence of two varieties of the same language, [where] a High variety (H)…describes the standardized form of the language, and a Low variety (L)…refers to its vernacular form” (Lotfi, 2007, p. 40). Contact-induced change environments tend to include the mechanisms of code-switching, code-alteration, and passive familiarity (i.e. Fasold’s ‘broad diglossia’; Lotfi, 2007, pp. 41—2, 47). When the level of competence in the other variety (or language) is extensive, the borrowing (and meshing) of elements, i.e. convergence, can result, including in regards to phonological and morphosyntactic structures, especially in cases of intense contact (see Lotfi, 2007, p. 47), where saliency (e.g., frequency of use) could play a role, as could be the case with a the meshing of high frequency non-standard constructions, e.g., the Geg infinitive (e.g., dua me shku(e) ‘I want to go’, where substratum structural borrowing which could also include a lexical component) and orthographic hypercorrections (e.g., with the schwa <ë> and the palatal stops, i.e. <q> and <gj> with the palatal-alveolar affricates <ç> and <xh>). 19 Jørgensen, Karrebæk, Madsen, and Møller (2011) explain: “The notions of ‘varieties’, ‘sociolects’, ‘dialects’, ‘registers’, etc. may appear to be useful categories for linguists. They may indeed be strategic, ideological constructs for power holders, educators, and other gatekeepers (Jørgensen 2010, Heller 2007). However, what speakers actually use are linguistic features as semiotic resources, not languages, varieties, or lects (Jørgensen 2004, 2008). It is problematic if sociolinguistics habitually treats these constructs as unquestioned facts. Blommaert & Backus (2011) have proposed the term ‘repertoires’ for the set of resources which the individual commands or ‘knows’…” (p. 29). �12 References Ag, A., & Jørgensen, J.N. (2013). Ideologies, norms, and practices in youth poly-languaging. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 17 (4), 525–539. Blommaert, J. (2014). Infrastructure of superdiversity: Conviviality and language in an Antwerp neighborhood. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 17, 431–451. Blommaert, J. (2013). Critical language and literary studies, volume 18: Ethnography, superdiversity and linguistic languages: Chronicles of complexity. Clevedon, GBR: Channel View Publications. Blommaert, J. (Ed.). (2010). Language, power and social process: Language ideological debates. Munchen:Walter de Gruyter. Blommaert, J. & Rampton, B. (2011). Language and Superdiversity. Language and Superdiversities 13 (2), 1–21. Blommaert, J. & Verschueren, J. (1998). Debating diversity: Analysing the rhetoric of tolerance. London: Routledge. Blommaert, J., Leppänen, S., Pahta, P., & Räisänen, T. (Eds.). (2012). Dangerous multilingualism: Northern perspectives on order, purity and normality. Houndsmill, GBR: Palgrave Macmillan. Byron, J. (1976). Selection among alternatives in language standardization: The case of Albanian. The Hague: Mouton. Carlucci, A. (2013). Gramsci and languages: Unification, diversity, and hegemony. Historical Materialism Book Series, Volume 59. Leiden, NLD: Brill. Creese, A. & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching. The Modern Language Journal, 94, 103–115. Del Valle, J. (2014). The politics of normativity and globalization: Which Spanish in the classroom? Modern Language Journal, 98, 358–372. Dentith, S. (1994). Bakhtinian thought: An introductory reader. Florence, Ky: Routledge. Hayward, S. (2001). Heteroglossia. In V. Taylor and C. Winquist (Eds.). Encyclopedia of postmodernism. London, United Kingdom: Routledge. Retrieved from http://search.credoreference.com.ezproxy.rit.edu/content/entry/routpostm/heteroglossia/0 Heller, M. (2008). Language and the nation-state: Challenges to sociolinguistic theory and practice. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12 (4), 504–524. �13 Ives, P. (2004). Reading Gramsci: Language and hegemony in Gramsci. London: Pluto Press. Jørgensen, J. N., Karrebæk, M. S., Madsen, L. M., & Møller, J. S. (2011). Polylanguaging in superdiversity. Language and Superdiversities, 13(2), 23–37. Kramsch, C. (2014). Teaching foreign languages in an era of globalization: Introduction. Modern Language Journal 98 (1), 296–311. Kramsch, C. & Whiteside, A. (2008). Language ecology in multilingual settings: Towards a theory of symbolic competence. Applied Linguistics, 29 (4), 645–671. Leeman, J. (2005). Engaging critical pedagogy: Spanish for native speakers. Foreign Language Annals, 38, 35–45. Lemke, J. (2002). Language development and identity: Multiple timescales in the social ecology of learning. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization (pp. 68–87). London: Continuum. Leppänen, S., Pitkänen-Huhta, A., Piirainen-Marsh, A., Nikula, T., & Peuroen, S. (2009). Young people’s translocal new media uses: A multiperspective analysis of language choice and heteroglossia. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 1080–1107. Lofti, S. (2007). Diglossia and contact-induced language change. International Journal of Multilingualism, 4 (1), 38–51. Makoni, S. & Pennycook, A. (2007). Disinventing and reconstituting langauges. In S. Makoni & A. Pennycook, Disinventing and reconstituting languages (pp. 1–41). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Milroy, J. (2001). Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5 (4), 530–555. Milroy, J. & Milroy, L. (2012). Authority in language: Investigating Standard English (4th ed.). Florence, Ky: Routledge. Otsuji, E. & Pennycook, A. (2010). Metrolingualism: Fixity, fluidity and language in flux. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7 (3), 240–254. Ricento, T. (2000). Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(2), 196–213. Tjupa, V. (2009). Heterglossia. In P. P. Huhn & J. S. Wolf (Eds.). Narratologia – Contributions to narrative theory: Handbook of narratology (pp. 124–131). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. �14 Watts, R. J. (2010). The ideology of dialect in Switzerland. In J. Blommaert (Ed.). Language, power and social process: Language ideological debates (pp.67–103). Munchen:Walter de Gruyter. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Extent The size or duration of the resource. 2893 Title A name given to the resource LANGUAGE ECOLOGY RE-ORIENTATION IN A CONTEMPORARY METROLINGUAL FRAMEWORK: A CRITICAL PARADIGM SHIFT TO AN EXPANDED, COMMON STANDARD ALBANIAN Author Author Kolgjini, Julie M. Abstract A summary of the resource. Given present emergent trans-local new media in de-territorialized and poly-lingual milieus, an approach to the current Unified Literary Albanian (ULA) that integrates elements of Gramscian-esque and Bakhtinian-esque optics on language would be more in sync with contemporary poly-glossic realities of numerous Albanian speech communities in 21st century linguistic marketplaces than the language’s present standard. Such reforms could serve as partial remedies for current linguistic injustices and insecurities regarding various purported dysfluencies of marginalized and disenfranchised speakers of stigmatized Albanian varieties, thereby averting returning to past repressions. This alternative positioning allows younger generations of language learners to exercise their agency in arriving at “their own emergent orders of normativity” (Leppänen et al., 2009, p. 1080). Espousing this perspective encourages language guardians with ortholinguistic tendencies to refocus their energies from “deeply entrenched dogmas” (Del Valle, 2014, p. 370) of standard language ideology focusing on linguistic imposition and denigration, and exclusionary policies that neglected to integrate rich socio-historical realities of the languagers, to an inclusive linguistic regime that embraces the present linguistic diversity of polycentric sociolinguistic spaces. Instead of perpetuating outdated language policies involving inflexible linguistic intolerances of bygone eras that (still) attempt to hermetically seal language and prevent any leakage, cross-contamination, trans-languaging, or codemeshing from one variety (in)to another, mutual accommodation and communicability are advocated here. Given the diffusion of polycentric sociolects in various locales where Albanian is employed, “putting the toothpaste back in the tube” could be rather challenging and futile. Thus, various gatekeeping pedagogies, including many current replacement and appropriateness paradigms, could be ineffectual given contemporary metrolingual realities of many Albanian languagers and learners. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available International Burch University Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2015-07 Keywords Keywords. Article PeerReviewed P Philology. Linguistics https://omeka.ibu.edu.ba/files/original/f9f83657e20fc54e172acfdc234a691c.docx a2c8c3abc77e0dd38dc34c85a85ec2ec https://omeka.ibu.edu.ba/files/original/d77096ef776608752bac51a638c30e61.pdf 198a13c48476ecfba007e00a17e7fab6 PDF Text Text Language in Culture and Culture in Language Vojkan Stojičić & Vesna Krajišnik University of Belgrade/ Belgrade, Serbia Key words: Serbian as foreign language, glottodidactic means, foreign language teaching methods, cultural contents ABSTRACT Until recently in linguistics and methodology it has been recommended that learning a foreign language means acquiring its grammatical and lexical system, which has been a basis for writing textbooks for foreign language learning, where they are more reminiscent of a grammatical summary of a language, and the lexis was used solely as a tool for grammar explanations. This principle has been almost completely changed with the notion that language is a means to express the cultural contents of a country and the people, and language learning includes the acquisition of the cultural values of the people whose language is being learned. This paper will highlight the cultural values that foreign students, from various ethnic and linguistic backgrounds, adopt in the Serbian language learning. Their choice depends on the content that is scheduled for acquiring by the programme, the personal preferences of the students, and the students’ personal affinity, their needs and interests. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Extent The size or duration of the resource. 1972 Title A name given to the resource Language in Culture and Culture in Language Author Author STOJICIC, Vojkan KRAJISNIK, Vesna Abstract A summary of the resource. Key words: Serbian as foreign language, glottodidactic means, foreign language teaching methods, cultural contents ABSTRACT Until recently in linguistics and methodology it has been recommended that learning a foreign language means acquiring its grammatical and lexical system, which has been a basis for writing textbooks for foreign language learning, where they are more reminiscent of a grammatical summary of a language, and the lexis was used solely as a tool for grammar explanations. This principle has been almost completely changed with the notion that language is a means to express the cultural contents of a country and the people, and language learning includes the acquisition of the cultural values of the people whose language is being learned. This paper will highlight the cultural values that foreign students, from various ethnic and linguistic backgrounds, adopt in the Serbian language learning. Their choice depends on the content that is scheduled for acquiring by the programme, the personal preferences of the students, and the students’ personal affinity, their needs and interests. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available IBU Publishing Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2013-05-03 Keywords Keywords. Article PeerReviewed Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Extent The size or duration of the resource. 878 Title A name given to the resource Language Learning as a Space for Understanding Oneself and the Other Author Author Cvitanusic Tvico , Jelena Dzurdevic, Ranka Abstract A summary of the resource. For a long period of time, an imperative of acquiring cross-cultural competence has been the most important thing in the contemporary approach to language teaching. In the process of SLA students’ knowledge and experience is being put in the foreground and during the process of learning they are activated and stimulated so students could be able to acquire additional skills. Here linguistic competence becomes both - the aim and the mean that enables the growth of general communication skills. All above mentioned occurs at Croaticum - The Center for Croatian as L2 in Zagreb where the members of different cultures have been learning Croatian for 50 years. Courses are held in extremely heterogeneous groups and the students are not just getting the knowledge on the culture of the Croats whose language is being thought, but the teacher and students are exposed to the intensive process of becoming aware of the differences among the “Others”. The last is especially emphasized in the groups with the large number of Third World asylum seekers whose specific perception of reality is burdened with their own traumatic experience (loss of all family members, gender discrimination and abuse etc) and thus have effect on topics chosen for their courses, as well as to the approach of language methods that will be used. Techniques and approaches that lecturers use in the work of Croaticum in order to develop their own, as well as students’ cross-cultural competence, will be shown in this presentation. The focus will also be at information exchange among students, pairs or groups. Furthermore, it will be shown how the game, well argumented discussion and projective teaching can serve not only as a way of acquiring language knowledge, but as a space of scenery didactics where the process of cross-cultural learning is being held Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2012-05 Keywords Keywords. Conference or Workshop Item PeerReviewed P Philology. Linguistics Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Extent The size or duration of the resource. 1031 Title A name given to the resource Language Learning Strategies and English Language Proficiency: An Investigation of IUS Students Author Author Almasa, Mulalic Abstract A summary of the resource. Learning strategies are the thoughts and actions that individuals use to accomplish a learning goal. Many researchers have been writing on language learning strategies use in language acquisition (O’Malley and Chamot, 1990; Oxford 1990; Wenden and Rubin 1987). In these studies it has been found that effective learning strategies might contribute to successful language learning. Rubin (1975) and Stern (1977) were concerned about good language learner, and in their studies show that good language learner employ certain language learning strategies in the language learning process. This paper explores Language Learning Strategies used by IUS students when learning English language. The paper will also investigate the relationship between strategy use and proficiency in English between the students of different ethnic background. The gender differences will be look at as well to see if there are any differences in strategy use between male and female students at IUS. Oxford (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language learning (SILL) will be administered to measure learning strategy preferences and proficiency in English language will be based on results on Proficiency English Test. A multiple regression analysis will be conducted to examine relationship among six types of learning strategies and scores on Proficiency Exam Test. The t-test will be employed in order to determine differences between male and female students in strategy use. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2012-05 Keywords Keywords. Conference or Workshop Item PeerReviewed P Philology. Linguistics Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Extent The size or duration of the resource. 3516 Title A name given to the resource LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES IN A NEW ERA: DO MOBILE PHONES HELP? Author Author Bekleyen, Nilüfer Hayta, Fatma Abstract A summary of the resource. Learning a language is a long and demanding process that requires a great deal of perseverance as learners need to be actively involved in all stages of it. In their search for finding ways to alleviate the difficulty of this process, which may sometimes be extremely challenging, many students use some language learning strategies (LLS), namely, the behaviours, steps, or techniques that learners apply to facilitate the language learning process. Studies have shown that using effective LLSimprove language students’ academic performance. The present study aimed to examine the role of mobile phone technology in the employment of LLS. For the purpose of the study, the students of a state university in Turkey were selected. The participants consisted of first and second year undergraduate students majoring in English Language Teaching. Quantitative data analysis methods were employed to find out the answers to the research questions.The results indicated that the students exploited mobile phones to improve their English language proficiency levels by using different types of language learning strategies. Affective strategies were found to be favored by the research participants, and these were followed by Compensation, Cognitive, Metacognitive, and Memory strategies, whileSocial Strategies were the least preferred strategies. The findings also suggested that the students’ use of mobile phones to employ LLS did not exceed their computer use for the same purpose. However, in the future, this may change if all the students are given the opportunity to use mobile phones withmore advanced features. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2014 Keywords Keywords. Conference or Workshop Item PeerReviewed PE English https://omeka.ibu.edu.ba/files/original/db25f4a7b966f60352d0ad2e0aabe974.pdf f0cc5fe57ffa79f5a48cd1678930e841 PDF Text Text 1 Language learning through Facebook: A descriptive case study Judit Papp University of Naples “L’Orientale”, Italy Abstract: According to the statistics as of 15 November 2015 in Italy there are about 28,000,000 Facebook subscribers, which means a 46.1% penetration rate.1 Facebook is also the most commonly used social networking tool among university students: their involvement and the hours they spend on this popular networking site should encourage educators in higher education institutions to consider it as a place for learning and to integrate it in the academic practices. This paper reports and analyzes the data collected using a questionnaire concerning students’ perceptions of language learning possibilities on Facebook. The survey was conducted at the University of Naples “L’Orientale” (Department of Literary, Linguistics and Comparative Studies) during the academic year 2015-2016 and involved students enrolled in three different courses. At this step, students’ perceptions and attitudes were measured through a questionnaire including several questions about demographic information, their perceptions of Facebook and their use and behavior on this social network site. The main purpose of this study was to find out the role and benefits of Facebook in students’ language learning processes, whether Facebook is able to improve students’ language skills and whether students use specific Facebook groups to facilitate language learning. The study was limited only to the generic social networking site Facebook, excluding all the other social networking sites (including the relatively new Language Learning Social Network Sites (LLSNSs) too, such as Babbel, Busuu, italki; Polyglotclub, etc.) Keywords: Social networking sites, Facebook, Foreign language learning, Engagement 1. Introduction In this study I explore students’ engagement on Facebook and their perceptions of it as a language learning tool. It is interesting to investigate how much time students spend on Facebook, however, it is even more stimulating to try to understand what they are doing while logged in, how they are using the different possibilities available on Facebook. This research survey was conducted at the University of Naples “L’Orientale” (Department of Literary, Linguistics and Comparative Studies) during the academic year 2015-2016 with the aim to explore how students use Facebook for academic purpose specially to enhance their second-language skills. It involved a total of 119 students (mainly Italians: 110 out of 119) enrolled in three different courses: Applied linguistics, General translation studies and Literary translation studies. The first two courses are part of one of the Department’s three-year degree 1 http://www.internetworldstats.com/europa.htm#it �2 courses programs (Linguistic and cultural mediation), while the third one is part of some of the Department’s two-year post-graduate degree programs: 93 participants are students of the three-year degree courses program in Linguistic and cultural mediation. 26 participants are students of the two-year post-graduate degree programs (22 students of European and American languages and literatures, 3 students of Comparative literatures and cultures and 1 student of Specialist translation). 2. Method Students’ perceptions, their attitudes towards Facebook and their behavior on this networking site were measured through a questionnaire containing, among others, questions concerning demographic information (students personal data, age, gender, mother tongue, course program, languages studied inside and outside the university), time commitment (number of loggings on Facebook, amount of time spent on Facebook weekly), main reasons for the usage of this social networking site, the usefulness of Facebook for language learning from the students’ point of view, the nature of Facebook’s influence on students’ language learning, memberships in specific Facebook groups for language learning, etc. 3. Findings and discussion The gender figures of the students involved in the survey are illustrated in the following table: three-year degree courses program two-year post-graduate degree program three-year degree courses program two-year post-graduate degree program female 80 (86%) male 13 (14%) 23 (88.5%) 3 (11.5%) Italian students 85 (91.4%) International students (regularly enrolled, mother tongue not Italian) 8 (8.6%) 25 (96.2%) 1 (3.8%) In total, in the survey participated 103 female (86.6%) and 16 male (13.4%) students. The gender figures are fairly representative of the ratio of the general population of university students in the second year of the Linguistic and cultural mediation course program [18.62% male (n=108) and 81.38% female (n=472)] and the second year of the European and American languages and literatures, Comparative literatures and cultures and Specialist translation course programs [12.12% male (n=40) and 87.88% female (n=290)] of the University of Naples “L’Orientale”. The majority (84.87%) of the participants were in the 19-26 years category: �3 Three-year degree courses program2 Two-year post-graduate degree program3 Age group 19-21 22-26 Number of participants 81 out of 93 (87.1%) 20 out of 26 (76.9%) For further researches also the geographical distribution of the participants could be interesting, so according to the data stated by the students in the questionnaire, the geographical distribution is the following: Three-year degree courses program: Province of Naples Province of Caserta Province of Salerno Province of Avellino Others (Latina, Foggia, Benevento, Lecce, Catanzaro, Bari, Potenza) 49 students 20 students 7 students 5 students 12 students Two-year post-graduate degree program: Province of Naples Province of Caserta Province of Salerno Province of Potenza Province of Bari 14 students 7 students 3 students 1 student 1 student Considering the languages studied inside and outside the university, the participants of the survey do not constitute a homogenous group. Students of the three-year degree courses program participating in the survey study the following languages: English (50 students), German (39 students), Russian (33 students), French (24 students), Spanish (22 students), Arabic (9 students), Dutch (3 students) and Portuguese (5 students). English-Russian English-German French-German German-Spanish French-Spanish English-French German-Russian Russian-Spanish English-Portuguese Arabic-Spanish 2 19 18 8 7 6 5 5 5 4 3 Arabic-English Arabic-French French-Russian Arabic-Russian English-Dutch French-Dutch German-Dutch Russian-Polish Spanish-Portuguese 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 students were in the 19 years, 49 students in the 20 years, 16 students in the 21 years, 4 students in the 22 years, 1 student in the 23 years, 3 students in the 24 years, 2 students in the 25 years, 1 student in the 28 years and 1 (international) student in the 42 years category. 3 1 student was in the 21 years, 4 students were in the 22 years, 3 students in the 23 years, 5 students in the 24 years, 5 students in the 25 years, 3 students in the 26 years, 1 student in the 27 years, 1 student in the 28 years, 1 student in the 29 years and 2 students in the 33 years category. �4 Distribution of the language pairs studied by the 1st level participants Students of the two-year post-graduate degree program participating in the survey study the following languages: English (19 students), Spanish (11 students), German (5 students), French (4 students), Swedish (2 students), Russian (1 student), Chinese (1 student) and Japanese (1 student). English-Spanish 7 English-Chinese 1 English-German 4 English-Japanese 1 English 3 Spanish-French 1 Spanish 3 English-French 1 French 2 German-Russian 1 Swedish-English 2 Distribution of the languages/language pairs studied by the 2nd level participants The questionnaire contained various questions concerning Facebook usage and students’ perceptions and the analyzes of the answers is rather interesting. The first question asked how many times a day students log in to Facebook? According to the definition of Prensky (2001), all the 119 respondents are native digitals, they have a Facebook account and they spend a substantial amount of time logged in Facebook. This social networking site is an integral part of the daily routine of the majority of the participants and they use it both on desktop and mobile devices (logging in with their phones). Students’ answers indicate also that 2nd level students log in to Facebook less often. Students of the three-year degree courses program: From 1 to 5 From 6 to 10 More than 10 33 (35.48%) 33 (35.48%) 27 (29.03%) Students of the two-year post-graduate degree program: From 1 to 5 From 6 to 10 More than 10 13 (50%) 8 (30.77%) 5 (19.23%) The second question asked the average amount of time students spend on Facebook a week: Students of the three-year degree courses program: No answer 3 (3.23%) �5 Max. 1 hour From 1 to 3 hours From 4 to 8 hours From 10 to 20 hours From 20 to 100 hours Significant amount of time Not too much 16 (17.20%) 31 (33.33%) 22 (23.66%) 15 (16.13%) 5 (5.38%) 1 (1.08%) No answer Max. 1 hour From 1 to 3 hours From 4 to 8 hours From 10 to 20 hours From 20 to 100 hours Significant amount of time 2 (7.69%) 2 (7.69%) 8 (30.77%) 5 (19.23%) 4 (15.38%) 4 (15.38%) 1 (3.85%) Students of the two-year post-graduate degree program: According to their answers, every week students spend a significant amount of time on Facebook and this information should be considered also for the academic practices. Generally speaking, we can state that the majority of the students spend at least one hour a day on Facebook. The third question asked about the language(s) the participants most frequently use on Facebook beyond the Italian language (or in case of foreign students, beyond their mother tongue): Students of the three-year degree courses program: English English and French English and Spanish French English and Russian English, Spanish and Portuguese English, Spanish and German English and German Spanish NONE English, French and German. English, Spanish and French 37 13 9 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 English, German and Russian English, Spanish, German and French Italian, French, English and a little Russian Italian, English and Russian Dutch Polish Russian Only Italian and mothertongues Spanish and French German 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 83.87% of the students uses also English on Facebook, which is again a rather significant value, yet educators should not neglect the usage of German, French, Spanish and Russian as well as second languages. Students of the two-year post-graduate degree program: �6 English English, Spanish English and French English and German English and Chinese English, Spanish and French 8 6 2 2 1 1 English, Spanish and Swedish English and Swedish English, German and Russian Italian (L2) Spanish Spanish and French 1 1 1 1 1 1 Within the two-year post-graduate degree program, the situation is similar. 23 (88.46%) of the participants use English as a second language on Facebook. A consistent number of students uses on the social networking site also Spanish (10, 38.46%) and French (4, 15.38%). The fourth question asked students about the main reasons for which they usually use Facebook: According to the answers, it seems that usually students are more passive than active on Facebook. They seem to spend more time observing or reading contents on Facebook than posting them. The main reasons Facebook is used by the students are for fun and entertainment and for social interaction, usually with faraway family members or friends with whom students have a pre-established, existing relationship. After these two primary uses of Facebook, this social networking site has also an important role in the academic lives of the students involved in this study. Almost all the students are member of different closed university groups. There are two types of university groups: one created and administered by the same educators (less frequent) and the ones created and administered by the students in which professors are not welcome. In the latter ones, students are involved in education-related communication. There are groups dedicated to almost all the courses taught at the University and they are used mainly for organizational reasons and to connect with and communicate with the other students of the different courses. Usually students communicate about course materials, contents of the lessons, most frequently they publish questions about the exams or the results of the written exams, Erasmus exchange, but also about exam sessions and other generic topics concerning various academic practices. Many students of the three-year degree courses program (35.48%) state that they are using Facebook also to learn language and culture, so as a tool able to support self-training. However, this value diminishes noticeably among the students of the two-year post-graduate degree program. Students of the three-year degree courses program: Fun, leisure, entertainment Social interaction (to keep in touch with faraway family and friends) Language learning As a source of information For work or sale or hobby To like pages dedicated to films, TV series, music, handicraft, etc. To share photos/videos 72 (77.42%) 66 (70.97%) 33 (35.48%) 15 (16.13%) 7 (7.53%) 5 (5.38%) 4 (4.30%) �7 To see the photos, videos and posts on the wall of the friends To share and/or to see links To communicate with foreign friends To like journals, websites, etc. To chat To follow and/or discover trends 4 (4.30%) 3 (3.23%) 3 (3.23%) 2 (2.15%) 2 (2.15%) 2 (2.15%) Students of the two-year post-graduate degree program: Social interaction (to keep in touch with faraway family and friends) Fun, leisure, entertainment As a source of information Language learning Boredom 23 (88.46%) 16 (61.54%) 8 (30.77%) 6 (23.08%) 1 (3.85%) Considering the content of the two tables above, it is also evident, that all these students are familiar with the various receptive and productive activities available on Facebook, such as chatting, messaging, liking pages and groups, sharing images, videos, links, commenting on walls, etc. The fifth question asked students about their usage of Facebook to learn languages. According to the answers, 20 (21.51%) out of 93 students of the three-year degree courses program do not use Facebook for language learning, while 2 students affirmed that language learning is only a secondary effect of this social networking site. To the specific question concerning the usage of Facebook for language-learning reasons, 71 students (76.34%) affirm to use Facebook with this aim too. 49 students (52.69%) use Facebook to enhance their English, 29 (31.18%) to enhance their French, 18 (19.35%) to enhance their Spanish, 17 (18.28%) to enhance their German and 12 (12.90%) to enhance their Russian language skills. No 20 (21.51%) Yes, English 15 (16.13%) Yes, French 6 (6.45%) Yes, English and French 6 (6.45%) Yes, English and German 5 (5.38%) Yes, Russian 4 (4.30%) Yes, German 4 (4.30%) Yes, Spanish and German 3 (3.23%) Yes, English, Spanish and 3 (3.23%) Portuguese Yes, English and Russian 3 (3.23%) Yes, Spanish 2 (2.15%) Yes, English, Spanish and Russian Yes, English, French and Russian Yes, English, French and German Yes, English and Spanish Yes, English and Arabic As a secondary effect, English Yes, Spanish, German and Dutch Yes, Russian and Spanish Yes, Italian (as L2) 2 (2.15%) 2 (2.15%) 2 (2.15%) 2 (2.15%) 2 (2.15%) 2 (2.15%) 1 (1.08%) 1 (1.08%) 1 (1.08%) �8 Yes, French and German 1 (1.08%) Yes, English, Spanish and 1 (1.08%) Arabic Yes, English, French, 1 (1.08%) Spanish and Italian (L2) Yes, English, French, German and Spanish Yes, English, French and Spanish Yes, English and Dutch Yes, Arabic 1 (1.08%) 1 (1.08%) 1 (1.08%) 1 (1.08%) 7 students (26.93%) of the two-year post-graduate degree program do not use Facebook to enhance their language skills and 4 students (15.38%) are not really persuaded by Facebook as a learning place, even if they admit its usefulness in a certain measure. 15 students (57.69%) use this social networking site also to learn English, 8 students (30.77%) use it for Spanish and others also for French, German and other languages (Swedish, Russian, Chinese). No Yes, English and Spanish Yes, English Yes, French Yes, English and Chinese Yes, English and French Yes, English and Swedish Yes, English, Swedish, Spanish and French 7 (26.93%) 4 (15.38%) 3 (11.54%) 1 (3.85%) 1 (3.85%) 1 (3.85%) 1 (3.85%) 1 (3.85%) Yes, English, German and Russian Yes, Spanish Yes, Spanish and French As a secondary effect, English Not too much, English, Spanish and French Rarely, English and German Occasionally, German 1 (3.85%) 1 (3.85%) 1 (3.85%) 1 (3.85%) 1 (3.85%) 1 (3.85%) 1 (3.85%) The aim of the next question was to explore, in case of Facebook usage for language learning, which activities or options of the site are typically used. Students of the three-year degree courses program usually chat with Facebook friends who are native speakers of the languages they study and want to improve. In this case Facebook has an important function in language learning: to substitute the direct face-to-face relationship it is able to provide interactive and authentic access to native speakers and also to different kind of documents in various languages. So, from this point of view, one of the main benefits of Facebook is that it facilitates collaborative exchanges between language learners and native speakers. Some students are members of specific Facebook groups and others follow various pages written in foreign languages. Following foreign newspapers or famous persons allows also to avoid adding strangers to the friend list and giving them access to the personal information, while it ensures a certain level of exposure to the foreign language through the various feeds. �9 To a lesser extent, students also engage in several other common activities on the site. It is interesting to point out that a part of the students changed the language of their account (Facebook language settings) in a language different from their mother tongue as they are convinced that it can offer certain benefits to the language learning process and it provides more exposure to the target language. Students of the three-year degree courses program: Not applicable Chatting with native speakers Being member of groups created for language learners “Liking” pages in foreign languages (newspapers, journals, recensions of disks, make-up, pastry making…) Watching videos in foreign languages Reading articles in foreign languages Reading and/or commenting posts written by foreign friends Setting Facebook in a foreign language “Liking” pages dedicated to teaching foreign languages Visiting links in foreign languages Listening to songs Watching images in foreign languages Visiting pages where users upload TV series in English 18 (19.35%) 32 (34.40%) 20 (21.51%) 17 (18.28%) 13 (13.98%) 10 (10.75%) 8 (8.60%) 8 (8.60%) 7 (7.53%) 5 (5.38%) 3 (3.23%) 2 (2.15%) 1 (1.08%) Students of the 2nd level are also engaged in certain common Facebook activities with the aim of facilitating language learning. Students of the two-year post-graduate degree program: Not applicable Being member of groups created for language learners “Liking” pages in foreign languages (newspapers, journals, recensions of disks, make-up, pastry making…) “Liking” pages dedicated to teaching foreign languages Reading articles in foreign languages Chatting with native speakers Listening to interviews Reading and/or commenting posts written by foreign friends Watching videos in foreign languages Writing posts in foreign languages 8 (30.77%) 6 (23.08%) 6 (23.08%) 5 (19.23%) 5 (19.23%) 3 (11.54%) 2 (7.69%) 2 (7.69%) 2 (7.69%) 1 (3.85%) The seventh question asked students whether Facebook can enhance the knowledge of foreign languages. The majority of the students (more than 60%) of the three-year degree courses �10 program clearly agree that Facebook can be a useful tool in language learning. However, there is a certain difference between the two groups: in fact, this rate decreased significantly in the second group: Three-year degree courses program: Yes No Yes, a bit Yes, enough Not much Yes, very much Yes, partially Yes, minimally Sometimes 44 (47.31%) 8 (8.60%) 8 (8.60%) 7 (7.53%) 6 (6.45%) 6 (6.45%) 4 (4.30%) 4 (4.30%) 4 (4.30%) Two-year post-graduate degree program: Yes No Yes, enough Yes, minimally Not much Yes, more or less 13 (50%) 5 (19.23%) 4 (15.38%) 2 (7.69%) 1 (3.85%) 1 (3.85%) The next open question then was related to the previous one and wanted to investigate the role of Facebook in enhancing students’ different language skills. So, in this question I’ve asked the participants to describe those language skills that according to them can be enhanced simply using Facebook. They were asked also to differentiate their answers according to the different languages they use on Facebook. However, at this step I’ll illustrate the comprehensive outcome of this investigation. The results illustrated that, from the perceptions of the students, Facebook is a resource that with its different features is able to enrich their vocabulary and reading, writing and listening skills in the different foreign languages. In both groups a great number of students affirmed that they can learn or absorb many new vocabularies and expressions rather unconsciously just reading posts, comments, article, etc. on Facebook. A certain number of students answered that they can learn jokes, slang words and expressions just as a result of a natural and unconscious process, and they can experience a deepened understanding of the different cultures: Three-year degree courses program: Vocabulary Reading Writing 70 (75.53%) 63 (67.77%) 49 (52.69%) Listening Proverbs, idioms, wordplays Youth slang Speaking Pronunciation 39 (41.94%) 11 (11.83%) 10 (10.75%) 8 (8.60%) 2 (2.15%) �11 Two-year post-graduate degree program: Listening Speaking Youth slang Proverbs, wordplays Vocabulary 9 (34.62%) 3 (11.54%) 3 (11.54%) idioms, 1 (3.85%) 18 (69.23%) Reading 16 (61.54%) Writing 16 (61.54%) With the aid of the next question I wanted to investigate further their behavior concerning the liking and following of pages in foreign languages (especially pages concerning language learning, newspapers, journals, TV series, etc.). The main part of the participants uses this common option of Facebook and some of the most popular pages for language learning are the followings: Ich liebe Deutsch, J’aime le français, Phrasal Verbs Club, Tedesco per italiani, Goethe Institut - Deutsch lernen, Deutsch Italia, Fun Russian, Impara il russo con Tanyusha, Russian Vocabulary, Centro russo dell’Università degli studi di Napoli “L’Orientale”, English idioms, English Speaking Club; English is Fun, BBC Learning English, IELTS Official, Cambridge English, Apprendre le Français, Praticamos Espanol, etc. three-year degree courses program two-year post-graduate degree program Yes 68 (73.11%) No 25 (26.69%) 24 (92.30%) 2 (7.70%) Finally, a particular attention was paid in this survey to Facebook groups (a feature available on Facebook to gather users that share common interests) for language teaching and learning. In fact, the last open question investigated the level of students’ participation in Facebook groups for language learning. While all participants are familiar with Facebook groups and their features, it seems that the groups for language learning are not really popular. The main part of the students felt that utilizing Facebook groups as a tool for language learning does not really supports language acquisition and only few of them are members of these particular kind of Facebook groups: A few examples given by the students are the followings: Es. Studiamo il tedesco: grammatica-regole e frasi utili, Studiamo il francese: Grammatica-Regole-Frasi utili, Studiamo il Tedesco: Grammatica-Regole-Frasi utili, Nederlands als tweede tal, Polyglot gathering, Tandem Deutsch-Italienisch / Tandem Tedesco-Italiano, Jetzt lernen wir Deutsch, Italienisch Lernen - imparare il tedesco, Uk languages courses, Linguaenglish, Learn English with SOLEX College, BBC Learning English. No Yes �12 three-year degree courses program two-year post-graduate degree program 65 (69.89%) 28 (30,11%) 20 (76.92%) 6 (23.08%) 4. Conclusion Analyzing the answers, it is also discovered that despite the positive affective influences Facebook in general and Facebook groups in particular have on the participants, many students still prefer the actual classroom discussion or other social networking sites or other resources (skype) instead of Facebook. However, this study offers opportunities for future research at our University and in the Italian context as well concerning the usage of Facebook in higher education. Understanding better how students are using Facebook and the other popular social networking sites for academic purposes and also outside the university to support and integrate their learning processes and to increase their knowledge of the target culture may provide valuable data and ideas about how these learning opportunities could be integrated also into the formal university context. As it is rather evident that students are highly interested in Facebook for educational and education-related purposes, in my opinion, it should also encourage faculty members in a greater extent to use this networking site during the educational process. �13 Appendix a) Three-year degree courses program Questions concerning Facebook and Facebook Groups 1. I use English in the FB groups I’m a member 2. I use other foreign languages in the FB groups I’m a member Please, specify the language(s) 3. I talk about my language courses with my FB friends 4. I ask questions about the lessons/activities done during the language lessons 5. I ask generic questions about foreign languages 6. I speak/write in English on Facebook about different topics 7. I speak/write in other Foreign languages on Facebook about different topics Please, specify the language(s) 8. I publish useful and interesting posts in foreign languages 11. I never neglect the posts of other users concerning language learning 10. I “like” if I see groups promoting language learning Always Sometimes Never 4 11 Italian Russian (3) Spanish (4) German (4) French (3) 29 44 20 54 32 French (11) German (10) Spanish (9) Russian (6) Arabic (1) Portuguese (1) Dutch (1) 57 22 52 13 14 8 54 62 19 17 7 Spanish (2) French (3) German (1) Italian (1) Russian (1) 34 13 46 French (18) German (12) Spanish (17) Russian (9) Portuguese (2) Italian (2) Dutch (2) Arabic (1) 50 30 47 10 48 32 7 10 24 �14 11. I write in foreign languages on Facebook whenever I can Please, specify the language(s) 27 English (20) French (10) Spanish (11) German (7) Russian (4) Italian (1) Portuguese (1) 12. I learn new words/expressions through my 44 conversations on Facebook English (33) Please, specify the language(s) Spanish (16) French (12) German (10) Russian (5) Portuguese (4) Dutch (2) Italian (1) 13. If necessary, to chat on Facebook in foreign 25 languages, I use dictionaries 14. If during the conversations in foreign 39 languages, I have difficulties, I ask for help/explanation 15. I share my stories and personal experiences on 9 Facebook in foreign languages b) Two-year post-graduate degree program 45 English (33) French (12) Spanish (13) German (9) Russian (6) Dutch (2) Arabic (1) 34 English (25) French (11) Spanish (9) German (3) Russian (3) Arabic (1) Dutch (1) 15 47 15 39 9 36 25 9 Questions concerning Facebook and Facebook Groups 1. I use English in the FB groups I’m a member 2. I use other foreign languages in the FB groups I’m a member Please, specify the language(s) Always Sometimes Neve r 9 13 5 2 French (1) Spanish (2) 3. I talk about my language courses with my FB friends 1 11 10 French (4) Spanish (4) German (2) Swedish (1) Chinese (1) 18 4. I ask questions about the lessons/activities done during the language lessons 5. I ask generic questions about foreign languages 6. I speak/write in English on Facebook about different topics 7. I speak/write in other Foreign languages on Facebook about different topics 6 16 3 1 1 19 22 5 2 1 Spanish 16 Spanish (8) 8 6 �15 Please, specify the language(s) 8. I publish useful and interesting posts in foreign languages 9. I never neglect the posts of other users concerning language learning 10. I “like” if I see groups promoting language learning 11. I write in foreign languages on Facebook whenever I can Please, specify the language(s) 6 French (5) German (3) Swedish (1) Chinese (1) Italian (1) 16 7 18 14 7 English (6) Spanish (5) French (4) German (1) 3 4 3 12. I learn new words/expressions through my conversations on Facebook Please, specify the language(s) 10 English (9) Spanish (6) French (3) German (2) Italian (1) Swedish (1) 13. If necessary, to chat on Facebook in foreign languages, I use dictionaries 14. If during the conversations in foreign languages, I have difficulties, I ask for help/explanation 15. I share my stories and personal experiences on Facebook in foreign languages 5 8 14 English (14) Spanish (5) German (3) French (1) Italian (1) Chinese (1) 12 English (12) Spanish (5) French (3) German (2) Russian (1) Swedish (1) Chinese (1) 17 6 13 6 3 9 13 References: Abidin, M. J. Z., Ahmad, N., & Kabilan, M. K. (2010). Facebook: An online environment for learning of English in institutions of higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 179-187. Acquisti, A., & Gross, R. (2006). Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the Facebook. In Danezis G., & Golle Ph. (Eds.). Privacy Enhancing Technologies: 6th International Workshop, PET 2006, Cambridge, UK, June 28-30, 2006, Revised Selected Papers. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media, pp. 36-58. 3 3 �16 Addolorato, A. (2009). Facebook come piattaforma di autoformazione linguistica. In Borgato, R., Capelli, F., & Ferraresi M. (Eds.), Facebook come. Le nuove relazioni virtuali (pp. 176182). Milano: Angeli. Akbari, E., Naderi, A., Simons, R-J., & Pilot, A. (2016). Student engagement and foreign language learning through online social networks. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education 1(4). Alfaki, I. M., & Alharthy, Kh. (2014). Towards a Digital World: Using Social Networks to Promote Learner’s Language. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 10(4), 105-114. Astin, A. (1984). Student involvement: a developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297-308. Aydin, S. (2014). Foreign language learners’ interactions with their teachers on Facebook. System, 42, 155-163. Bani-Hani, N. A., Al-Sobh, M. A., & Abu-Melhim, A-R. H. (2014). Utilizing Facebook Groups in Teaching Writing: Jordanian EFL Students’ Perceptions and Attitudes. International Journal of English Linguistics, 5(4), 27-34. Baralt, M. (2011). The Use of Social Networking Sites for Language Practice and Learning. Ilha Do Desterro. A Journal of English Language, Literatures in English and Cultural Studies, 60, 277-304. Bateman, D., & Willems, J. (2012). Facing off: Facebook and higher education. In Wankel, L. A. & Wankel, Ch. (Eds.). Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher Education: Vol. 5. Misbehavior Online in Higher Education (pp. 53-79). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. Belz, J. A., & Thorne, S. L. (Eds.). (2006). Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education, Boston, MA: Heinle. Blattner, G. & Fiori, M. (2011). Virtual Social Network Communities: An Investigation of Language Learners’ Development of Sociopragmatic Awareness and Multiliteracy Skills. CALICO Journal, 29(1), 24-43. Blattner, G. & Fiori, M. (2009). Facebook in the language classroom: Promises and possibilities. Instructional Technology and Distance Learning (ITDL), 6(1), 17-28. Blattner, G. & Lomicka L. (2012). Facebook-ing and the Social Generation: A New Era of Language Learning, Alsic, 15(1). Boglou, D. (2014). Is Facebook a Distraction or a Valuable Academic Tool? A Personal Reflection in Using Facebook in an Advanced English Academic Classroom. In Conference proceedings. ICT for language learning, edited by Pixel, 7th Conference Edition, Florence, Italy, 13-14 November 2014 (pp. 262-265). Padova: libreriauniversitaria.it edizioni. Bozarth, J. (2010). Social media for trainers: techniques for enhancing and extending learning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. Brady, K. P., Holcomb, L. B., & Smith, B. V. (2010). The Use of Alternative Social Networking Sites in Higher Educational Settings: A Case Study of the E-Learning Benefits of Ning in Education. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(2), 1-20. �17 Brick, B. (2011). How effective are web 2.0 language learning sites in facilitating language learning?. Compass: The Journal of Learning and Teaching at the University of Greenwich, 3, 57-63. Buga, R., Căpeneaţă, I., Chirasnel, C. & Popa, A. (2014). Facebook in foreign language teaching – a tool to improve communication competences. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 128, 93-98. Chartrand, R. (2012). Social networking for language learners: Creating meaningful output with Web 2.0 tools. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 4(1). Chen, P. S. D., Lambert, A. D., & Guidry, K. R. (2010). Engaging online learners: the impact of web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education, 54(5), 1222-1232. Chen, B., & Bryer, T. (2012). Investigating Instructional Strategies for Using Social Media in Formal and Informal Learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(1), 87-104. Cheung, C. M. K., Chiu, P-Y., & Lee, M. K. O. (2011). Online Social Networks: Why Do Students Use Facebook?. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(4), 1337-1343. Chu, M., & Meulemans, Y. N. (2008). The problems and potential of MySpace and Facebook usage in academic libraries. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 13(1), 69-85. Corrin, L., Bennett, S., & Lockyer, L. (2010). Digital natives: Everyday life versus academic study. In Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Hodgson, V., Jones, C., de Laat, M., McConnell, D. & Ryberg, T. (Eds.). Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Networked Learning (pp. 643-650). Aalborg: Aalborg University. Corrin, L., Lockyer, L., & Bennett, S. (2010). Technological diversity: an investigation of students’ technology use in everyday life and academic study. Learning Media and Technology, 35(4), 387-401. Cotroneo, E. (2012). Da Facebook a Ning per imparare l’italiano: quando il social network fa didattica. In Alderete, P., McLoughlin Incalcaterra, L., Ní Dhonnchadha, L., & Ní Uigín, D. (Eds.). Translation, Technology & Autonomy in Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 219-240). Oxford, UK: Peter Lang. Davies, J. (2012). Facework on Facebook as a new literacy practice. Computers & Education, 59, 19-29. Depew, K. E. (2011). Social media at academia’s periphery: Studying multilingual developmental writers’ Facebook composing strategies. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 11(1), 54-75. Derakhshan, A., & Hasanabbasi, S. (2015). Social Networks for Language Learning. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(5), 1090-1095. Duffy, P. (2011). Facebook or Faceblock: Cautionary Tales Exploring the Rise of Social Networking within Tertiary Education. In Lee, M. J. W., & McLoughlin, C. (Eds.). Web 2.0-Based E-Learning: Applying Social Informatics for Tertiary Teaching (pp. 284-300). Hershey-New York: IGI Global. Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S. R., & Passerini, K. (2007). Trust and privacy concern within social networking sites: A comparison of Facebook and MySpace. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Keystone, Colorado August 0912 2007. Paper 339. �18 Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends”: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication 12(4), 1143-1168. George, J. (2015). Facebook to Facebook Encounters in Japan: How an Online Social Network Promotes Autonomous L2 Production. In Piasecka, L., Adams-Tukiendorf, M., & Wilk, P. (Eds.). New Media and Perennial Problems in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 91-112). Cham-Heidelberg-New York-Dordrecht-London: Springer. Godwin-Jones, R. (2008). Mobile computing technologies: Lighter, faster, smarter. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3), 3-9. Gonglewski, M., & DuBravac, S. (2006). Multiliteracy: Second language literacy in the multimedia environment. In Ducate, L. & Arnold, N. (Eds.). Calling on CALL: From theory and research to new directions in foreign language teaching (pp. 43-68), San Marcos, TX: CALICO. Greenhow, C. & Burton, L. (2011). Help from my “friends”: social capital in the social network sites of low-income students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(2), 223245. Greenhow, C., & Robelia, E. (2009a). Informal learning and identity formation in online social networks. Learning, Media and Technology 34(2), 119-140. Greenhow, C., & Robelia, E. (2009b). Old communication, new literacies: Social network sites as social learning resources. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14(4), 11301161. Gross, R., & Acquisti, A. (2005). Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. In WPES ’05 Proceedings of the 2005 ACM workshop on Privacy in the electronic society (pp. 71-80). New York: ACM New York. Guy, R. (2012). The use of social media for academic practice: A review of literature. Kentucky Journal of Higher Education Policy and Practice, 1(2), 1-20. Hamid, S., Chang, S., & Kurnia, S. (2009). Identifying the use of online social networking in higher education. In Same places, different spaces. Proceedings ascilite Auckland 2009. 26th Annual ascilite International Conference, Auckland, 6-9 December 2009 (pp. 419422). Aukland: The University of Auckland, Auckland University of Technology, and Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. Heiberger, G., & Harper, R. (2008). Have you Facebooked Astin lately? Using technology to increase student involvement. New Directions for Student Services, 124, 19-35. Heinze N., & Reinhardt, W. (2011) Future social learning networks at universities-an exploratory seminar setting. In Wankel, Ch. (Ed.). Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher Education: Vol. 1. Educating Educators with Social Media (pp. 155-172) Howard House, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Hewitt, A., & Forte, A. (2006). Crossing boundaries: Identity management and student/faculty relationships on the Facebook. Poster presented at the Computer Supported Cooperative Work Conference ’06, November 4-8, 2006, Banff, Alberta, Canada. Hinkel, E. (2011). Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (Vol. 2). New York-London: Routledge. �19 Jones, Ch., Ramanau, R., Cross, S. & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation or digital natives: is there a distinct new generation entering university?. Computers and Education, 54(3), 722732. Junco, R. (2012). The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in Facebook activities, and student engagement. Computers & Education, 58(1), 162-171. Kabilan, M. K., Norlida, A, & MohdJafre, Z. A. (2010). Facebook: An online environment for learning of English in Institutions of Higher Learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 179-187. Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59-68. Karpinksi, A. C., & Duberstein, A. (2009). A description of Facebook use and academic performance among undergraduate and graduate students. Presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, San Diego, California, 13-17 April. Kelm, O. R. (2011). Social media: It’s what students do. Business Communication Quarterly, 74(4), 505-520. Khoshnoud, Kh., & Karbalaei, A. (2014). The Effect of Interaction through Social Networks Sites on Learning English in Iranian EFL Context. Journal of Advances in English Language Teaching, 2(2), 27-33. Kikuchi, K., & Otsuka, T. (2008). Investigating the use of social networking services in Japanese EFL classrooms. The JALT CALL Journal, 4(1), 40-52. Kirschner, P., & Karpinski, A. (2010). Facebook and academic performance. Computers in Human Behaviour, 26(6), 1237-1245. Kitsis, S. M. (2008). The Facebook generation: Homework as social networking. English Journal, 98(2), 30-36. Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfield, C. (2006). A Face(book) in the crowd: Social searching vs. social browsing. In Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. 20th Anniversary, November 4-8, 2006. The Fairmont Banff Springs Hotel. Banff, Alberta, Canada. Conference Proceedings (pp. 167-170). New York: Association for Computing Machinery, Inc. Lampe, C., Wohn, D. Y., Vitak, J., Ellison, N. B., & Wash, R. (2011). Student use of Facebook for organizing collaborative classroom activities. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6, 329-347. Li, L., & Pitts, J. P. (2009). Does it really matter? Using virtual office hours to enhance studentfaculty interaction. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 175-185. Liu, Y. (2010). Social media tools as a learning resource. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 3(1), 101-114. Lin, C.-H., Warschauer, M., & Blake, R. (2016). Language learning through social networks: Perceptions and reality. Language Learning & Technology, 20(1), 124-147. Liu, M., Abe, K., Cao, M., Liu, S., Ok, D. U., Park, J.-b., Parrish, C. M., & Sardegna, V. G. (2015). An analysis of social network websites for language learning: Implications for teaching and learning English as a Second Language. CALICO Journal, 32(1), 114-152. Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., & Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook, social integration and informal learning at university: ‘It is more for socialising and talking to friends about work than for actually doing work’. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 141-155. �20 Manago, A., Taylor, T., & Greenfield, P. (2012). ‘Me and my 400 friends: the anatomy of college students’ Facebook networks, their communication patterns, and well-being’. Developmental Psychology, 48(2), 369-380. Marriott, R., & Torres, P. L. (2009). Handbook of Research on E-Learning Methodologies for Language Acquisition. Hershey, New York: Information Science Reference. Mason, R. & Rennie, F. (2008). E-learning and Social Networking Handbook. London: Routledge. Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). I’ll see you on ‘‘Facebook’’: The effects of computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on student motivation, affective learning, and classroom climate. Communication Education, 56(1), 1-17. Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2009). The effects of teacher self-disclosure via Facebook on teacher credibility. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 175-183. Mazman, S. G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2010). Modeling Educational Usage of Facebook. Computers & Education, 55, 444-453. McEwan, B. (2011). Hybrid engagement: How Facebook helps and hinders students’ social integration. In Wankel, L. A., Wankel, Ch. (Eds.). Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher Education: Vol. 2. Higher Education Administration with Social Media (pp. 3-23). Howard House, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Mendez, J. P., Curry, J., Mwavita, M., Kennedy, K., Weinland, K., & Bainbridge, K. (2009). To friend or not to friend: Academic interaction on Facebook. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 6(9), 33-47. Mills, N. A. (2009). Facebook and the use of social networking tools to enhance language learner motivation and engagement. Paper presented at the Northeast Association for Language Learning Technology (NEALLT) Conference. New Haven: Yale University. 30-31 October 2009. Available at: http://works.bepress.com/nicole_mills/29/ Mills, N. A. (2011). Situated learning through social networking communities: the development of joint enterprise, mutual engagement, and a shared repertoire. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 1-24. Motteram, G., & Sharma, P. (2009). Blending learning in a web 2.0 world. International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society, 7(2), 83-96. Muñoz, C. L., & Towner, T. (2010). Social networks: Facebook’s role in the advertising classroom. Journal of Advertising Education, 14(1), 20-27. Muñoz, C. L., & Towner, T. (2009). Opening Facebook: How to use Facebook in the college classroom. In I. Gibson, R. Weber, K. McFerrin, R. Carlsen & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (pp. 2623-2627). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Ophus, J. D., & Abbitt, J. T. (2009). Exploring the potential perceptions of social networking systems in university courses. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(4): 639-648. Pasek, J., More, E., & Hargittai, E. (2009). ‘Facebook and academic performance: reconciling a media sensation with data’, First Monday, 14(5). Available at: <http://ojs-prodlib.cc.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2498/2181>. Date accessed: 21 May. 2016. doi:10.5210/fm.v14i5.2498. �21 Pempek, T. A., Yermolayeva, Y. A., Calvert, S. L. (2009). College students’ social networking experiences on Facebook, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30(3), 227-238. Piasecka, L., Adams-Tukiendorf, M., Wilk, P. (2015). New Media and Perennial Problems in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching, Cham-Heidelberg-New York-DordrechtLondon: Springer. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants: A new way to look at ourselves and our kids. On the Horizon, 9(5). Prensky, M. (2006). Listen to the natives. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 8-13. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Part II: Do They Really Think Differently?. On the Horizon, 9(6). Prichard, C. (2013). Training L2 Learners to Use Facebook Appropriately and Effectively. CALICO, 30(2), 204-225. Redecker, C., Ala-Mutka, K., & Punie, Y. (2010). Learning 2.0 - The Impact of Social Media on Learning in Europe. Policy Brief. JRC 56958. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Reed, P. (2013). Hashtags and retweets: using Twitter to aid Community, Communication and Causal (informal) learning, Research in Learning Technology, 21(19692). Reynol, J. (2012). The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in Facebook activities, and student engagement. Computers & Education, 58(1), 162-171. Roblyera, M. D., McDanielb, M., Webbc, M., Hermand, J., & Witty, J. V. (2010). Findings on Facebook in higher education: A comparison of college faculty and student uses and perceptions of social networking sites. Internet and Higher Education 13(3), 134-140. Ross, C. E., Orr, S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J. M., Simmering, M. G., & Orr, R. R. (2009). Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 578-586. Salaway, G., Caruso, J. B., & Nelson, M. R. (2008). The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, Research Study (Vol. 8). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Sandhouse, J. (2012). Using Facebook to Enhance Academic Advising; Retrieved on May 22, 2016 from http://www.gatorjbone.com/assets/Using%20Facebook%20to%20Enhance%20Adademic %20Advising.pdf Selwyn, N. (2009). Faceworking: exploring students’ education-related use of Facebook. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 157-174. Shahrokni, S. (2009). Second language incidental vocabulary learning: The effect of online textual, pictorial, and textual pictorial glosses. TESL-EJ, 13(3), 1-17. Shih, R.-C. (2011). Can Web 2.0 technology assist college students in learning English writing? Integrating Facebook and peer assessment with blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(5), 829-845. Silius, K., Miilumäki, T., Huhtamäki, J., Tebest, T., Meriläinen, J., & Pohjolainen, S. (2010). Students’ Motivations for Social Media Enhanced Studying and Learning. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 2(1), 51-67. �22 Sitthirak, Ch. (2013). Social Media for Language Teaching and Learning, Thammasat University Journal 31(1). Retrieved on May 22, 2016 from http://164.115.22.25/ojs222/index.php/tuj/article/view/174/170 Skerrett, A. (2010). Lolita, Facebook and the third space of literacy teacher education. Educational Studies: Journal of the American Educational Studies Association, 46(1), 6784. Srirat, K., (2014). Using Facebook group to facilitate teaching English for everyday communication. In The 2014 WEI International Academic Conference Proceedings. June 22-25, 2014, Budapest, Hungary (pp. 5-10). Retrieved on May 22, 2016 from http://www.westeastinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Kesinee-Srirat-FullPaper.pdf Stern, D. M., & Willits, M. D. D. (2011). Social media killed the LMS: Re-imagining the traditional learning management system in the age of blogs and online social networks. In Wankel, Ch. (Ed.). Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher Education: Vol. 1. Educating Educators with Social Media (pp. 347-373) Howard House, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Stutzman, F., Capra, R., & Thompson, J. (2011). Factors mediating disclosure in social network sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 590-598. Stutzman, F., & Kramer-Duffield, J. (2008). Experience and privacy: Exploring the disclosure behaviors of established Facebook users. ASIST Annual Meeting. Conference Poster. Stutzman, F. (2011). Networked Information Behaviour in Life Transition, PhD Dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Tadros, M. (2011). A social media approach to higher education. In Wankel, Ch. (Ed.). Cuttingedge Technologies in Higher Education: Vol. 1. Educating Educators with Social Media (pp. 83-105) Howard House, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Bin Tahir, S. Z., & Aminah, A. (2014). Improving Students’ Writing Skill through Facebook at University of Iqra Buru. In Proceeding ICT for Language Learning 7th Edition (pp. 235241). Retrieved on May 22, 2016 from http://conference.pixelonline.net/ICT4LL/files/ict4ll/ed0007/FP/1287-ICL594-FP-ICT4LL7.pdf Thelwall, M. (2008). Social networks, gender, and friending: An analysis of MySpace member profiles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(8), 1321-1330. Towner, T. L., & Muñoz, C. L. (2011). Facebook and education: A classroom connection?. In Wankel, Ch. (Ed.). Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher Education: Vol. 1. Educating Educators with Social Media (pp. 155-172) Howard House, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Troncarelli, D. (2010). Strategie e risorse per l’insegnamento linguistico online. In Jafrancesco, E. (Ed.). Apprendere in rete: multimedialità e insegnamento linguistico. Atti del XVIII Convegno Nazionale ILSA (Firenze, 21 novembre 2009) (pp. 49-64). Firenze: Le Monnier. Tufekci, Z. (2008). Can you see me now? Audience and disclosure regulation in online social network sites. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 28(1), 20-36. Tynes, B. M. (2007). Internet safety gone wild?: Sacrificing the Educational and Psychosocial benefits of online social environments. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22(6), 575-584. Villano, M. (2007). Social revolution. Campus Technology, 20(5), 40-45. �23 Vivian, R., Barnes, A., Geer, R., & Wood, D. (2014). The academic journey of university students on Facebook: an analysis of informal academic-related activity over a semester. Research in Learning Technology, 22 (24681). Wang, Q., Woo, H. L., Quek, C. L., Yang, Y., & Liu, M. (2011). Using the Facebook group as learning management system: An exploratory study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3), 428-438. Wise, L. Z., Skues, J., & Williams, B. (2011). Facebook in higher education promotes social but not academic engagement. In Williams, G., Statham, P., Brown, N. & Cleland, B. (Eds.), Ascilite 2011. Changing Demands, Changing Directions. Wrest Point. Hobart Tasmania Australia, 4-7 December 2011. Proceedings (1332-1342). Tasmania: University of Tasmania. Wodzicki, K., Schwämmlein, E., & Moskaliuk, J. (2012). “Actually, I wanted to learn”: studyrelated knowledge exchange on social networking sites, The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 9-14. Yu, A. Y., Tian, S. W., Vogel, D., & Kwok, R. Ch-W. (2010a). Can learning be virtually boosted? An investigation of online social networking impacts, Computers and Education, 55(4), 1494-1503. Yu, A. Y., Tian, S. W., Vogel, D., & Kwok, R. Ch-W. (2010b). Embedded social learning in online social networking. In ICIS 2010 Proceedings. Paper 100. Retrieved on May 22, 2016 from http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2010_submissions/100 Yunus, M. M., Salehi, H., Sun, C. H., Yen, J. Y. P., & Li, L. K. S. (2011). Using Facebook Groups in Teaching ESL Writing. In Niola, V., & Ng, K-L. (Eds.). Recent researches in chemistry, biology, environment and culture (pp. 75-80). Proceedings of the 5th WSEAS International Conference on COMPUTATIONAL CHEMISTRY (COMPUCHEM ’11). Proceedings of the 7th WSEAS International Conference on CELLULAR and MOLECULAR BIOLOGY, BIOPHYSICS and BIOENGINEERING (BIO ’11). Proceedings of the 9th WSEAS International Conference on ENVIRONMENT, ECOSYSTEMS and DEVELOPMENT (EED ’11). Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Bioscience and Bioinformatics (ICBB ’11). Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Arts and Culture (ICAC ’11). Montreux, Switzerland. December 29-31, 2011. WSEAS Press. Retrieved on May 22, 2016 from http://www.wseas.us/elibrary/conferences/2011/Montreux/COMICICBIO/COMICICBIO-11.pdf � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Extent The size or duration of the resource. 3265 Title A name given to the resource Language learning through Facebook: A descriptive case study Author Author Papp, Judit Abstract A summary of the resource. According to the statistics as of 15 November 2015 in Italy there are about 28,000,000 Facebook subscribers, which means a 46.1% penetration rate. Facebook is also the most commonly used social networking tool among university students: their involvement and the hours they spend on this popular networking site should encourage educators in higher education institutions to consider it as a place for learning and to integrate it in the academic practices. This paper reports and analyzes the data collected using a questionnaire concerning students’ perceptions of language learning possibilities on Facebook. The survey was conducted at the University of Naples “L’Orientale” (Department of Literary, Linguistics and Comparative Studies) during the academic year 2015-2016 and involved students enrolled in three different courses. At this step, students’ perceptions and attitudes were measured through a questionnaire including several questions about demographic information, their perceptions of Facebook and their use and behavior on this social network site. The main purpose of this study was to find out the role and benefits of Facebook in students’ language learning processes, whether Facebook is able to improve students’ language skills and whether students use specific Facebook groups to facilitate language learning. The study was limited only to the generic social networking site Facebook, excluding all the other social networking sites (including the relatively new Language Learning Social Network Sites (LLSNSs) too, such as Babbel, Busuu, italki; Polyglotclub, etc.) Keywords: Social networking sites, Facebook, Foreign language learning, Engagement Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available International Burch University Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2016-04-10 Keywords Keywords. Article PeerReviewed PE English