265 10 3494 https://omeka.ibu.edu.ba/files/original/7ae1f0050f35501e798efbdfa2ee6cbf.pdf 95201a5b9a75eaa1fbf2b7012d56a92e PDF Text Text BİLDİRİ ÖZETLERİ - UTEK 2014 öncesine rastlaması gerekmektedir ve bunu kanıtlamak daha mümkün olmamıştır. Eğer vakit olursa veya bu konuda soru sorulursa Uygur Bozkır Kağanlığı’nda 1250 yıl önce milli din kabul edilen ve Doğu Türkistan Uygurlarının birçoğunun inandığı Mani dini ile Bosnalıların Bogomil dini arasındaki muhtemel ilişki konusunda da birkaç söz söyleyebilirim: Manicilik Mısır’da da önemli bir din olmuş, Orta Çağda Akdeniz’de Tunus’a, Fransa’ya kadar yayılmıştır. TESAWWUF TRADITION IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA – YESTERDAY AND TODAY Ćazim HADŽIMEJLIĆ Saraybosna Devlet Üniversitesi, Sarajevo / Bosna Hersek ABSTRACT Tessawuf in Bosnia was established in 15 century. Dervishes were coming to Bosnia earlier even in the end of 14 century, before Sultan II Mehmed Fatih conquered Bosnia. They were establishing relations with local people and spread tesawwuf. Tesawwuf in Bosnia found fertile ground and domicile people accept Islam trough tesawwuf. Tesawwuf had different popularity through recent five centuries, from the time when it was very popular and until the middle of 20th century, when was forbidden. From seventies it was again accepted by Islamic community when again dervishes lodges open for public. In this century tesawwuf again is more and more popular. Today we have survived just few tesawwuf buildings from ottoman period. However, we have left plenty of tesawwuf literature and other written work, which proves strong tesawwuf tradition in Bosnia. 9 � 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. 2623 Title A name given to the resource TESAWWUF TRADITION IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA – YESTERDAY AND TODAY Author Author HADŽIMEJLIĆ, Ćazim Abstract A summary of the resource. Tessawuf in Bosnia was established in 15 century. Dervishes were coming to Bosnia earlier even in the end of 14 century, before Sultan II Mehmed Fatih conquered Bosnia. They were establishing relations with local people and spread tesawwuf. Tesawwuf in Bosnia found fertile ground and domicile people accept Islam trough tesawwuf. Tesawwuf had different popularity through recent five centuries, from the time when it was very popular and until the middle of 20th century, when was forbidden. From seventies it was again accepted by Islamic community when again dervishes lodges open for public. In this century tesawwuf again is more and more popular. Today we have survived just few tesawwuf buildings from ottoman period. However, we have left plenty of tesawwuf literature and other written work, which proves strong tesawwuf tradition in Bosnia. 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 2014-05-23 Keywords Keywords. Article PeerReviewed Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context ISSN 2303-582X P Philology. Linguistics,PA Classical philology,PI Oriental languages and literatures,PN Literature (General) https://omeka.ibu.edu.ba/files/original/c2e3336107e24705e2cb860e160bcbac.docx 2a44002d743b2e4e6d384f1b82c91448 https://omeka.ibu.edu.ba/files/original/d4f1a380bd445fe7a7d1b2ef67a1dd83.pdf bfd167559ec5a5f4716ccc6c1f005ddc PDF Text Text Text Types and EFL Readers' Strategic Processing Tariq Alkhaleefah Al Imam Muhammed Ibn Saud University/ Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Key words: reading strategies,text types, coding,reading proficiency, think-alouds ABSTRACT Research in L2 reading strategies has reported various factors affecting ESL/EFL readers’ cognitive and metacognitive processing of texts. These include variables related to the reader, the text and the task assigned. Although L2 readers’ variables (e.g., L2 reading proficiency, vocabulary knowledge, prior background knowledge) have received considerable attention from L2 reading investigators, there still remains lack of qualitative studies that investigate how variations in text types and reading purposes can impact the strategic processing of L2 readers with varying reading proficiency. Hence, this study, through think-aloud reporting and retrospective interviews, explored the reading problems and strategies reported by Saudi EFL readers processing expository and narrative texts for two purposes for reading. The qualitative coding of the verbal protocols yielded a constructed taxonomy of seventy strategic processes. Of the three variables, text types (expository vs. narrative) proved to be the most influential, yielding significant differences for four out of six major categories and specific strategies, especially five bottom-up strategies. Generally, frequencies were found higher for the narrative text for the reading problems, word-attack strategies and bottom-up strategies, and higher for the expository text for the top-down strategies. With respect to the reading problems, the study findings are not consistent with those from previous studies which concluded that readers often encounter difficulties processing the expository than the narrative text due to the differences in readers’ formal schema about text types. Second, differences in L2 reading proficiency showed some significant differences between good and poor readers in three major problems being monitored and three top-down strategies. Nonetheless, the qualitative findings revealed that EFL good and poor readers differed in how they employed the strategies. Finally, the most used strategy was the cognitively undemanding strategy of rereading, then paraphrasing in L1, followed by reading on, adjusting reading rate/speed of reading, and paraphrasing in L2 � 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. 1984 Title A name given to the resource Text Types and EFL Readers' Strategic Processing Author Author ALKHALEEFAH, Tariq Abstract A summary of the resource. Key words: reading strategies,text types, coding,reading proficiency, think-alouds ABSTRACT Research in L2 reading strategies has reported various factors affecting ESL/EFL readers’ cognitive and metacognitive processing of texts. These include variables related to the reader, the text and the task assigned. Although L2 readers’ variables (e.g., L2 reading proficiency, vocabulary knowledge, prior background knowledge) have received considerable attention from L2 reading investigators, there still remains lack of qualitative studies that investigate how variations in text types and reading purposes can impact the strategic processing of L2 readers with varying reading proficiency. Hence, this study, through think-aloud reporting and retrospective interviews, explored the reading problems and strategies reported by Saudi EFL readers processing expository and narrative texts for two purposes for reading. The qualitative coding of the verbal protocols yielded a constructed taxonomy of seventy strategic processes. Of the three variables, text types (expository vs. narrative) proved to be the most influential, yielding significant differences for four out of six major categories and specific strategies, especially five bottom-up strategies. Generally, frequencies were found higher for the narrative text for the reading problems, word-attack strategies and bottom-up strategies, and higher for the expository text for the top-down strategies. With respect to the reading problems, the study findings are not consistent with those from previous studies which concluded that readers often encounter difficulties processing the expository than the narrative text due to the differences in readers’ formal schema about text types. Second, differences in L2 reading proficiency showed some significant differences between good and poor readers in three major problems being monitored and three top-down strategies. Nonetheless, the qualitative findings revealed that EFL good and poor readers differed in how they employed the strategies. Finally, the most used strategy was the cognitively undemanding strategy of rereading, then paraphrasing in L1, followed by reading on, adjusting reading rate/speed of reading, and paraphrasing in L2 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 https://omeka.ibu.edu.ba/files/original/fb968cbca8542f32c3e10bae1375afe6.docx df68d217d79f765ebfaf5000ee38b6eb https://omeka.ibu.edu.ba/files/original/78aa253fd0a8935bc4273c978822833d.pdf 9acbe0fd8fe3724d3022648c572d3965 PDF Text Text The Abandonment of the Poverty-Debt Circle by Dint of the Fiscal policy: the Modest B&H Experience ZehraMahmutović International Burch University Bosnia and Herzegovina zehra_mahmutovic@outlook.com Ugur Ergun International Burch University Bosnia and Herzegovina ugur.ergun@ibu.edu.ba Abstract: The recent crisis that was taking the stage in the 2008/2009 pioneered in developed countries (US and UK) after the failure and merging of numerous financial institutions, bailout of banks, and downturns in stock markets, but soon occupied most countries around the globe. As the consequence of the aforementioned experience many developing countries were caught into a cycle of poverty and debt which impairs a long-term, stable and sustained economic growth. The story of developing nation’s wide indebtedness starts with the advice of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank to borrow the necessary capital to achieve the economic recovery. So they were forced to borrow heavily in order to survive. There is generally ‘lack of agreement’ about the effects fiscal policy may have during crisis and thus the recent economic crisis stimulated various policy responses globally. But literature agrees that fiscal policy growth support is significantly hampered by the high initial levels of public debt.Bosnia and Herzegovina, a SEE developing country, are not an exception from this plague. It was floating for long without any BH institution in the ‘driving seat’ since the local fiscal coordination was in the hands of international community. In 2008, just prior to the Great recession but as the response to the missing fiscal responsibility International organizations advised the Fiscal Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina establishment. But the current situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina is quite away from this idea of sustainability and continuous economic development.In line with aforementioned statements, the objective of this study is to evaluate the existing fiscal policy in the developing Bosnia and Herzegovina in lights of existing relevant literature and to define modes that will perhaps brighten the crucial macroeconomic indicators. Keywords: Fiscal policy, debt, IMF, World Bank, unemployment, Central Bank, stand-by arrangement, developing. 26 �26 � 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. 2456 Title A name given to the resource The Abandonment of the Poverty-Debt Circle by Dint of the Fiscal policy: the Modest B&H Experience Author Author MAHMUTOVIC, Zehra ERGÜN, Uğur Abstract A summary of the resource. The recent crisis that was taking the stage in the 2008/2009 pioneered in developed countries (US and UK) after the failure and merging of numerous financial institutions, bailout of banks, and downturns in stock markets, but soon occupied most countries around the globe. As the consequence of the aforementioned experience many developing countries were caught into a cycle of poverty and debt which impairs a long-term, stable and sustained economic growth. The story of developing nation’s wide indebtedness starts with the advice of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank to borrow the necessary capital to achieve the economic recovery. So they were forced to borrow heavily in order to survive. There is generally ‘lack of agreement’ about the effects fiscal policy may have during crisis and thus the recent economic crisis stimulated various policy responses globally. But literature agrees that fiscal policy growth support is significantly hampered by the high initial levels of public debt.Bosnia and Herzegovina, a SEE developing country, are not an exception from this plague. It was floating for long without any BH institution in the ‘driving seat’ since the local fiscal coordination was in the hands of international community. In 2008, just prior to the Great recession but as the response to the missing fiscal responsibility International organizations advised the Fiscal Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina establishment. But the current situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina is quite away from this idea of sustainability and continuous economic development.In line with aforementioned statements, the objective of this study is to evaluate the existing fiscal policy in the developing Bosnia and Herzegovina in lights of existing relevant literature and to define modes that will perhaps brighten the crucial macroeconomic indicators. Keywords: Fiscal policy, debt, IMF, World Bank, unemployment, Central Bank, stand-by arrangement, developing. 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 2014-04-24 Keywords Keywords. Article PeerReviewed Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context ISSN 2303-4564 H Social Sciences (General) https://omeka.ibu.edu.ba/files/original/7c86cc9bd643e13420be0157601ac6c1.pdf 35515b7a82027cc9bc56f952529f50ce PDF Text Text THE ACCESSIBILITY HIERARCHY OF RELATIVIZATION IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION Richard Madsen Aalborg University, Denmark Article History: Submitted: 10.06.2015 Accepted: 22.06.2015 Abstract The accessibility hierarchy of relativization (Keenan and Comrie 1977) describes the restrictions that the grammar of a language imposes on the relativizability of clause and phrase constituents. This paper explores the applicability and validity of the accessibility hierarchy in second language acquisition and production. It has been noticed that even Danes who are fairly proficient in English (university students) seem to have difficulties with relativizing possessors despite the fact that Danish has the exact same rules for relativization as English. All the elements listed in Keenan and Comrie’s hierarchy can be relativized, and several of the relativizers in the two languages are cognates. On the one hand, the apparent difficulties of Danes defy common sense and theories on contrastivity and cross-linguistic influence (Ellis 2009, 2012, Jarvis 2011, Lado 1957), according to which Danes should not have problems with the formation of English relative clauses. On the other hand, they lend the accessibility hypothesis support since Danes seem to be challenged by the relativization of constituents that are low on the accessibility hierarchy, suggesting that the hierarchy is not only relevant for the static differences between language systems, but also for the dynamic interlanguage of language learners (Selinker 1972). This study investigates the nature of the abovementioned difficulties and attempts to place the accessibility hierarchy subsequently in the context of second language acquisition by analysing several types of data stemming from Danish students studying English Business Communication. Essays and summaries in English, translations from Danish into English and vice versa, as well as gap-filling tests and tests concerning the construction of relative clauses by merging independent clauses both in English and Danish are analysed. Key words: relativization, second language acquisition �1. Introduction The impetus for this study was the informal noticing that Danish university students of English seemed to have trouble with the use of whose as a relative pronoun. They often did not use it when the antecedent was a possessor in the relative clause, but erroneously replaced it by for instance which. It was even more surprising as Danish has the cognate pronoun hvis, which is used in exactly the same way as whose.1 According to the contrastivity hypothesis put forward by Lado (1957), Danes should therefore have no difficulties at all with using whose. One possible explanation for the apparent difficulties that has availed itself is the accessibility hierarchy in relativization (Keenan and Comrie 1977).According to this hypothesis, relativizing the possessor – precisely the function of whose/hvis – is somehow more difficult than relativizing most other syntactic positions as it is not allowed by all languages, and if allowed, then only if the other syntactic functions can be relativized as well. If one assumes that the relative rarity of languages that allow relativizing the possessor is a sign of the relativization of the possessor requiring more cognitive power than the relativization of most other syntactic functions, then it is conceivable that learning the relativization of the possessor is also more challenging even if the learner’s mother tongue allows it. From the above trail of thought, the following hypothesis is posited: The level of precision that Danes exhibit when rendering different syntactic positions in English relative clauses correlates with the accessibility hierarchy, namely in decreasing order of expected precision: subject, direct object, indirect object, oblique object and possessor (aka genitive). Relativizing the object of comparison, which is the lowest in Keenan and Comrie’s hierarchy, was not tested in this study. 2. Theory and method The theoretical standpoint of this study is that cross-linguistic variation has a cognitive basis, namely that linguistic phenomena (be they syntactic structures, individual sounds or combination of sounds) that are infrequent in the languages of the world are somehow more demanding cognitively than phenomena that are attested in many languages. (The present study does not concern itself with the question why this might be so.) Similarly, it is assumed that phenomena that are used less frequently within one language tend to be more tasking cognitively than phenomena that are used more routinely. As a logical extension of these assumptions, it is presumed that phenomena which are more arduous to use are also �harder to learn. This is why the accessibility hierarchy may be relevant for second language acquisition (SLA) even when the secondlanguage is very similar syntactically to the mother tongue, as in the case of English and Danish. For testing the hypothesis outlined above, a group of freshmen of English Business Communication at Aalborg University, Denmark have served as informants. Two types of data have been gathered: results of tests specifically developed for this study and error analysis of texts that the students had written independently of this study (Corder 1981). The tests were of two subtypes: clause-combining tests and gap-filling tests. In the clausecombining test, the students were given pairs of independent clauses with one common referent, and had to insert the second clause into the first one as a relative clause attached to the common referent: This exercise is intriguing. I investigate the accessibility hierarchy with this exercise. →This exercise, with which I investigate the accessibility hierarchy, is intriguing. In the gap-filling tests, the students had to insert the appropriate relative pronoun into matrix clauses.The reason for administering gap-filling tests as well, after the clause-combining tests, was that despite detailed instructions, quite a few students had not done the clause-combining test in the intended manner. Many a times the students disregarded the common element in the clauses and relativized another element instead, they swapped the clauses and inserted clause one into clause two instead of the other way around, or they rephrased the relative clause in such a way that the relativizer did not have the intended function. In this way, the students managed to avoid using the structure and the relativizer that the tests were meant to investigate. The gap-filling tests, on the other hand,forced the informants to consider the structures to be investigated. Nevertheless, the parts of the clause-combining tests that were not done in the intended manner by the informants are not considered lost, but actually revealing of the presupposed differences in the cognitive load of relativizing certain syntactic elements. For it is assumed that the students resorted to the above mentioned evasive actions when theseproduced cognitively less demanding structures than the ones intended by the tests. The tests were done both in English and Danish; also in Danish in order to see whether the students resort to similar evasive strategies in their mother tongue too as in their L2. If so, it will corroborate the assumption that some syntactic positions are harder to relativize even in languages that allow such relativization. In order also to have a textual base for the study, a body of texts written by freshmen in the last three academic years has been analysed for errors in the use of relative clauses with �special focus on relativizing the possessor, i.e. the relativizer serving as possessor in the relative clause. The informants participating in the tests described above form a subset of the informants contributing with texts. The texts were composed in the course Production of Written Texts and are within four genres: short compositions (e.g. business letters, ads) in English, summarising in English of an English original, translation from Danish into English and translation from English into Danish. 3. Analysis Let the analysis start with a brief descriptionof the Danish relativizers (Table 1). It is disputed whether all or in fact any of them can be called relative pronouns (Lehmann 1984, Togeby 2003); however, that discussion is beside the point of this study. Rel Antecedent Syntactic ativizer function in relative clause som any except a any except possessor any except a only subject clause der clause hvil a clause any except possessor hva a clause any except possessor and ket d subject hva a clause only subject hvil inanimate except any except possessor d der ken a clause hve animate any except possessor hvis any only possessor m Table 1: Danish relativizers Hvilken and hvem (cognates of which and who(m), respectively) are very seldom used as relativizers in modern Danish, but almost exclusively as interrogative pronouns, except in �specialised cases as described below. If hvilken is indeed used, it agrees with its antecedent in gender and number. Hvilket is the neuter singular of hvilken; however, in modern Danish it is almost only used with a clause as antecedent. Hvis is – as mentioned earlier – the genitive of hvem (the original nominative being hvo); however, it can – just as the English whose – also be used with inanimate antecedents. It has a substandard, yet especially in spoken discourse widely used alternative form hvems. Danish does not distinguish between restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses as far as the relativizer itself is concerned. Som and der, the most common relativizers in modern Danish, are also translation equivalents of as and there, respectively. 3.1. Results of the clause-combining tests Each syntactic position of the relativizer was tested by two pairs of sentences. As correct were accepted not only responses which were impeccable, but also responses that contained minor orthographic or morphological mistakes not concerning the relativizer, and/or in which the relative clause was extraposed, i.e. did not follow its antecedent immediately, but in which the extraposition could not possibly result in misinterpreting the antecedent (for instance She misses her grandma very much, who died a couple of weeks ago instead of She misses her grandma, who died a couple of weeks ago, very much). Rephrasing and reordering of the clauses were not accepted as correct no matter whether they were grammatically correct or not in and of themselves. Nor were accepted responses containing syntactic disorders, for instance pronominal repetition of the antecedent in the relative clause, or no visible attempts at relativization. 3.1.1. Clause-combining test in English Table 2 shows the aggregated results of the clause-combining test in English. This test was performed by 54 informants. Syntactic function relativizer of Average correctness Oblique object 69.4% Direct object 68.5% Subject 56.5% Possessor 39.8% �Indirect object 9.3% Table 2: Aggregated results of the clause-combining test in English This test does confirm the informal notice serving as the impetus to this study, namely that relativizing the possessor is rather problematic; however, it does not confirm the relevance of the accessibility hypothesis for SLA. The singularly miserable result for the indirect object is caused by the almost uniform lack of use of the preposition to by the informants. In Danish, the relativizer can function as the indirect object without being marked by a preposition, although the use of the cognate of to, til, is allowed. The picture is even more confusing when the test items are taken individually as shown in Table 3. Sequential Function of Functio position of antecedent in antecedent in clause n of relativizer clause 1 1 initial Level of correctness 1 subject oblique 90.7% object 2 mid direct object subject 87.0% 3 final direct object direct 77.8% possesso 61.1% direct 59.3% oblique 48.1% object 4 final direct object r 5 initial subject object 6 final direct object object 7 mid direct object subject 25.9% 8 initial subject possesso 18.5% indirect 13.0% indirect 5.6% r 9 final subject complement 1 initial object subject 0 object Table 3: Individual test items in English �It has been noted by Keenan & Comrie (1977) that the syntactic function and sequential position of the antecedent may interact with the use of the relativizer even to the degree of case assimilation, in languages that employ case (Tortzen 1993). This may explain some of the variation between the members of each pair of test items; however, the picture seems more chaotic than that. For instance, item 1 and 5 are alike with respect to the antecedent, yet the informants – contrary to expectations – score significantly higher in no. 1 than in no. 5. Conceivably, also the content of the clauses in the test items may play a role. Further research is necessary to determine whether it is so. 3.1.2. Clause-combining test in Danish Table 4 shows the aggregated results of the clause-combining test in Danish. This test was performed by 29 informants. Syntactic function of Average relativizer correctness subject 93.1% oblique object 74.1% possessor 74.1% direct object 72.4% indirect object 67.2% Table 4: Aggregated results of the clause-combining test in English Again, relativizing the possessor is relatively problematic although not so much as in the informants L2, English; and againthe relevance of the accessibility hypothesis for SLA is not corroborated. Moreover, as Table 5 shows it, there seem to be haphazard differences between the test items concerning the same syntactic function of the relativizer. Sequential Function of Functio position of antecedent in antecedent in clause n of relativizer clause 1 1 final Level of correctness 1 direct object subject 100% �2 final direct object subject 86.2% 3 final direct object oblique 86.2% possesso 86.2% indirect 75.9% direct 75.9% direct 69.0% possesso 62.1% oblique 62.1% indirect 58.6% object 4 initial subject r 5 initial subject object 6 initial subject object 7 final direct object object 8 final direct object r 9 initial subject object 1 final oblique object 0 object Table 5: Individual test items in Danish 3.2. Results of the gap-filling test The gap-filling test was used to see if the informants were able to choose the right (form of the) relativizer. It was taken by 40 informants. The focus was on relativizing the possessor, so this test was not designed to compare the relativization of different syntactic functions with each other, but to see whether the students chose whose/hvis when these were called for. Three test items in either language required the use of whose/hvis; its level of precision is shown in Table 6. Danish English Position and function of antecedent Level of precision Position function of antecedent and Level of precision initial, subject 95% initial, subject 80% final, 90% initial, subject 55% complement subject �initial, subject 80% initial, subject 35% Table 6: Level of precision of the use of whose/hvis It is clear that the students are challenged by the relativization of the possessor, especially of course in English, but to some extent even in Danish. Again, there is no obvious reason for the variation among the test items. 3.3. Results of the error analysis The error analysis of the corpus was used to see to what extent the relativization of the possessor is an issue in actual practice.860 texts in English containing some 225,000 words have been analysed. Altogether 15001 mistakes have been detected, of which 163 (1.09%) have to do with relativization. However, only 2 of these mistakes, both in short compositions, are the non-use of whose. Seen in this perspective, the improper relativization of the possessor is not a big issue in practise. However, if one considers that altogether only 7 attempts were made in the analysed texts to relativize the possessor, then getting 2 (29%) of them wrong constitutes a major source of errors. It must also be noted that whose is often misspelled in both the texts and the tests (as who’s, whos, whoes, whoms, whims), which underlines the observation that relativizing the possessor in English is a challenge for Danes.However, it must be added that this is not the main challenge for Danes as many more mistakes with, for instance, selecting the right relativizer with respect to the antecedent (who vs which)or using whom for relativizing the subject have been noticed. No attempts of and consequently no problems with relativizing the possessor have been detected in the 144 translations from English into Danish, worth nearly 38,000 words. 4. Conclusion It seems fair to conclude from the present study that the hypothesized relevance of the accessibility hierarchy for SLA is very little, at least for the L1-L2 pair of Danish and English.Even though it has been documented that relativizing the possessor is indeed on average more challenging for students of English than relativizing most other syntactic functions, the relativization of other syntactic function does not follow the accessibility hierarchy. Notably, the relativization of oblique objects seems unexpectedly easy for the students, even surpassing the relativization of the subject and direct object, which were expected to be the easiest of all. Nevertheless, this study may be useful for teachers of �English, as it has ascertained that the relativization of the possessor is indeed difficult for Danes, and its successful acquisition cannot be taken for granted just because Danish employs the exact same strategy with a cognate relativizer. The study has also revealed other areas of relativization that seem even more problematic for Danes, and which will be further investigated in a future study. 1 If one considers all the forms of the animate interrogative/relative pronoun, it is more conspicuous that hvis and whose are indeed cognates: who, whom, whose vs. hvo, hvem, hvis. Although hvo only appears in a couple of proverbs in modern Danish, replaced by hvem in all syntactic position except that of the possessor, Danes do seem to be aware that who(m) and hvem are related (see Section 3.3.). References Corder, P. (1981).Error Analysis and Interlanguage.Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2009). Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching.Buffalo: Multilingual Matters. Ellis, R. (2012). Second Language Acquisition.Oxford University Press. Jarvis, S. (2011). “Conceptual transfer: Crosslinguistic effects in categorization and construal” in Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14 (1), 2011, 1–8. Keenan, E. L. and Comrie, B. (1977). “Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar”. Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 63-99. Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across Cultures. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Lehmann, C. (1984). Der Relativsatz. Tübingen: Gunter NarrVerlag. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209–241. Togeby, O. (2003). Fungererdennesætning?Funktioneldansksproglære. [Does this sentence work? A functional grammar of Danish].Copenhagen: Gads Forlag. Tortzen, C.G. (1993). ΒΑΣΙΣ.Attiskgrammatik [Grammar of Attic].Elsinore: Helsingør Gymnasium. � 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. 2899 Title A name given to the resource THE ACCESSIBILITY HIERARCHY OF RELATIVIZATION IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION Author Author Madsen, Richard Abstract A summary of the resource. The accessibility hierarchy of relativization (Keenan and Comrie 1977) describes the restrictions that the grammar of a language imposes on the relativizability of clause and phrase constituents. This paper explores the applicability and validity of the accessibility hierarchy in second language acquisition and production. It has been noticed that even Danes who are fairly proficient in English (university students) seem to have difficulties with relativizing possessors despite the fact that Danish has the exact same rules for relativization as English. All the elements listed in Keenan and Comrie’s hierarchy can be relativized, and several of the relativizers in the two languages are cognates. On the one hand, the apparent difficulties of Danes defy common sense and theories on contrastivity and cross-linguistic influence (Ellis 2009, 2012, Jarvis 2011, Lado 1957), according to which Danes should not have problems with the formation of English relative clauses. On the other hand, they lend the accessibility hypothesis support since Danes seem to be challenged by the relativization of constituents that are low on the accessibility hierarchy, suggesting that the hierarchy is not only relevant for the static differences between language systems, but also for the dynamic interlanguage of language learners (Selinker 1972). This study investigates the nature of the abovementioned difficulties and attempts to place the accessibility hierarchy subsequently in the context of second language acquisition by analysing several types of data stemming from Danish students studying English Business Communication. Essays and summaries in English, translations from Danish into English and vice versa, as well as gap-filling tests and tests concerning the construction of relative clauses by merging independent clauses both in English and Danish are analysed. 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/1b0a211285cde4271ab7dace1384c0d8.docx d318830dbd9b488bc35c6c8a45cfc42e https://omeka.ibu.edu.ba/files/original/0e6ed0ad627cdc8c6f40d98a395893e9.pdf 4994bab0aa6f92904d8c0ccbc9f8d5d7 PDF Text Text The Accessibility of Transfer in the Acquisition of Wh And Yes/No Questions by Albanian Secondary School Learners in Struga Vlera Nushi State University of Tetovo/Struga, Macedonia Key words:Contrastive Analyses, interlanguage, language transfer, positive negative transfer, ABSTRACT As an English teacher with twelve years teaching experience in Macedonia, I have very often noticed that most of my students have difficulties in asking questions in English especially WH questions. Their most common errors are failure to include an obligatory auxiliary or if they do include the auxiliary, they fail to invert it before the subject. The focus of this study is one parameter of universal grammar, syntactic movement, the inversion of auxiliary and the subject, which I believe is important because it would shed light into Albanian secondary school intermediate learners ‘strategies in coping with parametric differences between L1 and L2. This study also points out the possible differences in terms of syntactic movement parameter in the formation of WH and Yes/ No questions. Assessing the contrastive analysis hypothesis as an approach about SLA it could be said that these kinds of difficulties that Albanian intermediate secondary school students have may provide some account of transfer. Some contrasts between languages are inappropriate and they lead to negative transfer where as some of them are appropriate and lead to positive transfer. � 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. 1985 Title A name given to the resource The Accessibility of Transfer in the Acquisition of Wh And Yes/No Questions by Albanian Secondary School Learners in Struga Author Author NUSHI, Vlera Abstract A summary of the resource. Key words:Contrastive Analyses, interlanguage, language transfer, positive negative transfer, ABSTRACT As an English teacher with twelve years teaching experience in Macedonia, I have very often noticed that most of my students have difficulties in asking questions in English especially WH questions. Their most common errors are failure to include an obligatory auxiliary or if they do include the auxiliary, they fail to invert it before the subject. The focus of this study is one parameter of universal grammar, syntactic movement, the inversion of auxiliary and the subject, which I believe is important because it would shed light into Albanian secondary school intermediate learners ‘strategies in coping with parametric differences between L1 and L2. This study also points out the possible differences in terms of syntactic movement parameter in the formation of WH and Yes/ No questions. Assessing the contrastive analysis hypothesis as an approach about SLA it could be said that these kinds of difficulties that Albanian intermediate secondary school students have may provide some account of transfer. Some contrasts between languages are inappropriate and they lead to negative transfer where as some of them are appropriate and lead to positive transfer. 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 https://omeka.ibu.edu.ba/files/original/a250f096809a0116f1d20c0d5b08db3b.pdf b4fe419b61301e2931f67f5eca1cf91d PDF Text Text ���� 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. 3019 Title A name given to the resource The Accusation Model before the International Criminal Court Author Author Smailagić, Nedžad Abstract A summary of the resource. Review of the Book 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 2015-12-28 Keywords Keywords. Article PeerReviewed Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context ISSN 2303-5706 K Law (General) 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. 3471 Title A name given to the resource THE ACQUISITION AND APPLICATION OF POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS IN CONTEMPORARY SERBIAN LANGUAGE Author Author Dragović, Kristina Abstract A summary of the resource. This paper analyzes the acquisition and application of possessive pronouns in contemporary Serbian language. When analyzing the current situation in standard Serbian, some characteristics that differ from the official language norm are noticeable. Serbian grammars prescribe rules of application/distribution of all possessive pronouns which exist in the language. Although these rules are defined, they are not precise enough, because many situations which occur in the language have not been taken into consideration. The distribution (or the actual use) of possessive pronouns in reality often differs from the above mentioned prescribed rules: the possessive pronoun svoj is often substituted with other possessive pronouns which coexist in the language. It is assumed that in some cases these substitutions are arbitrary. The aim of this article is to explain when these substitutions are arbitrary and when they are not, and which psycholinguistic reasons exist that concern this issue. Aiming to prove this phenomenon, children (of pre-school and school age) and university-students have been tested. Some interesting examples have been taken from the CHILDES language-corpus. Examples from the Corpus of contemporary Serbian language and from many other sources (books, mass-media, free speech) have also been taken into consideration, but only a few of them will be mentioned/quoted in this article. The language/pronoun use has been observed by adults as well. Keywords: possessive pronouns, acquisition, application, grammar, psycholinguistic factors, Serbian 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 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. 853 Title A name given to the resource The Acquisition of “Verb+Preposition Combinations” By L2 Learners of English Author Author Gozde, Bahadir Abstract A summary of the resource. “Verb+preposition combination” refers to non-idiomatic constructions composed of a verb and a preposition such as look at, believe in, etc. The combinations investigated here are not phrasal verbs although they look like phrasal verbs in being multi-word expressions composed of a verb and a preposition. The difference is that in phrasal verbs at least one of the components is used idiomatically, whereas in V+P combinations neither the main verb, nor the particle loses its original meaning. The prepositions in V+P combinations are also different from the prepositions that denote time, location, direction or position and that can be followed by various different verbs. In V+P combinations, each verb can only precede a particular preposition for each lexical meaning. The present research investigates the acquisition of English V+P combinations by adult L2 learners. The study comprises of a test battery with two grammaticality judgment tasks, a partial written production task and a mini-questionnaire. 57 beginning and intermediate-level learners of English as L2, whose native language is Turkish participated in the study. The tasks included sentences with English V+P combinations. If the verbs and prepositions are translated literally into L1, the resulting verb precedes a suffix instead of a preposition as Turkish is an agglutinated language. However, although some morphemes are equivalent to certain prepositions, when it comes to V+P combinations, there are mismatches which potentially affect learners’ performances. The results indicate that although the more advanced learners performed better in the overall test, even the most advanced ones still have problems processing English V+P combinations which do not match with their Turkish equivalents. These findings will be discussed in the light of the Full Transfer/Full Access (FT/FA) Model of Schwartz and Sprouse (1996). 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 https://omeka.ibu.edu.ba/files/original/09f08c4f80be0946c5fd1bb11a93d447.pdf f2828d2b61681fef55b5aeef07b82533 PDF Text Text THE ACQUISITION OF ENGLISH L2 BY IMMIGRANT CHILDREN: EAL AND INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION IN MULTILINGUAL IRELAND Bronagh Ćatibušić Trinity College Dublin, Ireland Article History: Submitted: 10.06.2015 Accepted: 24.06.2015 Abstract Since the 1990s, Ireland has experienced considerable immigration. Currently, 12% of its schoolchildren come from immigrant backgrounds. The majority of these children learn English as a second (additional) language (ESL/EAL). The Irish Department of Education and Skills (DES) provides a programme of English language support for young ESL learners. To guide this programme, English Language Proficiency Benchmarks were developed by Integrate Ireland Language and Training (IILT), a campus company of Trinity College, Dublin. IILT produced two sets of context-appropriate ‘Benchmarks’, for primary and secondary education, derived from the Council of Europe’s Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). This paper focuses on English L2 acquisition in Irish primary schools. It reports on how the primary level Benchmarks describe L2 proficiency development across CEFR levels A1, A2 and B1 in a manner sensitive to age/cognitive stage and curriculum requirements. It discusses assessment resources based on these Benchmarks – a version of the European Language Portfolio (IILT 2004) and the Primary School Assessment Kit (DES 2007). These tools enable assessment of and assessment for learning and promote learner autonomy. Research conducted by the author of this paper (published in 2014) into the relation between learning outcomes expressed in the Benchmarks and immigrant children’s English L2 acquisition is presented. It reports on mixed-methods analysis of data from a longitudinal study of L2 acquisition involving 18 children, aged four to ten years, from ten language backgrounds (including Croatian and Serbian). The children’s acquisition of English oral and literacy skills indicate that the Benchmarks appropriately describe L2 proficiency development. Individual and interactional influences on L2 �acquisition and their pedagogical implications are discussed. The paper considers how CEFRrelated approaches can support language learning, teaching and assessment in an intercultural educational environment. Key words: language education, intercultural education, curriculum development, language assessment, teaching English as a second language, child second language acquisition, Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, immigration, Ireland. �1. Introduction 1.1 Ireland and immigration Ireland, a country with a long history of emigration, has experienced substantial immigration since the 1990s. Among the early arrivals were up to 1200 refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina who were admitted as part of a United Nations resettlement programme for victims of conflict in the Balkans (UNHCR Ireland, 2004). Increasing numbers of refugees and asylum-seekers from other national backgrounds also sought to build new lives in Ireland. At the same time, Ireland’s economy was developing rapidly and, during this socalled ‘Celtic Tiger’ period, employment opportunities attracted people from across the world. The enlargement of the European Union in 2004 brought a further rise in the annual immigration rate which, data from the Central Statistics Office (CSO) show, peaked at 151,100 in 2007 (CSO, 2014)1. From 2008 onwards the rate of immigration slowed due to the impact of the global economic crisis on Ireland. As the country fell into recession, emigration –mostly of Irish nationals – again took precedence2. However, the results of the 2011 census reveal that immigration has far from ceased and that many immigrants have decided to stay in Ireland. At least 12% of residents are classified as ‘non-Irish nationals’, with 122.585 people of Polish nationality the largest ‘non-Irish’ group (CSO, 2012). 1.2 Consequences for education The 2011 census results further indicate that an increasing proportion of Ireland’s immigrant population is aged fifteen years and younger (CSO, 2012). Therefore, as acknowledged by the Irish Department of Education (DES) and Office of the Minister for Integration (OMI) in their Intercultural Education Strategy 2010–2015, ‘immigrants will remain a definite feature of the Irish education system’ (DES and OMI, 2010, p.10). Currently, it is estimated by the DES that around 12% of children at school in Ireland come from immigrant backgrounds (DES, 2011;2014). The majority of these children speak a home language other than English or Irish – the two official languages of Ireland. Consequently, as most of them attend schools in which English is the main medium of instruction, they are 1 The current population of the Republic of Ireland is 4.59 million (CSO, 2014). By 2013 the annual immigration rate was 55,900 (having fallen to 41,800 in 2010) with annual emigration of 89,000 (mostly of Irish nationals) recorded in that year (CSO, 2014); recent indicators suggest that net outward migration is now decreasing. 2 �learning English as an additional (second) language (EAL/ESL) in order to engage with the school curriculum and integrate into the wider community. 2. Responding to diversity 2.1 EAL teaching According to the DES ‘about 200 languages are used every day in Ireland’ (2014, p.4). The fact that Irish society has become so multilingual has significant implications for education. Clearly, it is crucial that immigrant children are enabled to acquire the language of schooling (generally English) in order to fulfil their full academic and social potential. To this end, the ‘English language support programme’ was established by the DES in the late 1990s. This programme provides EAL instruction for immigrant children during the first two years of their education in Ireland (see Ćatibušić and Little, 2014 for an overview). Schools have discretion as to how this support is organised. Typically it is provided through daily EAL lessons of 35–45 minutes duration but English language support teachers may also assist children in the mainstream classroom. Even if withdrawal lessons are the sole mode of provision, EAL learners spend over 80% of their time in mainstream education during their two-year entitlement to English language support3. After their support period has ended, they must continue to develop English L2 skills without this additional language-focused assistance. 2.2 Intercultural education Another key issue in responding to linguistic and cultural diversity in Irish schools is ensuring intercultural education for all children. This involves recognising and respecting the home languages and cultures of children from immigrant backgrounds. Guidelines for intercultural education for both primary and secondary level have been produced by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA, 2005; 2006). The Intercultural Education Strategy 2010–2015 (DES and OMI, 2010) has set further goals in this regard. However, implementation of this strategy has been seriously affected by Ireland’s economic problems which have led to reductions in state support for EAL and intercultural education in recent years. Nevertheless, initiatives taken in this field prior to the recession still serve as worthwhile models for responding to challenges faced by immigrant children. 3 The two-year limit on English language support was briefly rescinded in 2007 but was reimposed in 2009. Thereafter, appeals could be made for an extension of this support, based on the assessment of children’s English L2 proficiency. �3. A framework for English language support 3.1 English Language Proficiency Benchmarks The rapid transformation of schools into multilingual and culturally diverse environments was a shock to the Irish education system. A major concern among teachers was that most of them had little or no previous experience of teaching children who were non-native speakers of the language of education. Guidance and training was required in relation to EAL teaching. The DES assigned responsibility for delivering this to Integrate Ireland Language and Training (IILT), a campus company of Trinity College Dublin which was also involved in the provision of English language support for adult migrants. An essential first step in this process was the development of two sets of English Language Proficiency Benchmarks – one for primary and one for secondary education. These were derived from the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) (Council of Europe, 2001) but adapted to meet the specific language learning needs of immigrant children at school in Ireland. They provided frameworks for English language support at both primary and secondary level and served as a basis for the development of resources for EAL teaching and in-service teacher training. 3.2 The Primary Benchmarks Since this chapter concerns the acquisition of English L2 among primary school children, it will focus on theEnglish language proficiency benchmarks for non-English-speaking pupils at primary level(IILT, 2003), hereafter referred to simply as the Benchmarks. As pointed out above, these Benchmarks are a context-appropriate adaptation of the CEFR designed for EAL pupils in Irish primary schools. They share the same ‘action-oriented’ approach to language learning adopted by the CEFR (Council of Europe, 2001, p.9) and use ‘can do’ descriptors to describe the development of communicative skills and communicative language competences. However, there are important differences between the CEFR and the Benchmarks. The CEFR was designed with the language learning experience of adult and late adolescent learners in mind. It describes language proficiency development across six Common Reference Levels (A1 to C2) spanning four wide-ranging domains of language use (public, personal, educational and occupational). The Benchmarks, on the other hand, are much narrower in their focus. Considering the L2 learning needs of EAL pupils at primary school in Ireland, they concentrate on the educational domain. �In addition, the Benchmarks cover only the three lower Common Reference Levels of the CEFR (A1, A2 and B1). Given the cognitive range of children at primary school, this restriction is necessary and appropriate. From level B2 upwards, many of the CEFR descriptors relate to academic or vocational uses of language which are beyond the cognitive abilities of most primary school children. Also, as the Benchmarks serve as guidelines for a two-year programme of English language support, progression from level A1 to level B1 seems a realistic target to be attained within this limited period. It also reflects the purpose of the Benchmarks: to ‘specify the minimum proficiency required for full participation in mainstream schooling’ (IILT, 2003, p.3). Setting B1 as an exit level does not mark an endstage in the child’s ongoing acquisition of English L2. Rather, it recognises that at this level the learner may be considered an ‘independent user’ of the language he/she is learning (Council of Europe, 2001, p.23) who can function in an L2 environment without direct assistance. Another fundamental feature of the Benchmarks is that they are deeply rooted in the Irish Primary School Curriculum (NCCA, 1999). Designed in consultation with teachers, they focus on key themes which recur across the curriculum. Therefore, the Benchmarks may be viewed as a ‘curriculum-within-the-curriculum’ (Little, 2010, p.19) which addresses the specific needs of EAL pupils. Furthermore, taking into account the age range of children in primary education in Ireland (from four to twelve years), the Benchmarks are expressed in a manner that allows their flexible application to pupils of different ages and stages of cognitive development. They thus recognise children’s ‘individual pathways of learning’ (IILT, 2003, p.4) which may also be affected by their home language backgrounds,learning styles and previous educational experience4. 3.3 Basis for language learning, teaching and assessment The Benchmarks ‘can do’ descriptors express anticipated L2 learning outcomes for EAL pupils. As such, they suggest suitable teaching activities and can be used as criteria for assessment. The Benchmarks have also served as a core document in the development of further resources for EAL teaching and intercultural education. These include the teachers’ handbook Up and Away (IILT, 2006) which outlines a wide range of classroom activities, explains aspects of second language acquisition, and highlights the importance of home language maintenance and engagement with immigrant parents. 4 The Benchmarks and their associated resources are available at www.ncca.ie/iilt. �Assessment tools based on the Benchmarks have also been produced. The European Language Portfolio, Primary (IILT, 2004) is a version of the CEFR-linked European Language Portfolio (ELP) specifically designed for EAL pupils in Irish primary schools. Essentially, it is a child-friendly, edited version of the Benchmarks which uses ‘I can’ descriptors for guided self-assessment. Its ‘passport’ and ‘biography’ sections enable both summative and formative assessment, while its ‘dossier’ section facilitates the storage of evidence of the child’s English L2 development. By encouraging reflection on the learning process and the setting of new goals, use of the Primary ELP can thus promote learner autonomy. To assess EAL pupils’ development of underlying L2 linguistic competence, the Primary Schools Assessment Kit (Little, Lazenby Simpson, and Finnegan-Ćatibušić, 2007) was also developed. This kit comprises short tests, based on communicative activities expressed in the Benchmarks descriptors, through which teachers can assess EAL pupils’ development of L2 vocabulary, grammatical, phonological and orthographic competences. While the Benchmarks were designed to guide EAL teaching, their approach to language learning, teaching and assessment reflects the CEFR’s promotion of plurilingualism as ‘a communicative competence to which all knowledge and experience of language contributes and in which languages interrelate and interact’ (Council of Europe, 2001, p.4). Ensuring that children’s linguistic and cultural identities are recognised is a cornerstone of intercultural education. Practical ways of doing this are presented in resources associated with the Benchmarks, for example, Together Towards Inclusion –a ‘toolkit for diversity’ produced by IILT in collaboration with the Southern Education and Library Board (SELB) in Northern Ireland in 2007. This toolkit, which was distributed to all primary schools in Ireland, outlines classroom and whole school approaches to EAL and emphasises the value of home languages. EAL pupils can also record their home language abilities in the Primary ELP. Although present economic conditions in Ireland have curtailed efforts in this area, some schools have developed highly successful initiatives which demonstrate the benefits of plurilingual education (see Kirwan, 2013). 4. English L2 acquisition among EAL pupils 4.1 Empirical research Over the years, feedback from teachers has indicated that the Benchmarks and their associated resources are effective in supporting EAL learning, teaching and assessment. However, research was required to investigate the relation, if any, between the Benchmarks �and actual English L2 acquisition among EAL pupils. For this reason, a longitudinal study into English L2 development among EAL children within the context of their English language support lessons was conducted over the school year 2007–2008 in three Irish primary schools. Ćatibušić and Little (2014) report the results of this research in depth; some of its main findings are briefly summarised in the sections below. The study involved 18 EAL pupils, aged between four and ten years, from ten national backgrounds5. Eleven of these children were in their first year and seven were in their second year of English language support. To determine the appropriateness of the Benchmarks based on evidence obtained from EAL pupils’ actual English L2 use, 154 English language support lessons were recorded and transcribed. Examples of the pupils’ L2 written work were also collected. This data was then analysed to discover whether and, if so, how the 18 EAL pupils’ development of L2 oral and literacy skills related to the Benchmarks (see Ćatibušić and Little 2014 for discussion of methodology). A form-function analysis was carried out on the pupils’ English L2 usein activities that focused on the development of L2 oral skills. This mixed methods analysis examined the linguistic features of each pupil’s turns-at-talk within these activities and the functional characteristics of these turns, as determined from their links to the Benchmarks descriptors6. In all, 7,455 spoken turns which linked to specific descriptors were analysed. Although most of the teachers involved in this study used the Benchmarks only as a loose guide in their lesson planning, the vast majority of the pupils’ recorded turns related to existing descriptors. Any turns which did not were noted and, from these, suggestions were made regarding (generally minor) revisions to the Benchmarks (Ćatibušić and Little, 2014, p.41). The pupils’ L2 literacy development was then investigated through qualitative analysis of recorded activities which focused on L2 reading and writing and the examples of the children’s written work. Possible influences on the pupils’ English L2 acquisition were also considered. These included individual factors such as age, home language, personality and learning style. As interaction patterns appeared to impact on pupils’ L2 production, applied Conversation Analysis was used to ‘supplement the form-function analysis by providing information about the interactional context of pupils’ recorded turns’ (Ćatibušić and Little, 2014, p.43). Through 5 Children from Poland, Romania, Pakistan, Serbia, Croatia, China, India, Latvia, Lithuania and Portugal participated. 6 Regarding linguistic features, the study focused on grammatical and lexical indicators of L2 development. �these multiple strands of analysis, it was possible to develop a ‘pupil profile’ for each of the 18 participants, indicating features of each child’s English L2 development over the study period. These ‘pupil profiles’ could then be cumulatively analysed to obtain overall results. 4.2 Development of L2 oral skills Cumulative analysis of the 18 profiles showed that, over the two-year period of English language support, progression in the EAL pupils’ L2 oral proficiency reflected the trajectory described by the Benchmarks (see Ćatibušić 2013, Ćatibušić and Little 2014). At the beginning of pupils’ English language support allocation, all or most of their turns linked to level A1 Benchmarks descriptors. The proportion of A2-linked turns in pupils’ L2 oral production increased during their first year of English language support. B1-linked turns emerged during the pupils’ second year of support and these began to dominate towards the end of this two-year period.As pointed out above, most of the turns produced by pupils in activities which focused on L2 oral skills could be linked to Benchmarks descriptors; i.e. descriptors for spoken interaction and spoken production. Links to descriptors for listening were likewise evident in the listening-focused activities which featured in the recorded lessons. Overall results were also obtained for indicators of English L2 grammatical and lexical development which emerged in the 18 EAL pupils’ recorded L2 use. Regarding the morphological indicators analysed, it was found that as the pupils’ English L2 proficiency progressed from level A1 to B1 their use of nouns, verbs, personal pronouns, articles, prepositions and auxiliaries increased. The accuracy of their production of these indicators also rose, albeit with considerable fluctuation. L2 syntactic development was similarly evident across proficiency levels A1 to B1. While pupils’ L2 production at level A1 was predominantly of noun-based structures, it became syntactically more complex as their turns began to be associated with levels A2 and B1. The range and accuracy of the negative structures and question forms they produced also increased, as did their ability to link clauses. Pupils’ L2 lexical range also expanded with proficiency. As they progressed beyond A1 proficiency their semantic range became broader and deeper. Production of verb lexemes grew from a minimal base when the pupils’ turns linked to A1 descriptors to the use of a wide variety of more complex verbs at level B1. Likewise, lexical diversification of nouns and �adjectives was apparent and the range of lexico-grammatical indicators (e.g. adverbs) produced by the children increased substantially across levels A1 to B17. 4.3 Development of L2 literacy skills Pupils’ writing and recorded literacy-related activities also linked to Benchmarks descriptors for reading and writing, thus indicating that these descriptors appropriately describe L2 literacy development8. It emerged that younger EAL pupils were capable of engaging with emergent literacy activities typical of the first two years of mainstream primary education in Ireland. However, older pupils faced the challenge of having to meet a rapidly ‘moving target’ (Cummins, 2012, p.67) to keep up with literacy demands of the primary school curriculum beyond the early years. 4.4 Possible influences on L2 acquisition Regarding individual influences on the pupils’ L2 acquisition it appeared that the older children in this study (those aged between seven and ten years) progressed slightly faster in their English L2 proficiency development than the younger children (those under seven years). However, as mentioned above, meeting age-appropriate curriculum requirements proved more challenging for older EAL pupils than for those who were younger. Cross-linguistic influence was apparent, particularly in relation to phonology and some aspects of grammatical development (Ćatibušić and Little, 2014, p.198). It also emerged that children with literacy skills in their home language made more progress in their development of L2 literacy than those who did not. This supports international research which stresses the value of biliteracy (see Cummins 2000, 2012). Personality factors and learning style were observed to be further potential influences on pupils’ L2 development. Some children who seemed more extraverted were good communicators but their L2 oral proficiency sometimes masked challenges they still faced, especially in relation to literacy. Two of the younger participantsin this study appeared to be going through a ‘silent period’ of largely receptive L2 acquisition. The analysis of classroom interaction revealed that responsive forms of discourse, typically ‘known-answer’ questions asked by the teacher, tended to dominate. However, when pupils 7 8 For a detailed analysis of pupils’ L2 grammatical and lexical development, see Ćatibušić and Little (2014). Pupils’ L2 literacy development is discussed in depth by Ćatibušić and Little (2014). �engaged in more ‘active’ forms of discourse – such as taking initiatives in classroom talk or elaborating on topics of interest – their L2 oral use was often associated with the highest L2 proficiency level they had thus far attained. This suggests that pedagogical practice which encourages more active classroom discourse could be beneficial regarding L2 acquisition (cf. Swain 2000). Increased peer discourse rather than pupil-teacher interaction, which was predominant in the recorded lessons, could facilitate this kind of classroom talk by offering children a wider range of discourse roles. 5. Conclusion The results of this research demonstrate that child second language acquisition is a complex phenomenon which is subject to considerable individual variation. This study also shows that context-sensitive adaptations of the CEFR can appropriately map young learners’ L2 development.These findings have implications for pedagogical practice. They also indicate that the Benchmarks ’positively focused ‘can do’ approach to language learning, teaching and assessmentcould be relevant beyond the Irish context. Internationally, it could be applied to immigrant children learning any language of schoolingor to children learning modern languagesin the primary school. This could have many benefits for young learners. For example, assessment tools such as versions of the ELPcould be used to support more effective and autonomous language learning. Finally, the plurilingual and intercultural approach underpinning the Benchmarks is one that, as outlined above, recognises the linguistic and cultural identity of each child. This allows the language learning experience to become an affirmation of children’s unique identities and an opportunity for intercultural sharing from an early age. Encouraging plurilingualism in this way can thus be an important aspect of developing democratic citizenship, as advocated by the Council of Europe (2001, p.4). Training with regard to such approaches, through initial teacher education and continuing professional development, is therefore essential. References Ćatibušić, B. (2013).Investigating the development of immigrant pupils’ English L2 oral skills in Irish primary schools, in Little, D., Leung, C. and Van Avermaet, P. (Eds), Managing Diversity in Education: Languages, Policies, Pedagogies (pp.111-131). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. �Ćatibušić, B. and Little, D. (2014).Immigrant Pupils Learn English: A CEFR-related empirical study of L2 development. (English Profile Studies 3). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Central Statistics Office. (2012). Profile 6: Migration and Diversity. Stationery Office: Dublin. Central Statistics Office. (2014, 21 January). Measuring Ireland’s Progress 2012.Retrieved June 5, 2014 from: http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p- mip/measuringirelandsprogress2012/society/society-population/#.VXGqMc-6fiq Council of Europe. (2001).The Common European Framework of References for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (2012) Nurturing identities of competence among EAL learners.In ELSTA (Ed) English Language Support Teachers’ Association: Five Year Anniversary Journal(pp.59-76). ELSTA: Dublin. Department of Education and Skills. (2011).Literacy and Numeracy for Learning and life: The National Strategy to Improve Literacy and Numeracy among Children and Young People 2011-2020. Dublin: DES. Department of Education and Skills.(2014).Framework for Consultation on a Foreign Languages in Education Strategy for Ireland. Dublin: DES. Department of Education and Skills/Office of the Minister for Integration. (2010). Intercultural Education Strategy 2010–2015. Dublin: DES/OMI. Integrate Ireland Language and Training. (2003).English Language Proficiency Benchmarks for non-English-speaking pupils at primary level. Dublin: IILT. Integrate Ireland Language and Training. (2004).European Language Portfolio, Primary: Learning the language of the host community. Dublin: IILT. �Integrate Ireland Language and Training and Southern Education and Library Board. (2007).Together Towards Inclusion: Toolkit for diversity in the primary school. Dublin/Armagh: IILT/SELB. Kirwan, D. (2013). From English language support to plurilingual awareness, in Little, D., Leung, C. and Van Avermaet, P. (Eds), Managing Diversity in Education: Languages, Policies, Pedagogies (pp.191–205). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Little, D. (2010).Concept Paper: The linguistic and educational integration of children and adolescents from migrant backgrounds. Council of Europe: Strasbourg. Little, D., Lazenby Simpson, B. and Finnegan-Ćatibušić, B. (2007).Primary School Assessment Kit. Dublin: Department of Education and Science. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.(1999).Primary SchoolCurriculum. Dublin: NCCA. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.(2005). Intercultural Education in the Primary School.Dublin: NCCA. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.(2006). Intercultural Education in the PostPrimary School. Dublin: NCCA. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue, in Lantolf, J. P. (Ed), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press. UNHCR Ireland. (2004, 30 June). UNHCR urges Ireland to resettle more refugees 25 years after first Vietnamese arrive. UNHCR Ireland. Retrieved June 5, 2015 from http://www.unhcr.ie/news/irish-story/unhcr-urges-ireland-to-resettle-more-refugees-25-yearsafter-first-vietname � 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. 2906 Title A name given to the resource THE ACQUISITION OF ENGLISH L2 BY IMMIGRANT CHILDREN: EAL AND INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION IN MULTILINGUAL IRELAND Author Author Ćatibušić, Bronagh Abstract A summary of the resource. Since the 1990s, Ireland has experienced considerable immigration. Currently, 12% of its schoolchildren come from immigrant backgrounds. The majority of these children learn English as a second (additional) language (ESL/EAL). The Irish Department of Education and Skills (DES) provides a programme of English language support for young ESL learners. To guide this programme, English Language Proficiency Benchmarks were developed by Integrate Ireland Language and Training (IILT), a campus company of Trinity College, Dublin. IILT produced two sets of context-appropriate ‘Benchmarks’, for primary and secondary education, derived from the Council of Europe’s Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). This paper focuses on English L2 acquisition in Irish primary schools. It reports on how the primary level Benchmarks describe L2 proficiency development across CEFR levels A1, A2 and B1 in a manner sensitive to age/cognitive stage and curriculum requirements. It discusses assessment resources based on these Benchmarks – a version of the European Language Portfolio (IILT 2004) and the Primary School Assessment Kit (DES 2007). These tools enable assessment of and assessment for learning and promote learner autonomy. Research conducted by the author of this paper (published in 2014) into the relation between learning outcomes expressed in the Benchmarks and immigrant children’s English L2 acquisition is presented. It reports on mixed-methods analysis of data from a longitudinal study of L2 acquisition involving 18 children, aged four to ten years, from ten language backgrounds (including Croatian and Serbian). The children’s acquisition of English oral and literacy skills indicate that the Benchmarks appropriately describe L2 proficiency development. Individual and interactional influences on L2 acquisition and their pedagogical implications are discussed. The paper considers how CEFR-related approaches can support language learning, teaching and assessment in an intercultural educational environment. 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 2015-09 Keywords Keywords. Article PeerReviewed L Education (General),PE English 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. 1022 Title A name given to the resource The Acquisition of Pronominal Case-Marking by Persian Learners of English Author Author Gahrouei , Vahid Mahmoudi Hashemi, Abdollah Abstract A summary of the resource. Sixty six seventh- and eighth-grade students (age 12–14) learning English in Persian classrooms were tested on their knowledge of English case-marked pronouns in sentences like She knows him,*She knows he and *Her knows him. The aim of the study was to evaluate the predictions of three theories of second language (L2) development against the results obtained. Given the case-marking properties of Persian Language, the Full Transfer/Full Access model of Schwartz (1998) and Schwartz and Sprouse (1994; 1996; 2000), the Minimal Trees model of Vainikka and Young-Scholten (1994; 1996a; 1996b; 1998) and the Lexical Learning/Lexical Transfer model of Wakabayashi (1997; 2002) make different predictions about the kinds of patterns of case-marked pronouns that will be found in the second language English of early learners with Persian first language (L1). It is argued that the results are consistent with the predictions of the Lexical Learning/Lexical Transfer model, but with neither Full Transfer/Full Access nor Minimal Trees. 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