This study investigates the effect that reference corpora of different registers have on the content of keyword lists. The study focusses on two target corpora and the keyword lists generated for each when using three distinct reference corpora. The two target corpora consist of published research by faculty at two PhD-granting programs in applied linguistics in North America. The reference corpora comprise published research in applied linguistics, newspaper and magazine articles, and fiction texts, respectively. The findings suggest that while common keywords representing each target corpus emerge regardless of the reference corpus used in the analysis, there are also substantial differences. Primarily, using a reference corpus of the same sub-register as the target corpus better highlights content unique to each target corpus while using a reference corpus of a different register better uncovers words that reflect the register that the target corpora represent. Implications for conducting keyword analysis are discussed.

Plant diagnostic laboratories (PDLs) are at the heart of land-grant universities (LGUs) and their extension mission to connect citizens with research-based information. Although research and technological advances have led to many modern methods and technologies in plant pathology diagnostics, the pace of adopting those methods into services at PDLs has many complexities we aim to explore in this review. We seek to identify current challenges in plant disease diagnostics, as well as diagnosticians' and administrators'perceptions of PDLs' many roles. Surveys of diagnosticians and administrators were conducted to understand the current climate on these topics. We hope this article reaches researchers developing diagnostic methods with modern and new technologies to foster a better understanding of PDL diagnosticians’ perspective on method implementation. Ultimately, increasing researchers’ awareness of the factors influencing method adoption by PDLs encourages support, collaboration, and partnerships to advance plant diagnostics.

This conceptual paper describes the need for L2 English tests to consider English as a lingua franca (ELF) in their development. After discussing what is meant by ELF, it describes an oral communication placement test developed at a large Midwestern university in the United States.The test is then analyzed based on a framework designed to determine the extent to which a test can be considered to have adhered to ELF principles. It is argued that for the most part the test does appear to assess ELF. However, it does not completely adhere to ELF principles, and sometimes, because there is little agreement on ELF principles, it is difficult to determine the extent to which the test actually does assess ELF. It is recommended that researchers in the field come to agreement on what can be considered critical aspects of ELF, which will make it possible for language assessment researchers to better design their assessments to include ELF.(ISU). ISU's oral communication placement test was designed with ELF as a guiding principle; however, this proved to be a challenge, in part because there is little agreement on what ELF is and almost no practical guidance on how ELF could be used to inform L2 test design. This chapter was inspired by the challenges of designing an ELF university placement test. It begins with a discussion of how ELF has been defined. Next, it describes the design of ISU's oral communication placement test. This is followed by a discussion of the extent to which ISU's oral communication placement test can be considered an ELF test. The paper concludes with implications and future directions for ELF and assessment researchers and developers who aim to develop ELF assessments. Constructs and Historical PerspectiveEnglish as a Lingua Franca English as a lingua franca (ELF) is, in many ways, related to two other concepts in English as a second language: World Englishes (WE) and English as an International Language (EIL). The three are frequently mentioned together and share many attributes; indeed, ELF is sometimes seen as growing out of WE. All three reference Kachru's (1992) concentric circles to varying degrees. However, there are distinctions. In WE, communication occurs based on local conventions, so the focus is on shared linguistic components (Canagarajah, 2006;Leung, Lewkowicz, & Jenkins, 2016). EIL is also concerned about local use of English, but rather than being about linguistic features, it focuses on the needs of users (Brown, 2014). ELF, on the other hand, focuses on negotiating communication between speakers of different L1s. This section will explore the different phases of ELF which has led to its current definition, as well as setting out the definition for ELF that will be used in the rest of this chapter. This will be followed by ELF criticism of language testing and language testers' responses to these criticisms. What is English as a Lingua Franca?Jenkins (2015) identifies 3 phrases of the evolving definition of ELF. The first began in the 1980s with her own research in pronunciation a...

No abstract

No abstract