This article reviews a purposive sample of 16 doctoral dissertations in second language (L2) education, completed between 2014 and 2018 and published in German, in Germany. Among the 103 relevant dissertations found from this period, a total of 12 thematic strands were identified, of which five were chosen as being particularly common and thus warranting a more in-depth review: (1) learning and teaching about culture in the language classroom, (2) literary texts in L2 education, (3) bilingual models of learning and teaching, (4) plurilingual teaching and learning, and (5) language teacher education and teacher training. We identify relevant topics and relate these to trends in research methodology (qualitative/quantitative/mixed-methods). We also discuss the depth and breadth of these dissertations and situate their scholarly contributions within German and international research on language education.

The term “Antarctic ambassadorship” is increasingly used to represent an individual’s connection to Antarctica and their subsequent advocacy. However, there is little clarity regarding the concept. To address this, we combined a literature review with an expert elicitation workshop. We argue that (i) the concept of Antarctic ambassador has been understood in myriad ways; (ii) Antarctic ambassadors have a connection to, knowledge of and passion for Antarctica; (iii) they also have a commitment to defending and advancing Antarctic values and (iv) Antarctic ambassadorship is about more than advocacy. We propose the first comprehensive definition of Antarctic ambassadorship. We hope this will provide a cornerstone upon which future research, and a more informed governance of Antarctic tourism, can be built.

The digital humanities offer more than just a set of tools. The application of software to assist in the analysis of large collections of data does not just expand the volume of material we can incorporate in our work, it also expands how we in the humanities understand the nature of meaning. The recent scholarly turn to the expanded modes of analysis made possible by DH is not just the “latest new thing” but gives the scholarly community a way to articulate and respond to long-standing doubts about the epistemological grounding in the practice of the humanities. Even more importantly, I believe that this broadening of inquiry afforded by DH is intrinsic to the humanistic project itself. In this essay, I seek in particular to connect the implicit conceptual substructure behind the architectural logic of the digital humanities to key strains of hermeneutic thought that have established a basis for exploring the question of how we are to understand the vast, variegated world of historical human experience that is the object of our humanistic inquiries across disciplines.

The role of calculative practices such as goals and indicators in international environmental governance causes concern among many observers, who view them as promoting a reductivist approach to the non-human world and privileging economic understandings of environmental governance above all others. Yet they possess enormous potential to provide insights into the non-human world that could be of great benefit to governance. This article takes seriously critical perspectives of calculative practices, while exploring a weakness in much of the critical literature, namely a failure to examine assumptions about the nature of scientific knowledge and the manner in which it is, and ought to be, taken up by policy makers. I contend that both the design of environmental regimes and critical analyses of these regimes bear the marks of the influence, albeit indirect, of early 20th century views on the superiority of scientific knowledge and its unique capacity to ground decision making. I argue that a richer, more nuanced account of the co-production of ecological metrics such as goals and indicators and their potential contributions to ecosystem governance and sustainability is necessary. With such accounts, scholars and political authorities would be in a better position to address the very real pitfalls and dangers of calculative practices while not feeling compelled to forego these potentially powerful approaches.

The collection of papers presented in this special issue addresses the non-temporal import of aspectual constructions, in conventional and less conventional contexts and expression modes. In this introduction, we outline the notions of lexical and grammatical aspect, and how they are traditionally analyzed in temporal accounts, which focus on situations’ temporal constituency, duration, and limitation in time. This serves to clarify relevant notions for those readers who are less familiar with the domain (admittedly riddled with terminological confusion) and thus explicate some of the underlying tenets of existing (temporal) accounts, which the papers in this special issue call into question. This questioning, alongside insights coming from the discussion of various non-canonical constructions/uses in different languages and from different theoretical perspectives, promises an alternative approach to aspect, which goes beyond time.

Salinas Grandes is a vast salt flat in the high-altitude Puna region of Salta and Jujuy, two north-western provinces of Argentina. It is situated in one of the world’s driest regions, with an extremely fragile ecosystem. Salinas Grandes is so iconic and beautiful that Argentinians voted it amongst the country’s top seven natural wonders in May 2019.1 In addition to its beauty, this stunning desert of salt also holds one of the largest reserves of lithium in the world. Lithium is a light and versatile metal used to produce, among other things, the lithium-ion batteries that power electric vehicles (EV). As global efforts to phase out fossil fuels from our transport systems and adopt clean energy alternatives increase, lithium is becoming increasingly critical. It is no wonder, therefore, that industry has coined it the ‘white gold’.2 Salinas Grandes is only one of many salt lakes in North West Argentina which, together with Bolivia and Chile, form what is known as the ‘lithium triangle’. It is estimated that these three countries alone account for more than half of the world’s lithium.3 Global demand for lithium to produce EV is expected to grow rapidly over the coming decade. To meet this demand, the lithium industry will require significant investment to ramp up additional supply.4 As a result, all eyes have turned to the ‘lithium triangle’ and investment in the region has soared in recent years.5 For the three developing countries, this represents a unique opportunity to attract much-needed foreign investment and boost economic growth.6

This article delves into the deep seabed mining regime under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) with a view to inform the negotiating process of the proposed business and human rights (BHR) treaty. It highlights points of convergence and divergence between the two regulatory regimes and explores how the BHR treaty negotiations could draw from the deep seabed mining regime with regard to the responsibility and liability of states and corporations. In particular, it suggests that a BHR treaty could incorporate some of the arrangements of UNCLOS to address state obligations and direct corporate human rights obligations, both of a general and specific nature, including the obligation to carry out human rights due diligence. The article also proposes a mechanism of responsibility and liability of states and corporations under the future BHR treaty going beyond UNCLOS and embracing residual liability for home and/or host states.

This article examines the questioning of US Attorney General Jeff Sessions by Senators Angus King and Kamala Harris during a congressional hearing. Analyses of the two exchanges, grounded in conversation analytic (CA) methodology, reveal that simultaneous and near-simultaneous talk initiated by the senators is pervasive in both exchanges. However, Sessions does ‘being interrupted’ (Hutchby 1996; Bilmes 1997)—that is, displays an orientation toward his interlocutors’ turns as a violation of his speaking rights—three times more often when he is questioned by Harris rather than King. The discrepancy in Sessions’ handling of the senators’ turns may explain why Harris is sanctioned by two colleagues during her questioning and why commentators have characterized her as aggressive and interruptive, while at the same time lauding (or ignoring) King. These findings ultimately suggest that doing being interrupted may influence how others perceive an interaction and those participating in it. (Institutional discourse, interruption, latching, overlap, political discourse)

This article addresses the question as to why toddlers in The Netherlands may stop speaking their regional language—Limburgish—as their home language after entering preschool, even when both parents speak Limburgish at home. The question is addressed through the concept of the total linguistic fact (Silverstein 1985): language ideology, language choice, and language practices mutually shape and inform each other. Language ideologies in wider society impact educational practices in preschool. Hierarchical teacher-child and influential peer interactions show the negative effects of speaking Limburgish. Preschool language socialization practices have a profound effect on language choice and shift by toddlers at home who are still in the midst of their linguistic, pragmatic, cognitive, and social development of both Limburgish and Dutch as first languages. (Regional language, language ideology, preschool)

Economic and armed non-state actors increasingly operate through their transnational activities. International public law excludes them from any international regulation or accountability process. International humanitarian law (IHL, the law of war) as a branch of international public law is an exception to this because it also regulates the behavior of non-state actors. Recent developments pertaining to the potential liability of business entities for involvement in international crimes, particularly when related to the activities of ANSGs challenge the traditional doctrine of international law and demonstrate the need for its norms to adapt to an evolving reality.

Based on more than 100 interviews in European Russia, this article sheds light on the bottom-up dynamics of Russian nationalism. After offering a characterization of the post-2012 “state-civilization” discourse from above, I examine how ordinary people imagine Russia as a “state-civilization.” Interview narratives of inclusion into the nation are found to overlap with state discourse on three main lines: (1) ethno-nationalism is rejected, and Russia is imagined to be a unique, harmonious multi-ethnic space in which the Russians (russkie) lead without repressing the others; (2) Russia’s multinationalism is remembered in myths of peaceful interactions between Russians (russkie) and indigenous ethnic groups (korennyye narodi) across the imperial and Soviet past; (3) Russian culture and language are perceived as the glue that holds together a unified category of nationhood. Interview narratives on exclusion deviate from state discourse in two key areas: attitudes to the North Caucasus reveal the geopolitical-security, post-imperial aspect of the “state-civilization” identity, while stances toward non-Slavic migrants in city spaces reveal a degree of “cultural nationalism” that, while sharing characteristics with those of Western Europe, is also based on Soviet-framed notions of normality. Overall, the article contributes to debates on how Soviet legacies and Russia’s post-imperial consciousness play out in the context of the “pro-Putin consensus.”

In the first two volumes of On What Matters, Derek Parfit argues that three major normative theories – Kantianism, Contractualism and Rule Consequentialism – are, in their most defensible forms, compatible, and can be reconciled in what he calls ‘Triple Theory’. This has led many to assume that Parfit does not believe that Act Consequentialism is a defensible form of Consequentialism. We draw on correspondence with Parfit to show that this assumption is incorrect. We then consider Parfit's efforts, in the third volume of On What Matters, to narrow the differences between Act Consequentialism and the triple theory, in part by treating impartial rationality as an external rival to morality, in much the same way that egoism is an external rival to morality. We argue that Parfit's attempts to bridge the gap between Act Consequentialism and Triple Theory meet with only limited success.

“Civilization” is surely among those concepts that are the most widely used in world political discourse but taken least seriously by contemporary social science. We argue for jettisoning this concept’s Huntingtonian baggage, which has led scholarship into a dead end, and developing a new body of theory on a different foundation, one grounded strongly in recent nonprimordial theories of identity and micro-level research into how ordinary people actually understand the civilizational appeals made by their elites. In what we believe to be the first systematic survey-based study of individual-level civilizational identification, we establish proof-of-concept by asking a question: What influences individuals’ primary identification of their own country with particular civilizational alternatives offered up by their elites? Pooling survey data gathered in Russia from 2013–2014, we confirm that civilizational identity reflects the influence of situational considerations and social construction processes. Whether individuals see Russia as part of purported “European,” “Eurasian,” or “Asian” civilizations depends heavily on gendered and nongendered socialization during the USSR period and factors as contingent as perceived economic performance. Results also confirm our expectation that Huntingtonian concepts fit poorly with real-world patterns of civilizational identification.

This article reviews a selected sample of 70 empirical studies in journal articles and doctoral dissertations on language assessment in China between 2011 and 2018. Following a brief introduction to the history and current state of language assessment in China, the article presents a critical review of language assessment research on six themes that have aroused the greatest interest from researchers in the country, including (1) test reliability and validity; (2) factors affecting test performance; (3) rating and rating scales; (4) technology and language testing; (5) test washback; and (6) classroom-based assessment. In addition to situating the commentary on the studies within the social, cultural and historical contexts of China, this article outlines the scholarly contributions of these studies to the wider international field of language learning, teaching and assessment. It concludes with recommendations on areas in need of further development over the coming decades.

With much empirical evidence of a beneficial role of interaction in second language (L2) development, researchers have become interested in investigating specific aspects of interaction (e.g., negotiation for meaning, corrective feedback (CF), modified output, noticing, etc.) that likely influence the extent to which interaction benefits L2 learning (Mackey, 2012; Mackey, Abbuhl, & Gass, 2012; Mackey & Goo, 2013; Gass & Mackey, 2015; Loewen & Sato, 2018). Among varied features of interaction, CF has been found to be quite effective at drawing learners' attention to L2 linguistic features during interaction, and has engendered much scholarly discussion of pivotal importance and numerous empirical studies on its potential for L2 development (see Russell & Spada, 2006; Mackey & Goo, 2007; S. Li, 2010*; Lyster & Saito, 2010*; Lyster, Saito, & Sato, 2013*; Brown, 2016*; Nassaji, 2016* for reviews and meta-analyses). Recasts, inter alia, have been at the center of most CF research and greatly explored with a view to understanding the nature of recasts, their characteristics (in various L2 learning contexts), their relative efficacy over other CF moves, and moderator variables that may mediate the effectiveness of recasts.

On 10 April 2019 the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom delivered judgment in the case of Vedanta v. Lungowe, which concerned the liability of an English company for environmental damage caused by its subsidiary in Zambia. The decision confirms that English parent companies can owe a duty of care to foreign claimants affected by operations of their subsidiaries abroad and that the English courts may have jurisdiction to hear such cases, even when a foreign court is a more appropriate place for the trial. It establishes an important precedent for providing access to justice for foreign claimants in transnational corporate liability litigation. Given the global presence of English companies and the fact that their foreign subsidiaries have been involved in multiple cases of environmental damage in the host states, the decision could give an impetus to future claims being brought in the English courts. Also, the decision opens some interesting possibilities for climate change liability litigation against English parent companies and their foreign subsidiaries, as their cumulative greenhouse gas emissions are likely to be considerably higher than when taken separately, arguably making prospective claims against them more viable.

This article examines the complex risks, costs and rewards of large-scale private law climate litigation – the climate litigation ‘holy grail’. It argues that while these cases undoubtedly have heroic aspects, their impacts can be complex or difficult to understand. It uses overlapping theories of metaphor and narrative in law, and theories of private law, to make some critical observations about these cases. Distilling some core reflections from the grail legends, the article argues that success in these cases requires a nuanced understanding of victory and defeat, and more careful thinking about the character, aims, and effect of these pieces of litigation. These stories inspire constant reflection as to what the metaphor of the ‘holy grail’ might mean in this context, and the role that these cases play in the development of a narrative about climate litigation.

In her 2017 article ‘Research into practice: Listening strategies in an instructed classroom setting,’ Suzanne Graham outlines ways that research-derived principles of listening instruction have (not) been adopted in second language (L2) classrooms. She organizes her argument into three categories, discussing research findings that have not been well applied, those that have been over-applied, and areas she views as holding good potential for application. In this short response, I compare Graham's conclusions about the extent of research adoption to my own experiences as a language teacher and make additional comments about the application of those research findings in the context of post-secondary L2 English instruction.