# The making of European Applied Linguistics: Tracing global origins, examining local identities

Grégory Miras

► To cite this version:

Grégory Miras. The making of European Applied Linguistics: Tracing global origins, examining local identities. European Journal of Applied Linguistics., 2026, 10.1515/eujal-2025-0051. hal-05459895

HAL Id: hal-05459895

https://hal.science/hal-05459895v1

Submitted on 19 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
Grégory Miras*

# The making of European Applied Linguistics:
Tracing global origins, examining local
identities

https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2025-0051

**Abstract:** This editorial introduces the special issue "European Junior Applied Linguists in a Globalized World." which showcases the work of emerging scholars in Applied Linguistics who took part in a recent AILA Europe Junior Researchers' Meeting (JRM). The issue invites reflection on the historical development of Applied Linguistics within a European context and considers how (early career) researchers may be contributing to the construction of a distinct European identity in the field. It begins by tracing the evolution of Applied Linguistics in Europe, followed by an analysis of findings from two surveys conducted two decades apart. The editorial concludes by outlining the rationale behind the selection of articles featured in this volume.

**Keywords:** Europe, applied linguistics, institution, discipline, early career researcher

**Résumé:** Cet éditorial introduit le numéro spécial « Les jeunes linguistes appliqués-e-s européens-ne-es dans un monde globalisé », qui met en lumière les travaux de jeunes chercheurs-e-s en linguistique appliquée ayant participé à une récente édition du Junior Researchers' Meeting (JRM) organisée par AILA Europe. Ce numéro propose une réflexion sur le développement historique de la linguistique appliquée dans un contexte européen, et s'interroge sur la manière dont les chercheurs (juniors) peuvent contribuer à la construction d'une identité européenne spécifique dans ce domaine. Nous commencerons par retracer l'évolution de la linguistique appliquée en Europe, avant d'analyser les résultats de deux enquêtes menées à vingt ans d'intervalle. L'éditorial se conclut par une présentation de la logique ayant guidé la sélection des articles réunis dans ce volume.

**Resumen:** Este editorial presenta el número monográfico "Lingüistas Aplicados Europeos en Formación en un Mundo Globalizado", que reúne los trabajos de investigadores emergentes en Lingüística Aplicada que participaron en una reciente

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<footnote>*Corresponding author: Prof. Grégory Miras, Université de Lorraine CNRS, ATILF UMR7118, 44, avenue de la Libération, B.P. 30687, 54052 Nancy, France, E-Mail: gregory.miras@univ-lorraine.fr</footnote>
edición del Junior Researchers' Meeting (JRM) de AILA Europa. Este número invita a reflexionar sobre el desarrollo histórico de la Lingüística Aplicada en el contexto europeo y plantea cómo los investigadores en etapa inicial podrían estar contribuyendo a la construcción de una identidad europea distintiva en este campo. Comenzamos con un recorrido por la evolución de la Lingüística Aplicada en Europa, seguido de un análisis de los resultados de dos encuestas realizadas con veinte años de diferencia. El editorial concluye exponiendo la lógica que ha guiado la selección de los artículos incluidos en este volumen.

Following the special issue of AILA Europe Junior Researchers, published in 2022 (Gnach & Miras, 2022) and inspired by the meetings held in Sarajevo (2019), Groningen (2021), and Toulouse (2021), AILA Europe and EuJAL continue their commitment to showcasing the work of emerging applied linguists across Europe. This new special issue builds on the questions raised in the previous edition and brings together contributions from researchers who presented at the most recent Junior Researchers' Meetings in BAAL Belfast (2022) and AILA Lyon (2023). As part of the thematic publications celebrating the 20th anniversary of AILA Europe, this issue seeks to critically examine the process of shaping European applied linguistics by tracing its development and interrogating the emergence of a distinct disciplinary identity.

# 1 A plurality of applied linguistics in Europe

This thematic issue is the second one initiated as part of a call for papers following the AILA Europe Junior Researchers' Meetings (JRM). These meetings aim to highlight the work of early career researchers in applied linguistics and to promote studies that address real-world problems in Europe or related to European languages, in line with the objectives of the European Journal of Applied Linguistics (EUJAL). The first published issue, titled "New Generation of Applied Linguists in Europe," included an editorial written by its coordinators to reflect on the roots and new blossoming buds of Applied Linguistics in Europe (Miras and Gnach 2022).

This editorial provided a broad overview of the emergence and specific characteristics of the various AILA affiliates that make up the AILA Europe network, drawing on reports published in EUJAL on several affiliates (Table 1a).
<table><caption>**Table 1a:** List of European AILA affiliates included in the AILA Descriptions published in EUJAL (see Gnach and Miras 2022 for the list of references).</caption><thead><tr><td>Full Name</td><td>Short Name</td><td>Country</td><td>Foundation</td><td>Source</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Association Française de Linguistique Appliquée</td><td>AFLA</td><td>France</td><td>1964</td><td>(Miras et al. 2018)</td></tr><tr><td>British Association of Applied Linguistics</td><td>BAAL</td><td>Great Britain</td><td>1965</td><td>Website</td></tr><tr><td>Association Suédoise de Linguistique Appliquée</td><td>ASLA</td><td>Sweden</td><td>1966</td><td>(Granfeldt and Gunnarsson 2016)</td></tr><tr><td>Gesellschaft für Angewandte Linguistik</td><td>GAL</td><td>Germany</td><td>1968</td><td>(Göpferich 2014)</td></tr><tr><td>Association Finlandaise de Linguistique Appliquée</td><td>AFinLA</td><td>Finland</td><td>1970</td><td>(Kalaja et al. 2013)</td></tr><tr><td>Association Néerlandaise de Linguistique Appliquée</td><td>Anéla</td><td>The Netherlands</td><td>1972</td><td>(Droop and Weltens 2014)</td></tr><tr><td>Cumann na Teangeolaíochta Feidhmí / Irish Association for Applied Linguistics</td><td>IRAAL</td><td>Ireland</td><td>1975</td><td>(Carson 2013)</td></tr><tr><td>Greek Applied Linguistics Association</td><td>GALA</td><td>Greece</td><td>1980</td><td>(Mattheoudakis and Moumtzi 2017)</td></tr><tr><td>Asociación Española de Lingüística Aplicada</td><td>AEsLA</td><td>Spain</td><td>1982</td><td>(Carrió-Pastor 2015)</td></tr><tr><td>Vereinigung für Angewandte Linguistik in der Schweiz / Association Suisse de Linguistique Appliquée / Associazione Svizzera di Linguistica Applicata / Associazioni Svizra da Linguistica Applitgada</td><td>VALS/ASLA</td><td>Switzerland</td><td>1993</td><td>(Luginbühl 2018)</td></tr><tr><td>Verband für angewandte Linguistik</td><td>VERBAL</td><td>Austria</td><td>1994</td><td>(Vetter 2015)</td></tr><tr><td>Associazione Italiana di Linguistica Applicata</td><td>AltLA</td><td>Italy</td><td>1999</td><td>(Bettoni 2016)</td></tr><tr><td>Estonian Association for Applied Linguistics</td><td>EAAL</td><td>Estonia</td><td>2004</td><td>(Langemets 2017)</td></tr><tr><td>The Lithuanian Applied Linguistics Association</td><td>LITAKA</td><td>Lithuania</td><td>2007</td><td>Website</td></tr></tbody></table>

It is nevertheless important to note that AILA Europe has other members who do not have such a report but whose information can be found on their respective websites (Table 1 b).
<table><caption>**Table 1b:** List of other European AILA affiliates not included in the AILA Descriptions published in EUJAL.</caption><thead><tr><td>Full Name</td><td>Short Name</td><td>Country</td><td>Foundation</td><td>Source</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Israeli Association of Applied Linguistics</td><td>IAAL</td><td>Israel</td><td>1973</td><td>Website</td></tr><tr><td>Hungarian Association of Applied Linguists and Language Teachers</td><td>HAALLT</td><td>Hungary</td><td>1990</td><td>Website</td></tr><tr><td>The Society for Applied Linguistics in Bosnia and Herzegovina</td><td>SALinBiH</td><td>Bosnia-Herzegovian</td><td>2018</td><td>Website</td></tr></tbody></table>

In this regard, various reports show how the institutionalisation of applied linguistics took place in a particularly contextualised manner in response to real-world problems. Table 2 summarises excerpts illustrating the academic or political reasons that led to the creation or expansion of the various AILA Europe affiliates.

<table><caption>**Table 2:** Some excerpts from reports by European affiliates published in EUJAL on the reasons for their development or expansion (see Gnach and Miras 2022 for the list of references).</caption><tr><td>AEsLA</td><td>"its foundation was a reaction against the methodological restrictions imposed on linguistic research by associations focused on promoting theoretical and literary research" (Carrió-Pastor 2015: 135)</td></tr><tr><td>AFinLA</td><td>"One of the societal issues to be considered was the school reform carried out during the 1970's. The new system of basic education made foreign language education obligatory for every child" (Kalaja et al. 2013: 164).</td></tr><tr><td>AFLA</td><td>"three factors explain the emergence of Applied Linguistics a desire for innovation [...] the joint development of linguistics theories and communication technologies [...] an institutional context favourable to change in French universities" (Miras et al. 2018: 3).</td></tr><tr><td>AITLA</td><td>"which could provide both a scientific forum for new methodological and technological approaches" (Bettoni 2016: 331)</td></tr><tr><td>Anéla</td><td>"Due to the migration of members of former colonies (Surinam) and labour migrations of Turks and Moroccans in the seventies and – later on – the migration of their families, research on second language acquisition of these group had a strong influence" (Droop and Weltens 2014: 314).</td></tr><tr><td>ASLA</td><td>"after the end of World War 2 international mobility and cooperation increased in Europe which, in turn, put higher demands on the effectiveness of language teaching" (Granfeldt and Gunnarsson 2016: 166).</td></tr><tr><td>BAAL</td><td>"The common use of English was seen to be an important factor in the survival of the Commonwealth [...] the first attempts to join the Common Market had encountered resistance, and led the British Government to stimulate increased proficiency in foreign languages" (Mitchell 1997: 5).</td></tr><tr><td>EEAL</td><td>"The founding of EAAL was largely motivated by the Finnish contacts" (Langemets 2017: 147)</td></tr></table>
<table><caption>Table 2: (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>GAL</td><td>“the recent establishment of a GAL section “Migration Linguistics” demonstrates that GAL is ready to face these challenges” (Göpferich 2014: 155).</td></tr><tr><td>GALA</td><td>“The implementation of the Communicative Approach in the Greek foreign language teaching contexts and into the difficulties of adapting the method to the Greek school teaching culture” (Mattheoudakis and Moumtzi 2017: 4).</td></tr><tr><td>IRAAL</td><td>“is linked to the establishment and development of the Institiúd Teangeolaíochta Éireann (Irish Linguistics Institute, ITÉ) within a context of heated national debate on efforts to revitalize the Irish language” (Carson 2013: 293).</td></tr><tr><td>VALS/ASLA</td><td>“motivated by the critical appraisal of language teaching in Switzerland, considered then as very outdated” (Luginbühl 2018: 164)</td></tr><tr><td>VERBAL</td><td>“critical discourse studies have been one characteristic feature of applied linguistic research in Austria” (Vetter 2015: 335)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Offering a historical and distanced perspective on the construction of AILA's regional networks helps raise questions about their relevance and the ways in which these relationships and interconnections contribute to a more contextualized reflection on the evolution of applied linguistics as a meta-discipline (Stegu 2011). These back-and-forth movements between past and future form the foundation of a critical epistemology.

## 2 A snapshot of European applied linguistics in the 2000s

The AILA-Europe regional network was developed within the framework of efforts to foster stronger cross-border cooperation among applied linguists in Europe. These efforts culminated in the establishment of the Network of European Applied Linguists (NEAL) in 2006, which was later renamed AILA-Europe to reinforce its affiliation with the Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquée (AILA) (see Gnach & Miras (2022) for more information). The initiative to launch a survey originated under the leadership of Karlfried Knapp, then AILA Secretary General, who played a central role in conceptualizing the project. The questionnaire was designed collaboratively by representatives of various national associations, with contributions tailored to reflect both shared concerns and country-specific academic contexts. Technical implementation was made possible through the support of Rick de Graaff (ANéLA), who facilitated the online distribution and data collection via the IVLOS server at Utrecht University. The main purpose of the survey was to gather
detailed information about the professional backgrounds, research interests, and collaborative expectations of applied linguists across Europe, ultimately providing a foundation for joint initiatives such as conferences, research projects, and the prospective launch of a European Journal of Applied Linguistics.

A total of 572 responses (representing 15% of members) were received, including 200 for the German-language survey and 372 for the English-language one. The report (available in appendix) accordingly presents the data according to two separate categories based on the language of completion.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1:** Distribution of respondents by AILA national affiliation (n=572).</figcaption></figure>

Given the disparity in survey completion (Figure 1), the authors of the report themselves state that it cannot be considered representative. As such, they attempt to provide a snapshot of the respondents to better understand the effects on the results obtained. The respondents are primarily university-based teacher-researchers, with early career researchers (ECRs) accounting for around 20% of the responses. Professionals (such as language teachers or communication advisors) make up approximately 15% of the respondents.

The reasons mentioned for joining an applied linguistics affiliate are, first and foremost, the opportunity to engage with colleagues in the field, particularly through participation in targeted events. An important portion (50% of responses) also cited a desire to promote applied linguistics in education and society. In this regard, the main fields of activity are research then language teaching and curriculum development. This is in line with the dominance of foreign/second language teaching and intercultural communication as main specialist fields of their own work.
The section concerning languages in academic practices is also interesting while presenting some forms of contradictions. In relation to the profile of the respondents, the majority of respondents are able to read academic articles in English (97%), German (63%), and French (55%). These proportions are also found in terms of languages of publication and oral presentation, although French accounts for only 17% and 34%, respectively. However, this dominance of English is counterbalanced by the fact that there is no consensus on whether respondents wish to see a greater use of English for national events (45% against on a 5-level attitude scale), while a slight disagreement emerges for international events (66% on the same scale). In this regard, they express a strong desire to allow multilingualism in international congresses.

At the time, AILA-Europe was perceived as a good opportunity to support joint research projects by facilitating access to funding sources. Furthermore, the network is seen as an opportunity to support joint events and publications.

## 3 Two decades on: revisiting this snapshot

To update these trends several decades later, the questionnaire was replicated and partially adapted to current contexts. It was administered in 2024 and closed in the summer of 2025 on the Limesurvey online platform hosted by Université de Loraine, following multiple reminders circulated through European affiliates and the AILA newsletters. Over this period, 193 fully completed responses were collected.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2:** Number of respondents by national AILA affiliation and proportion of respondents relative to the number of members (n=193).</figcaption></figure>
Respondents are mainly established academics (70%) and doctoral students or early-career researchers (15%), with smaller proportions of retired academics (7%), language teachers (3%), and other professional profiles. The overwhelming majority are affiliated with universities (89%), while only a small fraction reported teaching languages at the secondary level (2%) or working in other types of institutions (5%). Their main specialist fields of work correspond to those identified in the first questionnaire, being predominantly Foreign/Second Language Teaching (55%) or Second Language Learning (53%). Other fields include Societal Multilingualism, Discourse Analysis, Rhetoric and Stylistics, Intercultural Communication, Language and Social Groups, and Language Teaching Technology/CALL.

As with the first questionnaire, the responses cannot be claimed to be repre-
sentative of all AILA Europe members. It is also important to note that the dy-
namics differ from the earlier version. Whereas in the 2000s the responses were
dominated by members of GAL and Anéla affiliates—reflecting the affiliations of
the two coordinators—the 2025 survey shows strong participation from VERBAL,
AFLA, GAL, ASLA, and AItLA (Figure 2). On average, however, the response rate
relative to the number of members (as reported in 2023 annual affiliates’ reports)
amounts to 12% which remains low. The results should therefore be understood as
a snapshot at a given moment, reflecting the diversity of AILA Europe members
contributing to a qualitative analysis.

60 % of respondents have been affiliated for less than 10 years. Analysis of the survey data (excluding self-reported duplicates) shows that cross-membership within AILA Europe affiliates is relatively limited but reveals clear patterns: the most frequent overlaps occur between the Swedish Association (ASLA) (4) or the Lithuanian Association (LITAKA) (4) and the British Association (BAAL) with 4 cases. Another recurrent link is between VERBAL (Austria) and GAL (Germany) with 5 cases, reflecting regional and linguistic proximity. Other connections appear only sporadically (1–2 cases each). Overall, these results indicate that dual membership tends to concentrate either around BAAL, as a complementary affiliate, or between geographically close affiliates such as VERBAL and GAL. They mainly joined AILA affiliates for three reasons: participation in the association’s workshops, congresses, etc. (84%), exchange of information with colleagues in their field (79%), and development of networks, including for career purposes (64%). They join either a pluralistic vision of applied linguistics or a more functional version of a transdisciplinary network to address real-world needs (Table 3).
<table><caption>**Table 3:** Responses to the question: From a historical and European perspective, each affiliate has its own conception of applied linguistics.</caption><thead><tr><td>Definition</td><td>%</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>“to create a forum for the exchange of knowledge related to the analysis and solution of language-related problems in all areas of society” (Göpferich 2014: 145)</td><td>34</td></tr><tr><td>All of them</td><td>34</td></tr><tr><td>“to mediate between theory and practice and brings together researchers, students as well as practitioners” (Vetter 2015: 335)</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>“to provide a bridge between theoreticians and practitioners” (Carrió-Pastor 2015: 135)</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>“to bridge the gap between theoretical and Applied Linguistics” (Kalaja et al. 2013: 163)</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>None of them</td><td>4</td></tr></tbody></table>

Overall, the dissemination and understanding of AILA Europe's activities, 20 years after its creation, remain vague for members of national affiliates. On average, 76% of respondents either do not know or have only heard of AILA Europe's activities (Annual Meeting, JRM Meeting, and issues in EUJAL).

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3:** Distribution of the degree of belonging across different institutional levels of AILA.</figcaption></figure>

Members primarily report a sense of affiliation with their national AILA affiliates (Figure 3). They also note that being able to attend scientific events in person is a major factor in fostering a sense of belonging to the network.

Regarding research multilingualism, respondents indicate proficiency in reading scientific texts in English (98%), French (48%), German (40%), Spanish (34%), and Italian (25%). Similar, though amplified, proportions are observed for the languages in which they regularly publish or give scientific presentations, with English
accounting both for 93%, and the second most frequent language being German, with 21% and 26% respectively. These patterns largely reflect the demographic composition of the applied linguists who responded.

<table><caption>**Table 4:** Difference in responses between the two questionnaires on the role and place of English (n=193).</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>Tot. disagree</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>Tot. agree</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Greater use of English for national congresses and publications</td><td>2000</td><td>26%</td><td>19%</td><td>24%</td><td>18%</td><td>13%</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>10%</td><td>16%</td><td>36%</td><td>22%</td><td>17%</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Greater use of English for transnational congresses and publications</td><td>2000</td><td>42%</td><td>24%</td><td>14%</td><td>19%</td><td>11%</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>31%</td><td>21%</td><td>36%</td><td>5%</td><td>8%</td></tr></tbody></table>

The use of English as the sole language for transnational conferences is reported by 53% of respondents, compared to 14% in the 2000s. Other frequently mentioned languages include French, then Spanish, and German. Respondents also emphasize that promoting multilingualism in AILA's activities remains important to them, even if English is more widely chosen by participants.

The main challenges for applied linguistics in Europe given with open questions can be grouped into three interconnected areas. First, funding and recognition remain major issues: research and teaching in the field often face budget cuts with “lack of funding”, precarious positions for early-career researchers, and low societal visibility. There is, in particular, the question of the visibility of the usefulness of applied linguistics and, by extension, the way in which it can influence political decisions. Then, linguistic diversity and education present ongoing challenges, including promoting multilingualism, supporting minority and heritage languages, addressing migration-related language needs. Third, technology, particularly artificial intelligence, is seen both as an opportunity and a link to society’s needs, and as a threat in that it overly influences research topics.

## 4 Shaping European Applied Linguistics with Junior researchers in a globalized world

This issue brings together ten scientific contributions, most of which are long papers. It features research conducted across Europe—including Germany, Estonia, Italy, France, Ireland, Finland, Greece, and the United Kingdom—as well as from
Tunisia and the USA. All contributions come from Early Career Researchers (ECRs) who critically engage with topics in applied linguistics related to European languages or linguistic practices in European contexts.

In *Demarcating the boundaries of non-belonging: Gender, integration, and the Burkini in German newspaper comments* Emily Davis (University of Groningen, the Netherlands) addresses a real-world issue: the public discourse surrounding the burkini. Grounded in a triangulated methodological approach, this short paper focuses primarily on a review of contemporary theoretical perspectives and the presentation of the author's research design. Her work underscores how national narratives of belonging transcend German borders and touch on broader European questions of identity and inclusion.

In *The use of motivational strategies: Perspectives of Tunisian EFL teachers and students*, Bochra Kouraichi (University of Sfax, Tunisia) takes a step beyond Europe to offer a complementary study related to her forthcoming research on English for Specific Purposes (ESP) in Estonia and Hungary. Allowing to draw comparisons between Tunisian, Estonian and Hungarian contexts, she identifies similar trends in how motivational strategies are employed. Her study highlights that students sometimes fail to identify the motivational strategies used by their teachers which impacts the intended effects of these strategies.

Daniele Urlotti (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy) explores issues of linguistic and cultural mediation in *Translating (in) the Public Service – When interpreting facilitates migrants' understanding of the institutional context*. Using a unique corpus of audio-recorded, interpreter-mediated interactions in both health-care and education, he identifies three specific interpreting strategies. This study contributes to a humanistic approach to research by emphasizing how language translation and mediation can enhance support and care for vulnerable populations.

In *Blended learning for autonomy development in heterogeneous FLE classes: A lever for developing learners' transversal competencies?*, Paul Pouzergues (Aix-Marseille Université, France) examines the effects of a pedagogical intervention using diverse data collected from learners of French as a Foreign Language. His study demonstrates that linguistic diversity in additional language learning can foster learner autonomy and support the development of transversal competencies such as curiosity.

Nicoletta Cirota (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italy) presents both theoretical and experimental phases in *Development of a cognitive-linguistic assessment battery for L1 Italian learners of L2 Chinese with and without literacy impairments*. The unique orthographic and phonological relationships between Italian and Chinese are shown to influence how specific learning disorders with impairment affect reading skills. This contribution illustrates the importance of the research process itself—
beyond its outcomes—especially in contexts involving underexplored fields of re-
search.

In *To talk or not to talk? Willingness to communicate in English as an L2: Investigating Greek learners' perspectives and teachers' perspectives and strategies in Greece*, Artenisa Topouzi (Mary Immaculate College, Ireland) focuses on the phenomenon of silence in language classrooms. Drawing on interviews and classroom observations, this comparative qualitative study examines English language learning in two countries where the status of English differs. While some factors influencing willingness to communicate (WTC) are shared across contexts, others appear to be more context-specific.

Anna Reini (University of Jyväskylä, Finland) explores the cognitive dimension of vocabulary acquisition in *Knowledge of receptive English morphology among Finnish university students: L2 learners' morpheme recognition and its implications to vocabulary learning*. Given the morphological richness of the Finnish language, this large-scale experimental study involving approximately 700 university students reveals that the ability to recognize word roots depends on the learner's capacity to segment words into morphemes. The findings open new strategic avenues for language instruction.

In *Learner-initiated grammar explanations in L2 French classroom interaction*, Janin Loanne (Université de Neuchâtel, Switzerland) adopts a conversation-analytic approach based on more than 50 hours of video-recorded classroom interactions with beginner learners. The study sheds light on the range of resources students mobilize to explain grammar, offering valuable insights for better adapting teacher feedback to learner-initiated discourse.

Elisa Räsänen (University of Jyväskylä, Finland) reflects on the role of digital tools in additional language learning in *Learner agency and symbiotic agency with technology in language learning with digital applications*. Using learner portfolios from Finnish language students in the U.S., this study uncovers the affordances of personal digital applications in fostering learner agency. It also raises important questions about the learning of less commonly taught languages and the emerging influence of AI-powered tools.

Finally, *Social 'integration' and language learning at two European universities: Students' perceptions of institutional and student-led opportunities* by Andreana Pastena (University of Warwick, United Kingdom) examines how student hypermobility, a cornerstone of university internationalization, impacts language learning and social integration. The study finds that while institutional initiatives remain limited in scope, student-led efforts can partly compensate, provided they are institutionally supported. The findings support the continued development of actions for welcoming and supporting international students before, during, and after their mobility experience.
Collectively, these studies demonstrate the rich theoretical, methodological, and disciplinary diversity of current work in applied linguistics. They confirm applied linguistics as a meta-discipline capable of addressing real-world needs. While local challenges shape the specificities of applied linguistics in Europe, the work of these ECRs situates itself firmly within global dynamics—whether by comparing field sites (e.g., Estonia/Hungary and Tunisia; Greece and Ireland), exploring less commonly taught languages (e.g., Finnish in the U.S. or Chinese in Italy), or producing contextualized knowledge from a wide range of fields of research.

**Acknowledgment:** The editor would like to thank Sin-Wang Chong for his invaluable support of Early Career Researchers during the 2022 Junior Research Meeting (JRM) at the BAAL conference. His academic expertise and personal dedication were instrumental in the early conception and development of this project. He would also like to thank Karlfried Knapp for agreeing to share the results of the survey he conducted on AILA Europe with the general public.

# Appendix

Karlfried Knapp (Erfurt)

## Applied Linguistics In Europe

### Results of a survey of members of European applied linguistics associations (AILA Europe)

This paper presents the results of a survey of members of European applied linguistics associations belonging to the *Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquée* (AILA). The object of this survey was to obtain information about the group of people active in applied linguistics in Europe. The questions also covered their areas of work and interest, their professional use of languages, as well as their interest in the contents and forms of closer crossborder collaboration in Europe, and in the production of a *European Journal of Applied Linguistics*. This survey was held within the context of endeavours to improve the communication and cooperation between European members of AILA. These efforts led to the Network of European Applied Linguist (NEAL) being set up in 2006. This is now active as "AILA Europe".

The circulation of this questionnaire was one of the activities agreed when the NEAL / AILA Europe was set up. However, as the origin and objectives of the NEAL / AILA Europe are not yet general knowledge among applied linguists, it may well be advantageous to start with a brief review of the background of the association before presenting and discussing the results of the survey.
# 1 NEAL / AILA Europe

For some time, AILA has been pursuing a strategy of regionalization for the publica-
tion of the practical research work of AILA members in the period between the
triennial AILA World Congresses. This strategy is intended to foster closer, cross-
border cooperation between applied linguists in neighbouring and near neighbour-
ing countries. This cooperation can take the forms of, for example, joint events,
projects and publications in the particular region. Whereas this kind of close coop-
eration between the American Association of Applied Linguistics (AAAL) and the
Canadian Association of Applied Linguistics (CAAL) has a long tradition in North
America, the cooperation in other parts of the world could certainly be improved.
This applies, above all, to Europe, where there has always been a vast amount and a
wide variety of work in applied linguistics but where, so far, little use has been
made of the possibilities of cross-border cooperation.

More than a decade ago, the initial attempts to get this kind of cooperation
underway within the AILA were achieving very little. The contributing factors un-
doubtedly included language barriers, technical communication difficulties (at that
time access to the Internet and e-mails was very limited) and the high costs of travel
(cut-price airlines had not yet appeared). However, another contributory cause was
probably that the AILA did not seem very attractive to individual members of Eur-
opean applied linguistics associations as a framework for crossborder cooperation
because it seemed to be “too far away”. In the past, the AILA mainly came to the
notice of the academic community through its triennial world congresses. Unfortu-
nately the venues for these academic exchanges of information became increas-
ingly out of the reach of most Europeans. For some years now, AILA congress ve-
nues have been concentrated in Asia and overseas. The congress was held in Tokyo
in 1999, in Singapore in 2002, and in Madison (USA) in 2005. The 2008 congress was
held in Essen. This can almost be regarded as an exception, because the next con-
gresses will be held in Beijing in 2011 and in Adelaide (Australia) in 2014, and Korea
looks likely to be the venue in 2017.

Against this backdrop, and in his then capacity as general secretary of the AILA,
the author instigated a meeting of several European member associations of the
ILA in Bolzano, Italy in September 2006. This meeting resolved to found a *Network
of European Applied Linguists* (NEAL). This network was intended to form a loose
framework for cooperative activities among applied linguists in Europe. Their joint
activities would be organized at an annual meeting of representatives of the parti-
cipating specialist associations, and in between times by a coordinator. At the third
annual meeting of NEAL representatives, held during the 2008 AILA World Con-
gress in Essen 2008, it was decided to rename NEAL as “*ILA-Europe*” to make the
link to the AILA clearer.
The objectives of AILA-Europe are to improve the general communication and co-operation between applied linguists in Europe, and specifically:

- To publicize recent and forthcoming publications, projects and events of the individual European member associations of AILA on a web site

- To organize joint conferences, symposia and similar events at venues easily accessible to Europeans

- To foster up-and-coming applied linguists throughout Europe by means of an annual conference, which would be devoted solely to providing a platform for the presentation of their work, and where they could be advised by experienced researchers

- To launch the *European Journal of Applied Linguistics*, which would mainly focus on language and communication difficulties in Europe, and publish contributions in a number of European languages

- To hold an annual meeting of representatives of the member associations, which would identify contemporary issues, above all those connected with European multilingualism, and set priorities for future cooperation, and

- Initiate joint projects to deal with such Europe-oriented issues

So far, the following national applied linguistics associations have joined AILA-Europe:

ABLA (Association Belge de Linguistique Appliquée)

AEsLA (Asociación Española de Lingüística Aplicada)

AFinLA (Association Finlandaise de Linguistique Appliquée)

AFLA (Association Française de Linguistique Appliquée)

AitLA (Associazione Italiana di Linguistica Applicata)

AnéLA (Association Néerlandaise de Linguistique Appliquée)

ASLA (Association Française de Linguistique Appliquée)

BAAL (British Association of Applied Linguistics)

GAL (Gesellschaft für Angewandte Linguistik)

GALA (Greek Applied Linguistics Association)

IRAAL (Irish Association of Applied Linguistics)

VALS/ASLA (Association Suisse de Linguistique Appliquée)

VERBAL (Verband für Angewandte Linguistik)

AILA-Europe has so far promoted the following activities:

- The inaugural "European Junior Researchers' Congress of Applied Linguistics" was held at the University of Groningen, Netherlands, in January 2007. The next one will be held in Münster University, Germany, in September 2009.

- The second AILA-Europe Meeting was held at the University of Erfurt, Germany, in June 2007. Members of special interest groups set up at the inaugural
AILA-Europe meeting in Bolzano in 2006 gave presentations on the problems of language testing for citizenship in EU member states, on multilingual literacy, and on the impact of lay theories of language and language acquisition on language policies.

- AILA-Europe was represented with a number of symposia on European issues at the AILA World Congress in Essen, Germany, 2008.

- At the third AILA-Europe meeting, held during the AILA World Congress, a working group was set up to take action against the negative assessment of the quality of European specialist magazines in the *European Science Foundation Reference Index for the Humanities*. This negative assessment was evidently attributable to applied linguists not being represented in the group of experts that passed the quality judgments. In the meantime, the group's action has been successful and, in future, this expert group will also include applied linguistics from AILA-Europe.

- The fourth AILA-Europe meeting will be hosted by the IRAAL in Limerick in June 2009. One of the proposals on the agenda is for a more stringent organizational structure. The fifth meeting is scheduled for the autumn of 2010 under the joint aegis of AFinLA and ASLA.

- Talks are currently being held with the publishers, Mouton-de Gruyter, on the launching of a *European Journal of Applied Linguistics*.

AILA-Europe's activities to date also include the survey, which is discussed below. The decision to hold this survey was taken at the inaugural meeting in Bolzano. Its objectives were to record the fields of activity of individual members of European applied linguistics associations, together with their interest in Europe-wide cooperation, and their ideas on how this could be achieved. The results would form the basis for further deliberations on cooperation.

## 2. The AILA-Europe questionnaire

### 2.1 Development and evaluation process

The members of the NEAL / AILA-Europe reached a collective decision on the contents and formulation of the questionnaire. The first draft was discussed by the representatives attending the second NEAL meeting in Erfurt. They brought in questions relevant to the information they needed and features specific to their particular nations. These included, for example, a differentiation between educational institutions, and the differences in status between lecturers and professors. They also decided which fields of activity were relevant and how they would be defined. The
formulation of the questionnaire proved to be an extremely intercultural project. The final version was a collaborative production by the then AILA general secretary and colleagues from ANéLA and VERBAL.

To simplify the handling of the project, the questionnaire was designed to be answered *online*. Thanks to the assistance provided by Rick de Graaff from the ANéLA, the questionnaire was placed on the IVLOS (*Interfacultair Instituut voor Lerarenopleiding, Onderwijsontwikkeling en Studievaardigheden*) server at the University of Utrecht, from where it could be accessed and answered electronically. The IVLOS was given the e-mail addresses of the individual members of the participating national associations of applied linguistics. They then received an e-mail via IVLOS from the AILA general secretary explaining the purpose of the survey and the answering procedure, and requesting their participation. The BAAL, which did not want to provide the e-mail addresses of their members on data protection grounds, distributed this information through its own distribution system.

In principle, it would have been possible to take European multilingualism fully into account and place a translated version of the questionnaire in each of the national languages involved on the server. The only exception being Greek – on account of the Greek alphabet. However, this would have involved higher administrative expenditure by IVLOS which, in turn, would have increased the cost for those member association requesting a translated version. With the exceptions of the GAL and VEBAL, all the other member associations decided to accept the English version of the questionnaire – the language in which it had been drafted. A German translation was placed in the net for the GAL and VERBAL. There was thus an English and a German version of the questionnaire. Members of the GAL, VERBAL, and a few members of the BAAL and VALS/ASLA used the German version for their response, some GAL members and all other respondents used the English version.

IVLOS electronically evaluated all the responses to the two versions of the questionnaire, first as a whole, and then nation by nation. The separate national evaluations enabled a comparison to be made between the national member associations. This also made it possible for individual national associations to ask their own members specific questions at the end of the general questionnaire. However, only VERBAL took advantage of this opportunity.

The following presentation of the results can only touch briefly on specific national features for reasons of space. It is restricted to a comparison of the most important results obtained from the German and English versions, and comments on conspicuous differences between them.
## 2.2 Results

200 people replied on the German version of the questionnaire, 372 used the English version. A total of 572 responses were received. Against the total of ca. 4,000 members of applied linguistics associations, this is a response rate of ca. 15 percent. In absolute terms, that is not very many, but typical for surveys of this type. One of the reasons for the relatively low response rate was probably the fact that the survey could not be launched until the early summer. In German-speaking countries, this is a time of year when end of semester stress is building up, whereas in some other countries the summer break has already begun. Another reason is that the request to answer the questionnaire was sent out by ILVOS. As this e-mail address was unfamiliar to most recipients, many unfortunately treated the mail as spam. The number of responses for each individual association is shown below in table 1.

<table><caption>Table 1: Number of responses:</caption><tr><td>ABLA</td><td>(Belgium)</td><td>22 = ca.</td><td>3.85% of respondents</td></tr><tr><td>AEsLA</td><td>(Spain)</td><td>17 = ca.</td><td>2.97%</td></tr><tr><td>AFinLA</td><td>(Finland)</td><td>9 = ca.</td><td>1.57%</td></tr><tr><td>AFLA</td><td>(France)</td><td>0</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>AitLA</td><td>(Italy)</td><td>47 = ca.</td><td>8.22%</td></tr><tr><td>AnéLA</td><td>(The Netherlands)</td><td>91 = ca.</td><td>15.91%</td></tr><tr><td>ASLA</td><td>(Sweden)</td><td>2 = ca.</td><td>0.35%</td></tr><tr><td>BAAL</td><td>(Great Britain)</td><td>33 = ca.</td><td>5.77%</td></tr><tr><td>GAL</td><td>(Germany)</td><td>153 = ca.</td><td>26.75%</td></tr><tr><td>GALA</td><td>(Greece)</td><td>68 = ca.</td><td>11.89%</td></tr><tr><td>IRAAL</td><td>(Ireland)</td><td>16 = ca.</td><td>2.80%</td></tr><tr><td>VALS/ASLA</td><td>(Switzerland)</td><td>66 = ca.</td><td>11.54%</td></tr><tr><td>VERBAL</td><td>(Austria)</td><td>46 = ca.</td><td>8.04%</td></tr></table>

The rate of participation in the survey varied very widely from country to country. For example, almost 50% of VERBAL members, but less than 10% of BAAL members, and not a single AFLA member responded to the survey. For this reason alone, the results cannot be considered as representative. Nevertheless, they do show some interesting tendencies, which could be followed up in future studies.

The first three questions sought to establish the main group of people belonging to the European applied linguistics associations, and why these people had joined such an association – please see tables 2 to 4. These and the following tables show the results of the German language questionnaire under the abbreviated heading
"German" on the left, and those of the English version under "English" on the right. That is, these headings refer to the language or the questionnaire and not to the nationality or mother tongue of the respondents.

<table><caption>Table 2: Professional status</caption><thead><tr><th>Professional status</th><th>Percentages<br>"German"</th><th>Rank<br>"German"</th><th>Percentages<br>"English"</th><th>Rank<br>"English"</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Student (M.A. / diploma)</td><td>2.0</td><td>8</td><td>3.0</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Doctoral candidate / junior researcher</td><td>17.6</td><td>3</td><td>21.8</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Academic / university lecturer</td><td>44.7</td><td>1</td><td>46.2</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Professor / director of institution</td><td>33.7</td><td>2</td><td>18.0</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Language teacher</td><td>5.5</td><td>5</td><td>18.8</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Language / communication advisor/ trainer</td><td>3.0</td><td>7</td><td>4.6</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Retired</td><td>3.5</td><td>6</td><td>1.3</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Others</td><td>8.5</td><td>4</td><td>7.0</td><td>5</td></tr></tbody></table>

Table 2 shows that the surveyed group of people are primarily working in research and at universities – 96% of those who completed the German language questionnaire and 86% of those who used the English version. The significantly higher proportion of professors in the German-speaking area is certainly connected with the typical, national differences between the national university systems. In the other countries, the title and office of professor is open to a smaller number of university lecturers. If one considers a professorship as a career goal for academics working at a university, then around two-thirds of respondents have a status which could lead to this goal, and these people's future careers could well benefit from participation in international projects and cooperative ventures.

The proportion of people working in fields dealing with language and communication problems is comparatively small, particularly as this number also includes those respondents who stated a practical job in addition to their research and lecturing occupation in the tertiary sector. A somewhat stronger practical orientation was noticeable outside the Germanspeaking area. For example, in Italy and the Netherlands around 19% of respondents were (also) working as language teachers, in Greece the figure was over 38%.

In both versions of the questionnaire, the responses under the category "Others" included a large number of very diverse individual occupations, including a translator, part-time lecturer, marketing advisor, someone in adult education, test developer, head of a language centre and language school, political advisor for multilingualism, librarian.
The question enquiring about the main field of work and personal affiliation to an institution clearly showed that the higher and public education sectors, including basic and further training institutions, were dominated by teachers, see table 3.

<table><caption>Table 3: Institutional affiliation / main field of work</caption><thead><tr><th>Institutional affiliation / main field of work</th><th>Percentages "German"</th><th>Rank "German"</th><th>Percentages "English"</th><th>Rank "English"</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Secondary education sector</td><td>9.0</td><td>4</td><td>13.7</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Public institution for language planning and policy</td><td>4.5</td><td>6</td><td>4.8</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Private language teaching institution</td><td>3.0</td><td>8</td><td>5.6</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Private language or communication consultancy</td><td>2.5</td><td>9</td><td>3.2</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Social and public health systems</td><td>3.5</td><td>7</td><td>0.5</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher training and/or advanced training institution</td><td>25.1</td><td>2</td><td>12.1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Institution of vocational university education (e.g. university of applied sciences)</td><td>13.6</td><td>3</td><td>18.8</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>University</td><td>81.4</td><td>1</td><td>71.5</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Other institutions</td><td>9.0</td><td>4</td><td>7.3</td><td>5</td></tr></tbody></table>

This question was formulated to enable those who were teaching and researching at an institute of higher education to state any other, quite probably, practical fields of activity in which they were also working. That is the reason why the total number of fields of work exceeds 100 percent. The dominance of the educational sector as the main field of work and the very small role played by the social and public health systems were clearly shown throughout Europe. The latter is represented mainly by activities connected with the diagnosis and therapy of speech and language development disorders. The practitioners working in this field are probably organised in other directions rather than applied linguistics.

The category "main fields of work" contained a similarly heterogeneous collection of solitary entries as the question about professional status. These included translation bureaus, research institutes, NGOs (IDS, e.g. German Language Institute), non-university research groups, scientific academies, accreditation and evaluation agencies, government ministries and associated consultancy and planning institutes, and finally self-employed activities, such as writing text books, developing tests, and so on.

Table 4 summarizes the most important reasons why the respondents joined their national applied linguistics associations.
<table><caption>**Table 4:** Reasons for joining an AL association</caption><thead><tr><th>Reasons for membership</th><th>Percentages "German"</th><th>Percentages "English"</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Exchange of information with colleagues in my field</td><td>79.9</td><td>71.8</td></tr><tr><td>Development of networks, also for career reasons</td><td>34.2</td><td>25.0</td></tr><tr><td>Participation in the association's workshops, congresses etc.</td><td>67.8</td><td>70.4</td></tr><tr><td>Development/performance of joint projects with other applied linguists</td><td>24.6</td><td>11.6</td></tr><tr><td>Promotion of AL in education and in society</td><td>50.8</td><td>51.3</td></tr><tr><td>It is the only linguistics association in my country</td><td>15.6</td><td>9.7</td></tr><tr><td>Other reasons</td><td>3.0</td><td>1.1</td></tr></tbody></table>

These results reveal a uniform picture throughout Europe. The number one motivating factor is the exchange of specialized information, which is also enhanced by attending workshops, symposia and congresses. This is followed by a general interest in promoting applied linguistics in education and society as a whole. It was noticeable that an interest in joint projects was a more frequent motive for joining a specialist association in the Germanspeaking area than in other countries. As will be shown clearly later in this paper, the establishment of NEAL / AILA-Europe has also increased the interest in joint projects in the non-German-speaking area.

The second group of questions enquired about the respondents' fields of activity. The first general question enquired about the most important fields of personal activity (i.e. the predominant activity) (see table 5). This was then followed by a more detailed question about the fields in which work was done (table 6).

<table><caption>**Table 5:** Most important fields of activity</caption><thead><tr><th>Most important fields of activity</th><th>Percentages "German"</th><th>Percentages "English"</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Language teaching</td><td>56.3</td><td>59.9</td></tr><tr><td>Curriculum development or teacher training and advanced training</td><td>47.2</td><td>31.7</td></tr><tr><td>Language planning</td><td>21.1</td><td>24.2</td></tr><tr><td>Consulting and training courses</td><td>26.6</td><td>12.1</td></tr><tr><td>Clinical linguistics</td><td>9.5</td><td>3.2</td></tr><tr><td>Research</td><td>82.9</td><td>67.5</td></tr><tr><td>Others</td><td>15.1</td><td>8.6</td></tr></tbody></table>

In view of the dominance of the universities as the main field of work, it is hardly surprising that applied linguistics research was universally given as the most im-
portant field of activity. Nevertheless, it is noticeable that a research orientation was
significantly more strongly pronounced in the German-speaking area. At universi-
ties, research is accompanied by lecturing. For obvious reasons, many respondents
also gave additional fields of activity. Unfortunately the evaluation has not yet not
taken into account the extent to which those who gave research as their field of
work also gave additional fields of activity and, if yes, which. In this respect, it can
only be stressed that practical language teaching (and the academic involvement
with it) and practical curriculum development, and the training and advanced train-
ing of teachers (and the academic involvement with it) are the most important fields
of activity of European applied linguists. It is undoubtedly evident that, in almost all
European countries, applied linguistics is predominantly involved with teacher
training courses.

A number of fields of activity were frequently mentioned in the category "Others", especially in the German language questionnaire. These should be taken into account if the survey were ever to be repeated – above all translating and interpreting (including *community interpreting*), lexicography, and terminology development and standardization. A number of respondents mentioned other fields of activity, some of which were very small-scale – almost reminiscent of dissertation topics. This indicated that they had not given their field of activity but rather their own preferred areas and subjects of interest.<fnref n="1" />

Table 6 shows those main specialist areas which best describe the work of the respondents, and the specialist fields under which they can best be classified. This list is the result of intensive discussions among those involved in the formulation of the questionnaire. The fields listed are intended to cover the greatest possible range. They are based on the thematic strands of earlier AILA World Congresses and the contents of sections of the larger European applied linguistics associations. Naturally, not all specialist fields could be covered, so any topics omitted could be entered under "Others". This category mainly contained very specific entries occurring only once or those that could clearly be assigned to one of the wider category. For example, content and language integrated learning (CLIL) could be classified under "foreign language teaching". Multiple answers had to be permitted because many individuals are active in more than one specialist field.

As can be seen in table 6, a significantly higher proportion of the respondents to
the German questionnaire gave multiple answers. One could conclude from this, that
these respondents are typical of a Teutonic concept of scholarship in which a greater

<footnote n="1">1 This problem had not arisen during a test run of the questionnaire. It was clear to the respondents that they should state the nature of their work, such as research, (practical) language teaching, employment in teacher training, and so on.</footnote>
thematic complexity is customary. That could prompt a Europe-wide academic-socio-
logical comparative study. One might assume that this diversity is a consequence of
the stronger orientation towards research that can be seen in table 5. However, one
could also assume that respondents have assigned a single field of work to a number
of different categories. For example, communication studies which analyse conversa-
tion in hospitals could be classified under both the “conversation analysis” and the
“professional communication/specialized language” categories.

The categories used here are thus not explicit or absolutely clear cut. That is one
of the fundamental difficulties of applied sciences which derive their objects of
study, in this case language and communication problems, from complex everyday
life, and therefore have to define these objects from the point of view of the parti-
cular *community of practice* that deals with these particular problems.

That is related to another fundamental lack of precision, which derives from the
overlapping cultural differences involved with an internationally structured study
such as this. For example, in the German-speaking area, communication difficulties
between immigrants and civil servants are usually categorised as intercultural com-
munication problems. On the other hand, in Great Britain such communication pro-
blems are generally categorized as “problems of diversity”. That is, they are assigned
to sociolinguistics (language and social groups) – if they are dealt with from the lin-
guistic point of view at all. Consequently, the constructs of the questionnaire may
evoke different cultural concepts in the minds of the various respondents. This can
probably only be avoided in a comparative study if the concepts are suitably clarified
and the questionnaire includes a detailed explanation of each of the categories avail-
able for selection.

Table 6 below lists the respondents’ main fields of the work, and shows the
results from the German and English questionnaires separately. The figures in the
columns clearly reveal the correspondences and differences in the preferences for
the various fields. European AILA members are mainly interested in issues con-
cerned with individual and societal multilingualism. The five most frequently stated
fields of activity are: foreign language teaching, intercultural communication, soci-
etal multilingualism, second language learning, and professional communication /
specialized languages, which probably cannot primarily be categorised under “mul-
tilingualism”. Nevertheless, even for these fields, the two questionnaires, revealed
substantial differences in the degrees of preference. The field of “intercultural com-
munication” was stated 20 percent more frequently by German-speaking respon-
dents, which placed it significantly higher in the ranking list. As has just been men-
tioned, this could be linked to the specific cultural understanding of this concept.
Those fields which are involved with texts in the widest sense also show clearly
discernable differences. Discourse analysis, rhetoric and stylistics, multimodality in
discourse and text (e.g. language in the media), and the standardisation/readability/
comprehensibility of texts are objects of study that appear to arouse a greater degree of interest in the German-speaking area.

An analysis of the evaluations for the individual countries reveals even more differences. However, these are not discussed here, as the purpose of this paper is to report the range of issues within European applied linguistics which could offer starting points for cooperative projects.

<table><caption>Table 6: Main specialist fields of one's own work</caption><thead><tr><th>Main specialist fields of own work</th><th>Percentages "German"</th><th>Rank "German"</th><th>Percentages "English"</th><th>Rank "English"</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Foreign/second language teaching</td><td>47.7</td><td>1</td><td>49.5</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Intercultural communication</td><td>47.2</td><td>2</td><td>27.4</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Societal multilingualism</td><td>41.7</td><td>3</td><td>42.2</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Professional communication and/or specialized language</td><td>37.7</td><td>4</td><td>24.7</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Second language learning</td><td>35.2</td><td>6</td><td>50.8</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Discourse analysis, rhetoric and stylistics</td><td>35.2</td><td>6</td><td>19.4</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Language planning and policy</td><td>25.6</td><td>7</td><td>20.4</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Contrastive linguistics and error analysis</td><td>24.6</td><td>8</td><td>13.2</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Language and social groups (e.g. age, gender, minorities)</td><td>23.1</td><td>9</td><td>17.5</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Conversation analysis</td><td>21.6</td><td>10</td><td>15.6</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Multimodality in discourse and text (e.g. language in the media)</td><td>20.1</td><td>11</td><td>10.2</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>Translating and interpreting</td><td>19.6</td><td>12</td><td>13.2</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Standardisation, readability or intelligibility of texts</td><td>19.1</td><td>13</td><td>7.8</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Survey, assessment and testing of language abilities, tests</td><td>17.6</td><td>14</td><td>22.0</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Psycholinguistics and clinical linguistics</td><td>16.1</td><td>15</td><td>15.3</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Language teaching technology / CALL</td><td>14.1</td><td>17</td><td>15.3</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Technical communication (e.g. information retrieval, language technology)</td><td>14.1</td><td>17</td><td>1.9</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>First language learning</td><td>9.5</td><td>19</td><td>14.0</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Native language teaching</td><td>9.0</td><td>20</td><td>11.8</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>Others</td><td>8.5</td><td>21</td><td>6.2</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>Neurolinguistics</td><td>6.0</td><td>22</td><td>5.9</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>Alphabetisation / literacy</td><td>3.0</td><td>23</td><td>12.6</td><td>17</td></tr></tbody></table>
A third group of questions enquired into the choice of language while working. Respondents were asked to state the languages in which they could read academic texts without difficulty (table 7), the languages in which they themselves published (table 8), and those in which they could present a paper (table 9). In this case, the results of the German and English questionnaires were amalgamated for greater clarity.

<table><caption>**Table 7:** Languages in which academic texts could be read without difficulty</caption><tr><td>Arabic</td><td>0.7%</td></tr><tr><td>German</td><td>63.0%</td></tr><tr><td>English</td><td>96.9%</td></tr><tr><td>Finnish</td><td>3.0%</td></tr><tr><td>French</td><td>54.5%</td></tr><tr><td>Greek</td><td>11.2%</td></tr><tr><td>Irish</td><td>1.7%</td></tr><tr><td>Italian</td><td>23.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Dutch</td><td>21.7%</td></tr><tr><td>Swedish</td><td>4.4%</td></tr><tr><td>Spanish</td><td>21.9%</td></tr><tr><td>Turkish</td><td>0.5%</td></tr><tr><td>Others</td><td>10.5%</td></tr></table>

Others languages mentioned included Russian (6 times = 1%), Japanese and Polish (4 times = 0.7%), Hungarian (3 = 0.5%). A large number of other languages were each mentioned once only.

The percentage figures for the languages of publication were in some cases considerably lower, see table 8.

<table><caption>**Table 8:** Languages of publication</caption><tr><td>Arabic</td><td>0.1%</td></tr><tr><td>German</td><td>45.5%</td></tr><tr><td>English</td><td>96.9%</td></tr><tr><td>Finnish</td><td>1.7%</td></tr><tr><td>French</td><td>17.0%</td></tr><tr><td>Greek</td><td>10.8%</td></tr><tr><td>Irish</td><td>1.7%</td></tr></table>
<table><caption>**Table 8:** (continued)</caption><tr><td>Italian</td><td>12.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Dutch</td><td>15.9%</td></tr><tr><td>Swedish</td><td>1.7%</td></tr><tr><td>Spanish</td><td>5.2%</td></tr><tr><td>Turkish</td><td>0.5%</td></tr><tr><td>Others</td><td>3.8%</td></tr></table>

This shows clearly that the passive competence of applied linguists is higher than their active ability to make productive use of languages. It must, of course, be born in mind that each of these figures includes the corresponding number of native speakers. For example, the numbers of respondents who publish in Finnish, Greek, Irish or Dutch is the same as or only insignificantly greater than the numbers of questionnaires returned by members of the corresponding national associations.

The languages in which respondents could present a paper at a congress etc. reveals a somewhat different picture, as shown in table 9.

<table><caption>**Table 9:** Languages of presentation</caption><tr><td>Arabic</td><td>0.1%</td></tr><tr><td>German</td><td>56.3%</td></tr><tr><td>English</td><td>92.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Finnish</td><td>2.6%</td></tr><tr><td>French</td><td>34.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Greek</td><td>12.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Irish</td><td>1.2%</td></tr><tr><td>Italian</td><td>17.0%</td></tr><tr><td>Dutch</td><td>19.9%</td></tr><tr><td>Swedish</td><td>2.8%</td></tr><tr><td>Spanish</td><td>11.9%</td></tr><tr><td>Turkish</td><td>0.4%</td></tr><tr><td>Others</td><td>3.8%</td></tr></table>

Many languages show higher figures for presentation than for publication. This is, for example, especially noticeable in the cases of German and French. One might speculate that some respondents interpreted this as reading a speech from a fin-
ished manuscript, which they might not have had to write for themselves. However, that cannot account for the figure for presenting a paper in English being slightly lower than that for publication.

The dominance of English is obvious. Nevertheless, it is noticeable that the figures for the ability to read, write and make a speech in German are also high. The numbers of those who stated they could read and make a speech in German is, in both cases, more than one third higher than the number of those who completed the German questionnaire. However, some of these respondents were from Switzerland – and, as shown above, most of the members of VALS/ASLA completed the English language version. Notwithstanding that, some 100 respondents more than the total number of respondents from German-speaking associations stated that they were competent to read and about 80 that they were competent to present a paper in German. All in all, German is incontestably the second most important language for European applied linguistics – if only because of the large number of German-speaking members. However, even if the participation in this survey were to be regarded as representative, one would also have to draw the conclusion that German could only be a lingua franca for between one quarter and one third of European applied linguists.

The situation is different for French. The members of ABLA and VALS/ASLA can be expected to include native speakers of French (members of AFLA did not participate in the survey). Their numbers amounted to ca. 15.4% of respondents. Nonetheless, 54.5% stated that they could read French texts, and 34.1%, that they could present a paper in French. Solely the ability to publish, at 17%, corresponded approximately to the maximum percentage of native speakers. French is thus still relatively widespread in European applied linguistics, although the number of native speakers active in the context of AILA-Europe is regrettably low.

However, the languages which the members themselves think should be used at congresses and in publications is more important for cooperation within the scope of AILA-Europe. Three questions enquired into this issue.

Table 10 shows the degree of agreement – expressed by means of a 5-point scale running from “totally disagree” to “totally agree” – of all respondents to the question of whether or not English should continue to be promoted as the lingua franca of European applied linguistics. That is, for example, the use of English for the international sections of national conferences and as the language for publications.

<table><caption>**Table 10:** Greater use of English for national congresses and publications</caption><thead><tr><th>Totally disagree</th><th>26%</th><th>19%</th><th>24%</th><th>18%</th><th>13%</th><th>Totally agree</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Average value: 2.7
As the average value of 2.7 indicates, there is only a slight tendency against an increasing use of English, even for national congresses and publications. The answer is quite different when it comes to the question of whether English should be the *sole* language used in transnational events and publications at European level. As the average value of 2.2 in table 11 indicates, there is a considerably stronger tendency to reject this proposition. However, this tendency is due to a very great extent to the weight of responses to the German language questionnaire. No less than 55 percent of these respondents totally *disagreed* with "English only" for transnational congresses and publications in Europe.

<table><caption>**Table 11:** Greater use of English for transnational congresses and publications</caption><thead><tr><th>Totally <u>disagree</u></th><th>42%</th><th>24%</th><th>14%</th><th>19%</th><th>11%</th><th>Totally <u>agree</u></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Average value: 2.2

Table 12 shows the distribution of answers to the question as to which European languages should be used alongside English for publications and at events. This question allowed multiple answers.

<table><caption>**Table 12:** Desired languages for transnational congresses and publications</caption><tr><td>Arabic</td><td>2.4%</td></tr><tr><td>German</td><td>34.4%</td></tr><tr><td>English <u>only</u></td><td>14.2%</td></tr><tr><td>Finnish</td><td>3.3%</td></tr><tr><td>French</td><td>32.8%</td></tr><tr><td>Greek</td><td>4.4%</td></tr><tr><td>Irish</td><td>3.3%</td></tr><tr><td>Italian</td><td>12.0%</td></tr><tr><td>Dutch</td><td>4.9%</td></tr><tr><td>Swedish</td><td>3.3%</td></tr><tr><td>Spanish</td><td>18.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Turkish</td><td>3.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Any *</td><td>68.0%</td></tr></table>

"Any" = any language used by a reasonably large group of participants
The first thing that strikes the eye here is the predominantly liberal attitude to the choice of languages used at congresses. In conformance with AILA's policy, 68% of respondents were of the opinion that any language used by a significant group of those attending should be permitted at a congress. Apart from that, clear preferences can be seen. Apart from English, the most frequently preferred languages were German at 34.4%, French almost equal at 32.8

% and Spanish with 18.1%. The numbers of non-native speakers of these last two languages can be assumed to be substantially higher than the numbers of native speakers among the respondents, so they can certainly be said to have a lingua-franca function within Europe. On the other hand, it is remarkable that the fourth most frequent answer was "English only" at 14.2%. This implies the elimination of a choice of language in favour English within the European context.

Overall, the results showed a preference for English, German, French and Spanish, and to a lesser extent Italian. This reflects both the widespread availability of these languages as foreign languages in schools and the size of their respective language communities, and thus is not at all surprising. These languages will have to given preference for use in joint activities within the scope of Euro-AILA.

The last group of questions in the questionnaire concerned the respondents' opinions of the cooperative activities proposed by NEAL / AILA-Europe. Table 13 lists the extent of agreement with the steps and activities which would enable NEAL / AILA-Europe to reach its goal of promoting cooperation between applied linguists within Europe.

<table><caption>**Table 13:** Tasks for NEAL / AILA-Europe</caption><tr><td>Supporting joint events held by European member associations of AILA</td><td>63.3%</td></tr><tr><td>Organising European applied linguistics conferences</td><td>64.7%</td></tr><tr><td>Supporting joint publications, such as a European journal and a yearbook</td><td>63.6%</td></tr><tr><td>Supporting joint research projects and efforts to obtain external financing in Europe</td><td>73.4%</td></tr><tr><td>Providing a coordination point for developing European networks</td><td>52.6%</td></tr><tr><td>Organising joint political activities to promote applied linguistics</td><td>40.3%</td></tr><tr><td>Other activities</td><td>2.1%</td></tr></table>

These results show overwhelming endorsement of the goals formulated when NEAL was founded in 2006. Particular attention has to be drawn to the overwhelming desire for AILAEurope to play a supportive role in the initiation of Europe-wide projects and in attracting external funding. Action in respect of academic politics is comparatively less frequently regarded as a goal. This is ironic, in view of the fact that the first action which brought AILAEurope to notice within the context of Eur-
opean institutions was its effort to secure greater representation of applied linguists on the adjudicatory panel for the assessment of the quality of academic journals.

Almost two-thirds of all respondents approved of NEAL / AILA-Europe's intention to issue a European publication. In the meantime a publisher, Mouton-de Gruyter, has indicated its interest in publishing a "peer-reviewed" *European Journal of Applied Linguistics* (EJAL) in conjunction with AILA-Europe. This would be published biannually, concentrate on issues related to Europe, and contain some 400 pages. The final question was therefore whether respondents would be prepared to contribute to such a journal, and whether and at what price they would be prepared to subscribe to it. The results are shown in tables 14, 15 and 16).

<table><caption>**Table 14:** Willingness to contribute to an EJAL</caption><thead><tr><th>Absolutely unwilling</th><th>7%</th><th>7%</th><th>21%</th><th>25%</th><th>40%</th><th>Entirely willing</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Average value: 3.9

65 percent of all respondents would be interested in contributing to such a journal. Naturally, the actual preparedness to contribute will depend on the thematic orientation of the individual issues. Nevertheless, it can be seen that an adequate number of contributions could be expected for such a journal

The willingness to subscribe was also surveyed. As can be seen from table 15, a good three quarters of respondents would be prepared to subscribe.

<table><caption>**Table 15:** Preparedness to subscribe to an EJAL</caption><tr><td>Yes</td><td>76.6%</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>23.4%</td></tr></table>

Finally, those respondents who would be willing to subscribe to such a journal were asked what price they would be prepared to pay for an annual subscription. Table 16 shows that the majority would accept a price of €30.

<table><caption>**Table 16:** Maximum price of a subscription to an EJAL</caption><tr><td>10€</td><td>8.6%</td></tr><tr><td>20€</td><td>28.1%</td></tr><tr><td>30€</td><td>37.8%</td></tr><tr><td>40€</td><td>17.3%</td></tr><tr><td>50€</td><td>8.2%</td></tr></table>
Overall, despite all the discernable differences between the European member as-
sociations of the AILA, the results of the questionnaire reveal a universal interest in
more intensive crossborder cooperation and there is also a great deal of consensus
on the forms this should take. In view of the given linguistic circumstances, it would
seem that, apart from English, only German, French and, to a lesser extent, Italian
and Spanish would be feasible as a basis for common communication. However, the
extent to which the Romance languages develop as lingue francae in AILA-Europe
depends on the strength of the contributions that applied linguists from these lin-
guistic regions make within the context of European cooperation.

A publication such as a *European Journal of Applied Linguistics* was regarded as desirable by the overwhelming majority of respondents. Whether this actually materializes as an AILA-Europe activity also depends on whether AILA-Europe develops an organisational structure in the near future that could support this kind of publication.

Finally, it has to be emphasised that, although the results of this survey are
certainly very informative, they can only indicate tendencies. As mentioned in the
introduction, the response rate was relatively low. In order to obtain a more repre-
sentative overview of applied linguistics in Europe, this study should be repeated in
a form in which the national associations themselves send the survey to their mem-
bers, even though the results should be evaluated centrally for practical reasons.

References

Gnach, Aleksandra, Miras, Grégory. (eds.). 2022. *New Generation of Applied Linguists in Europe. European Journal of Applied linguistics*, 10(2). https://www.degruyterbrill.com/journal/key/eujal/10/2/html?srsltid=AfmBOorXLgHQaBOuJRNfirTZFsZ1YSv86 mmC4TuPUJzU0kN68g5bhgAD

Miras, Grégory, Gnach, Aleksandra. 2022. From the roots to the new blossoming buds of Applied Linguistics in Europe. *European Journal of Applied Linguistics*, 10(2), 213-226. https://doi.org/10.1515/eu-jal-2022-0031

Stegu, Martin. 2011. La linguistique appliquée : Discipline ou groupement de disciplines indépendantes ? *Histoire Épistémologie Langage*, 33(1), 129-139. https://doi.org/10.3406/hel.2011.3211