Given the importance of disciplinary specificity in terms of the potential differences in the functionality of nominalizations in scientific textbooks and the dearth of studies of this type, the current study explores the extent to which nominalization is realized across two disciplines. To this aim, eight academic textbooks from Physics and Applied Linguistics are analyzed to identify the nominal patterns and expressions and their related types. Findings indicate that, despite the similarity of the first three most prevalent patterns in the sample textbooks, the distribution of these patterns marks disciplinary distinctions. That is, Physics academic writers tend to (a) use a more complex, lexically dense style of writing and package more information into compound nominal phrases by deploying a pattern where nominals are followed by strings of prepositional phrases in comparison to writers in Applied Linguistics; and (b) express particularity using nominals preceded by classifiers more frequently than Applied Linguistics writers. Writers in Applied Linguistics, on the other hand, are found to manifest a greater tendency toward conveying generality by using a pattern where nominals are realized with few pre/post modifiers.

This study traces the evolution of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) by investigating published research articles (RAs) in four major CALL journals: ReCALL, Computer Assisted Language Learning, Language Learning & Technology, and CALICO Journal. All 2,397 RAs published over four decades (1983–2019) were included in the pool of data, and the Google Scholar citation metric was adopted to assess the impact of the papers. By selecting the top 15% of widely cited papers from each individual year, we minimized the time bias between years, enabling a balanced narration of the history of CALL through a representative dataset of 426 high-impact RAs. To identify the evolution of research trends, the contexts, methodologies, theoretical underpinnings and research foci of all 426 RAs were investigated using NVivo 12 and AntConc. The analysis of the data yielded encouraging results such as the upward trend in the number of publications and the international reach of CALL in the last two decades, the physical or virtual presence of language learners with diverse language profiles, and the growing tendency to triangulate methodology for increased complexity. However, long-standing issues such as the heavy reliance on traditional research contexts, poor reporting practices of basic demographic information, the large number of atheoretical papers and the concentration on a limited number of research foci continue to pose challenges in CALL research. Based on the findings, the paper suggests solutions for the controversies and addresses key issues for future research in CALL.

In a challenging criticism-generating oral defense of a doctoral program, examiners evaluate the PhD dissertation so as to confirm its scholarly merit. The main purpose of this ethnographic study was identifying the examiners’ expectations of the viva which was achieved by using a content analytic approach for analyzing the disputation section of two applied linguistics doctoral defense sessions from two accredited Iranian universities in 2019. Despite the similar shortcomings in terms of innovation, development, sampling and treatment, raised by the examiners, one of the candidates passed with distinction while the other was suggested re-submission. This finding suggests that the outcome of a viva, in an EFL context, not only depends on adherence to the conventions of doctoral research but is also influenced by the strictness of the examiners, the candidates’ language proficiency, and negotiation skills in this confrontational communicative event. Findings provide evidence for factors, namely the examiners’ attributes, the doctoral candidate’s attributes, and the dissertation attributes that determine the success or failure of PhD candidates in displaying their claims of scholarship during their defense sessions.