Linguistics Specialist Group Meeting 
Monday 13th February 2006

Present: Patricia Ashby (PA) Kate Beeching (KB), Alison Dickens (AD), David Hornsby (DCH), Dick Hudson (DH), Florence Myles (FM), Jean Peccei (JP), Paul Rowlett (PR) Chair, 

1. Apologies: Billy Clark (BC), Ben Rampton (BR)

2. Minutes from last meeting and matters arising
Membership of Group: PR reported that Doug Arnold was flattered to be invited but was not sure what he can contribute so has declined. It was agreed that Doug Arnold could contribute a great deal in the area of computational linguistics so PR will re-invite him. Action: PR
It was suggested that this response could indicate a lack of understanding of what the group or the Subject Centre does. New members are not sure quite what we do. We need to make more contact with colleagues especially in departments where there is only one ‘token’ linguist. The SC does come across as mainly working in the area of modern languages (its biggest constituency) and there are very few linguistics bids for its mini-project funding. We need to raise the profile of the SC in linguistics and a good way to do this is through subject associations. The SC has already been asked to contribute to the LAGB conference in Newcastle (30th Aug – 2nd Sept) – see item 5. AD will send a message to Ron Carter Chair of BAAL to investigate sponsoring a session at their annual conference as well. The same can be done with BAAP. Action: AD
DH suggested that a short report after meetings of the SG is circulated to mailing lists including via Mike MacMahon for BAAP and  Phil Soc Council council@philsoc.org.uk . Action: AD

Minutes on SC website
AD to pursue adding minutes to website. The SG Jiscmail list is now up to date sglinguistics@jiscmail.ac.uk Action: AD

SC Newsletter – the latest edition has a short article by BC on the work of the A level linguistics group. The next one will ask for suggestions for future linguistics activity. Action: AD 

SC conference 2007 : the intended theme is Linking research to teaching (pedagogic research and research-led teaching). It is unclear who, if anyone is doing pedagogic research in linguistics. This might examine how successful teaching methods are in linguistics and language teaching. FM pointed out that SLA is not really pedagogic research. Also there is probably more evaluation of teaching methods than actual pedagogic research. The problem with RAE recognition continues to impede progress in pedagogic research.
It was felt that the call for papers for the conference should be clear about what the parameters are i.e. what is to be covered by both areas (which are not necessarily compatible). Particular pedagogical practices e.g. task-based learning could be given as examples of the types of research of interest.

3. Number and format of meetings
It had been suggested that the group could have more virtual meetings. However pressure of time to read electronic messages would probably create more work than coming to a face-to-face meeting (PA). As not everyone can attend all three meetings most members only have to make time for two meetings a year anyway (KB). It was agreed that those who cannot attend will  email comments in advance of a meeting that they can’t attend. The Group discussed the possibility of having meetings out of term time but this often conflicts with conferences. It was agreed that for next year meetings should be in November, April and June. The next meeting is scheduled for15th May – it was agreed to keep to that date for this year.

Good Practice Guide. This needs to be publicised more widely. It does already receive a high number of hits already. Unfortunately after the last meeing PR sent a message to inform mailing lists about the GPG and several recipients reported that the SC website was down. A further message should have yielded more hits. The dates of the messages to the Linguist list were 17th Nov and 11th Jan so there could be a high number of hits for those dates. Action: AD to check with SC web editor. 

Comments on the GPG:
•	There is no need to reproduce what others say about the fields or linguistics (which is the case with several of the linguistics entries). Rather these must crosslink to methodology. It was felt that it was worse to have an article that doesn’t do the job (e.g. doesn’t refer to pedagogy) than none at all. It was suggested that we could approach the original authors asking them to elaborate on their original articles.  It was not necessarily part of the original brief so cannot be required. There is a need to add articles on topics from list (attached), but we need to make it clear what authors have to do. DH suggested that we could take wikipedia-type approach to allow additions to the articles. It was felt that this might compromise the original articles, rather it was agreed to set up a kind of blog for the articles whereby readers can contribute comments and additions at the end of the articles (rather than changing the body of the text). Action: AD to investigate
•	There was a concern that teaching articles might not be research-informed where overviews are. Teachers tend to inform themselves by looking at other syllabi and evaluating them. There is therefore a need to use people who are keen teachers to do small research projects – looking at syllabi and other aspects of the linguistics curriculum. 
•	The GPG needs to be interactive and dynamic otherwise it is not much different from the new Elsevier encyclopaedia (edited by Keith Brown). 
•	It was suggested that group members suggest 5 areas that need covering together with suggestions of authors. Action: All group members (DH has already sent suggestions). AD to invite contributors.

4. Future events
Teaching Translation. AD reported on Swansea event which was very successful and attracted some 60 people. The organiser Andrew Rothwell is keen to run a follow-up event. Perhaps this could be run alternately with Phonetics event (see below).

Transition in Linguistics. An event on transition will now  be run after the report that is being commissioned by the English SC  is published
It was agreed that Sociolinguistics is a topic that we haven’t covered yet. PR will approach Paul Kerswill (Lancs) to either host or coordinate a Sociolinguistics event. It was agreed that although there are many people who are interested in Sociolinguistics outside linguistics (e.g. in modern languages) that this would not be the main focus. Main issues that could be covered might be dialectology, language and gender, language contact. There could possibly be a main forum with breakout groups for those with special interests (e.g. the sociolinguistics of a particular language/country). Action: PR to contact Paul Kerswill

Teaching Language Skills. John Field has offered a seminar on Language skills. It was agreed that we should accept his offer. PA suggested that colleagues in Language Centres be involved (e.g. Michelle Laufer, Westminster). Action: AD to contact John Field

Phonetics. PA has offered to run another Phonetics event in Feb 07. Action: PA

5. CLIE representation. DH explained that this is a committee for language in education sponsored by LAGB and BAAL. It shares information on things relevant to linguistics in education thus MFL, English teaching and EAL are included in one body. It deals mainly with primary and secondary education and also PGCE teacher education. It meets 3 times a year. PA offered to be the representative with JP as deputy.

6. Other initiatives. AD circulated information about the call for bids for the English SC research project on transition from English Language A level to university study of English Language and Linguistics. There was some concern that the results would be of little relevance to most English departments  as has an emphasis on linguistics. The Group expressed a wish to play a consultative role in the selection of bids. Ad will ask to participate in bid selection. Action: AD to contact English

7. Any other business. 
The LAGB event at Newcastle will involve the SC sponsoring a 2-hour slot in the afternoon which will be very like the education committee slots already in existence. We have not been told exactly what kind of slot they are looking for by DH emphasised that it needs to cover core linguistics e.g. syntax, semantics, morphology etc. It was agreed that a good topic would be teaching and planning a first year linguistics course. Four presentations were suggested to present different models e.g. Manchester (PR), Newcastle (AD), 

Sussex (AD), Lancaster (PR). Action: AD and PR to contact colleagues to ask for a paper.
DCH requested a copy of the Why Study Linguistics presentation. Action: AD
PR asked if anyone had participated in the M-level benchmarking meeting. No one had done so. 
Date of next meeting: Monday 15th May 2006