Mediation Without a Mind: A Sociocultural Reconsideration of Student Feedback Literacy for Generative AI Feedback in ELT Writing

Generative artificial intelligence increasingly provides immediate feedback to English language learners, yet learners’ capacity to interpret, evaluate, and act on such feedback, known as feedback literacy, remains undertheorised in relation to this new source. This conceptual paper adopts a theory adaptation approach, using Carless and Boud’s four-dimensional model of student feedback literacy as the domain theory and Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory as the method theory. It examines how appreciating feedback, making judgements, managing affect, and taking action are reshaped when feedback is generated by general-purpose artificial intelligence rather than by teachers or peers. The paper argues that the model remains useful, but that each dimension faces additional strain because generative artificial intelligence functions as a mediating artefact and cannot be assumed to perform the pedagogical role of a more knowledgeable other. Although it can provide responsive assistance, it does not reliably identify a learner’s zone of proximal development, interpret developmental needs, or provide support that is carefully adjusted and gradually withdrawn. Learners must therefore undertake more of the evaluative, emotional, and regulatory work required to use feedback effectively. In English language writing contexts, target-language proficiency influences how strongly these limitations are experienced, creating a proficiency paradox in which learners who depend most on artificial intelligence feedback may have fewer linguistic resources to judge its accuracy, relevance, and appropriateness. The paper uses illustrative ELT writing scenarios and indicative proficiency benchmarks to anchor this argument, suggesting that the paradox may be most acute for learners at CEFR A2-B1, while recognising that such boundaries are gradual rather than fixed. It concludes that feedback literacy for generative artificial intelligence should be deliberately developed through teacher-supported mediation, guided verification, reflective revision, comparison of human and artificial intelligence feedback, and selective adaptation of suggestions.

English language teaching, feedback literacy, generative AI, sociocultural theory, zone of proximal development

1. Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465–483. https://doi.org/10.2307/328585 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Anastasia, W., Murtisari, E., & Isharyanti, N. (2024). Lower-proficiency EFL students’ use of Grammarly in writing: Behavior, cognition, and affect. The JALT CALL Journal, 20(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v20n1.1089 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bearman, M., Tai, J., Dawson, P., Boud, D., & Ajjawi, R. (2024). Developing evaluative judgement for a time of generative artificial intelligence. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(6), 893–905. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2335321 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Behzadi Soufiani, L., Ahangari, S., & Saeidi, M. (2025). The effect of the model of contingent teaching on improving Iranian EFL learners’ essay writing. Language Teaching Research, 29(5), 2161–2176. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221113021 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Carless, D., & Winstone, N. (2023). Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(1), 150–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1782372 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Cengiz, Y., & Aptoula, N. Y. (2026). Comparing AI and human feedback at higher education: Level appropriateness, quality and coverage. Language Teaching, 59(1), 122–127. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444825000199 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Chen, S., Zhang, L., & Li, A. W. (2026a). Leveraging self-regulated learning to support university students’ feedback literacy in blended learning environments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 51(1), 174-193. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2546349 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Chen, Z., Wei, W., & Zou, D. (2026b). Generative AI technology and language learning: Global language learners’ responses to ChatGPT videos in social media. Interactive Learning Environments, 34(2), 907–920. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2025.2511248 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Cheng, X., & Xu, J. (2025). Engaging second language (L2) students with synchronous written corrective feedback in technology-enhanced learning contexts: A mixed-methods study. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 712. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05007-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Choi, W. (2025). Exploring high school students’ preferences for English writing feedback: Non-native English teacher vs. native English teacher vs. ChatGPT. Sage Open, 15(4), 21582440251383693. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251383693 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Constantinescu, M., & Kaptein, M. (2025). Responsibility gaps, LLMs & organisations: Many agents, many levels, and many interactions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 31(1), 36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-025-00560-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Council of Europe. (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing. https://www.coe.int/lang-cefr [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Ding, L., Zou, D., & Kohnke, L. (2025). ChatGPT as an automated writing evaluation tool: How students perceive it and how it affects their writing. Education and Information Technologies, 30, 26777–26799. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13775-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Dizon, G., Gold, J., & Barnes, R. (2025). ChatGPT for self-regulated language learning: University English as a foreign language students’ practices and perceptions. Digital Applied Linguistics, 3, 102510. https://doi.org/10.29140/dal.v3.102510 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Du, J. L., & Chen, Y. (2026). Exploring English for academic purposes learners’ engagement with ChatGPT-4 in academic writing revision: A case study from a private language institute in China. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 9, 1802007. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2026.1802007 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Dung, L. Q. (2025). Syntactic and rhetorical transformation in Vietnamese EFL students’ academic writing. Journal of Education and E-Learning Research, 12(4), 628–635. https://doi.org/10.20448/jeelr.v12i4.7848 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. ElEbyary, K., & Shabara, R. (2024). ChatGPT-generated corrective feedback: Does it do what it says on the tin? Teaching English with Technology, 24(3), 68–89. https://doi.org/10.56297/vaca6841//BFFO7057/MYEH4562 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Fang, S., & Han, Z. (2025). On the nascency of ChatGPT in foreign language teaching and learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 148–178. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719052510010X [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Farquhar, S., Kossen, J., Kuhn, L., & Gal, Y. (2024). Detecting hallucinations in large language models using semantic entropy. Nature, 630(8017), 625–630. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07421-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Godoy, D. (2026). AI mediated scaffolding for second language academic writing in EFL composition classrooms. Discover Education, 5, 475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-026-01386-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Gozali, I., Wijaya, A. R. T., Lie, A., Cahyono, B. Y., & Suryati, N. (2024). Leveraging the potential of ChatGPT as an automated writing evaluation (AWE) tool: Students’ feedback literacy development and AWE tools integration framework. The JALT CALL Journal, 20(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v20n1.1200 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Hamamra, B., Khlaif, Z. N., & Mahamid, N. (2026). AI literacy and mediated learner autonomy in ChatGPT-supported EFL writing: A qualitative study at a Palestinian university. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 23(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-026-00597-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Han, J., & Li, M. (2024). Exploring ChatGPT-supported teacher feedback in the EFL context. System, 126, 103502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103502 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Hawkins, B., Taylor-Griffiths, D., & Lodge, J. M. (2025). Summarise, elaborate, try again: Exploring the effect of feedback literacy on AI-enhanced essay writing. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2492070 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Hicks, M. T., Humphries, J., & Slater, J. (2024). ChatGPT is bullshit. Ethics and Information Technology, 26(1), 38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-024-09775-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Huang, J., & Mizumoto, A. (2024). Examining the effect of generative AI on students’ motivation and writing self-efficacy. Digital Applied Linguistics, 1, 102324. https://doi.org/10.29140/dal.v1.102324 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10(1), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Kalai, A. T., Nachum, O., Vempala, S. S., & Zhang, E. (2026). Evaluating large language models for accuracy incentivizes hallucinations. Nature, 1047–1051. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10549-w [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Kaya, F. (2023). Understanding written teacher feedback in L2 writing in higher education: Perceptions, emotions and practices of pre-service English language teachers. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 52(3), 819–833. https://doi.org/10.14812/cuefd.1245489 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Kilde-Westberg, S., Johansson, A., & Enger, J. (2025). Generative AI as a lab partner: A case study. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 21(2), 020119. https://doi.org/10.1103/ggy1-3kjk [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Lantolf, J. P., & Xi, J. (2023). Digital language learning: A sociocultural theory perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 57(2), 702–715. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3218 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Leontjev, D., & deBoer, M. (2025). Teacher as creator: Orchestrating the learning environment to promote learner development. Language Teaching Research, 29(6), 2371–2392. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221117654 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Lin, S., & Crosthwaite, P. (2024). The grass is not always greener: Teacher vs. GPT-assisted written corrective feedback. System, 127, 103529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103529 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Lu, Q., Yao, Y., Xiao, L., Zhu, X., & Yin, H. (2025). Exploring the impact of a GenAI-supported feedback practice on student feedback literacy in L2 writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2025.2605541 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Lukešová, A., & Jennings, P. J. (2026). Clue before correction: ChatGPT-enhanced strategy for promoting autonomous and reflective language learning. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2025.2612532 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Lukka, K., & Vinnari, E. (2014). Domain theory and method theory in management accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(8), 1308–1338. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-03-2013-1265 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Lund, B., Mannuru, N. R., Teel, Z. A., Lee, T. H., Ortega, N. J., Simmons, S., & Ward, E. (2025). Student perceptions of AI-assisted writing and academic integrity: Ethical concerns, academic misconduct, and use of generative AI in higher education. AI in Education, 1(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/aieduc1010002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Ma, M. (2023). Exploring learning-oriented assessment in EAP writing classrooms: Teacher and student perspectives. Language Testing in Asia, 13(1), 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-023-00249-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Mahapatra, S. (2024). Impact of ChatGPT on ESL students’ academic writing skills: A mixed methods intervention study. Smart Learning Environments, 11(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00295-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Mai, H. T. (2026). Evaluating the impact of using ChatGPT on EFL students’ argumentative skills. Discover Education, 5(1), 189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-026-01153-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Mekheimer, M. (2025). Generative AI-assisted feedback and EFL writing: A study on proficiency, revision frequency and writing quality. Discover Education, 4(1), 170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00602-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Mendoza, N. B., Xiong, Y., & Yan, Z. (2026). Making sense of AI feedback: How students’ feedback literacy moderates the link between ChatGPT acceptance and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2026.2641521 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Molloy, E., Boud, D., & Henderson, M. (2020). Developing a learning-centred framework for feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(4), 527–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1667955 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Mun, C. Y. (2024). EFL learners’ English writing feedback and their perception of using ChatGPT. Journal of English Teaching through Movies and Media, 25(2), 26–39. https://doi.org/10.16875/stem.2024.25.2.26 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Nieminen, J. H., & Carless, D. (2023). Feedback literacy: A critical review of an emerging concept. Higher Education, 85(6), 1381–1400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00895-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Papi, M., Turner, J., Song, W., Soliman, H., Mahbodi, M., & Yarbrough, A. (2026). A good relationship is not enough: How teacher trust shapes feedback-seeking behaviors in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 73, 101318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2026.101318 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2021). The ZPD, second language learning, and the transposition~transformation dialectic. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 17(3), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.17759/chp.2021170306 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Poehner, M. E., & Leontjev, D. (2023). Peer interaction, mediation, and a view of teachers as creators of learner L2 development. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12444 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Raine, P. (2025). Using GPT-3 as a more knowledgeable other to provide feedback on English language learners’ spoken transcripts. TESL-EJ, 29(2). https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.29114a7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Ravi, D. M., & Mohamad, M. (2026). Exploring the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Journal Article Writing Among Postgraduate Students at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), 10(1), 3645-3658. https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2026.10100286 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Reddig, J. M., Arora, A., & MacLellan, C. J. (2025). Generating in-context, personalized feedback for intelligent tutors with large language models. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 35, 3459–3500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-025-00505-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Shabani, K., & Bakhoda, I. (2024). Internalization and externalization in a computerized L2 context from Vygotskian optique. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 46, 174–198. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2024.46.13 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Sharshova, R., Salkhanova, Z., Yelubayeva, P., Maral, A., Sholakhova, A., & Ainur, K. (2025). The use of AI writing tools in second language learning to enhance Kazakh IT students’ academic writing skills. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 7(8), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i8.10408 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Singh, R. K. V., Hashim, H., Jamaludin, K. A., & Jamil, M. R. M. (2026). Assessing AI-supported English academic writing in higher education: A narrative review of challenges, emerging practices, and prospective strategies. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Special Issue on Artificial Intelligence, 3, 436-551. https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/A3.28 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Slamet, J. (2024). Potential of ChatGPT as a digital language learning assistant: EFL teachers’ and students’ perceptions. Discover Artificial Intelligence, 4(1), 46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-024-00143-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Teng, M. F. (2025). Metacognitive awareness and EFL learners’ perceptions and experiences in utilising ChatGPT for writing feedback. European Journal of Education, 60(1), e12811. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12811 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Thiruchelvan, T., & Zakaria, N. Y. K. (2026). ESL Teachers’ Perceptions of AI-Powered Writing Assistants in Language Learning Learning. International Journal of Education, Psychology and Counselling (IJEPC), 11(62), 1282–1295. https://doi.org/10.35631/IJEPC.1162074 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Tran, T. T. T. (2025). Enhancing EFL writing revision practices: The impact of AI- and teacher-generated feedback and their sequences. Education Sciences, 15(2), 232. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020232 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Vendrell, M., & Johnston, S. K. (2026). Scaffolding critical thinking with generative AI: Design principles for integrating large language models in higher education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 100572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2026.100572 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Wang, C. (2025). Exploring students’ generative AI-assisted writing processes: Perceptions and experiences from native and nonnative English speakers. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 30(3), 1825–1846. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-024-09744-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. Wang, D. (2024). Teacher- versus AI-generated (Poe application) corrective feedback and language learners’ writing anxiety, complexity, fluency, and accuracy. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 25(3), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v25i3.7646 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. Wang, F., Li, N., Cheung, A. C., & Wong, G. K. (2025). In GenAI we trust: An investigation of university students’ reliance on and resistance to generative AI in language learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 22(1), 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-025-00547-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. Wood, J., & Pitt, E. (2025). Empowering agency through learner-orchestrated self-generated feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 50(1), 127–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2365856 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. Wu, Z., & Zhao, J. (2025). Exploring learners’ engagement with GenAI-generated feedback in EFL writing: A Chinese middle school case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2025.2600035 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. Xiangming, L., & Wei, W. (2026). Interplay effects of AI feedback and individual differences on learners’ emotional responses. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-026-13937-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. Xu, J., & Zhang, S. (2022). Understanding AWE feedback and English writing of learners with different proficiency levels in an EFL classroom: A sociocultural perspective. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 31(4), 357–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00577-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. Yan, D., & Zhang, S. (2024). L2 writer engagement with automated written corrective feedback provided by ChatGPT: A mixed-method multiple case study. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03543-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

72. Yang, K. (2026). Generative AI as a virtual more-knowledgeable other: A mixed-methods investigation of DeepSeek’s impact on grammatical accuracy and technology acceptance in Chinese ESL writing. Social Reports, 1(1), 110–128. https://doi.org/10.66638/ep1sq081 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

73. Yang, Y., Hussin, S., & Hashim, H. (2025). Feedback Literacy and EFL Learner Engagement With ChatGPT Feedback: Predicting Feedback Uptake and Perceived Usefulness. Theory & Practice in Language Studies (TPLS), 15(11), 3760-3771. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1511.30 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

74. Yuan, S., & Dao, P. (2026). ESL tertiary learners’ engagement in ChatGPT-assisted second language writing. Language Awareness, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2026.2652333 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

75. Zeevy-Solovey, O. (2024). Comparing peer, ChatGPT, and teacher corrective feedback in EFL writing: Students’ perceptions and preferences. Technology in Language Teaching & Learning, 6(3), 1482. https://doi.org/10.29140/tltl.v6n3.1482 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

76. Zhan, Y., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Yan, Z. (2025). Generative artificial intelligence as an enabler of student feedback engagement: A framework. Higher Education Research & Development, 44(5), 1289–1304. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2025.2476513 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

77. Zhan, Y., & Yan, Z. (2025). Students’ engagement with ChatGPT feedback: Implications for student feedback literacy in the context of generative artificial intelligence. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2471821 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

78. Zhang, Y. (2023). Promoting young EFL learners’ listening potential: A model of mediation in the framework of dynamic assessment. The Modern Language Journal, 107(S1), 113–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12824 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

79. Zhang, Y., & Liu, Y. (2026). Designing ChatGPT-mediated feedback activities in EFL writing: A design-based study of the dialogic feedback triangle. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 51(1), 137–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2571846 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

80. Zhang, Z. V., & Hyland, K. (2023). Student engagement with peer feedback in L2 writing: Insights from reflective journaling and revising practices. Assessing Writing, 58, 100784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100784 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

81. Zou, S., Guo, K., Wang, J., & Liu, Y. (2024). Investigating students’ uptake of teacher- and ChatGPT-generated feedback in EFL writing: A comparison study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2024.2447279 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

82. Zulkefli, N. H., & Ismail, H. H. (2025). The Impact of AI on ESL Writing Autonomy: A Systematic Review. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH), 10(8), e003555-e003555. https://doi.org/10.47405/mjssh.v10i8.3555 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Synonymy in the Songs of Ummaru Bagobiri: A Contextual Linguistics Analysis
• Aspect of Compounding and Affixation in Bassa-Nge
• Kinayah (Metonymy) in Malay: An Analysis Based on the Science of Balaghah
• Optimality Theory: Application of Dahl’s law in Kindia
• Selling Diversity: The Politics of Representation in Global Advertising