SemOpenAlex |

SemOpenAlex

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1904542074> ?p ?o ?g. }

Showing items 1 to 100 of ±101 with 100 items per page.

W1904542074 endingPage "460" @default.
W1904542074 startingPage "447" @default.
W1904542074 abstract "While we learn languages to communicate, language is not the only or even (at times) the primary mode of communication. These two simple understandings, which underlie the expanding interest of language educators and researchers in multimodality, and underpin shifts in our thinking about discourse, texts, and language pedagogies, are being reimagined to acknowledge the increasing prominence of nonlinguistic modes. This interest is broad-based, extends across international borders and linguistic communities, and entails much more than the simple addition of visual literacy to the crowded lists of skill sets demanded of English language learners. It is driven by more than two decades of research in education, in linguistics and semiotics, and in fields as diverse as Internet and communication studies; it has led those within the field of language education to more explicitly rethink how language is used in contemporary learning contexts and the world beyond. Our own interest in these issues predates the currency of the term multimodality, and is informed by our years as teachers and researchers across a range of geographic, institutional and cultural contexts; by our work with young children, adolescents, and adults; and by our work with learners privileged and those disadvantaged by contemporary socioeconomic and political conditions. We are very pleased, therefore, to be editing this special issue on multimodality. The concept of multimodality begins with the understanding that language is but one of the communicative resources through which meaning is (re)made, distributed, and interpreted (Jewitt, 2008; see also Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001). Thus, a key tenet of theories of multimodality is that all communication is multimodal, and any communicative event entails simultaneous use of multiple modes which may realize meanings that complement, extend, and/or contradict each other (Kress, 2010; van Leeuwen, 2004). The precise definition of what constitutes a mode varies, but mode is perhaps best understood as a “regularised organised set of resources for meaning-making, including, image, gaze, gesture, movement, music, speech and sound-effect” (Jewitt & Kress, 2003, p. 1). From this perspective, it is impossible to understand how we mean and learn with language(s) unless we attend to other modal resources at play. Not surprisingly, then, scholars of multimodality, not only the aforementioned but also Baldry and Thibault (2005), LeVine and Scollon (2004), and Prior and Hengst (2010), have long argued that understanding the contemporary communicative landscape requires addressing the full range of semiotic resources used within a community and/or society. That landscape includes the constantly shifting digital technologies that mediate many of our daily interactions, but also changes in transportation and employment, which have (perhaps) not so much increased diversity as altered the specific configurations of people and ideas in any given space. Making sense of this communicative landscape requires attending to how cultures select from and choose to develop particular modal resources for learning and communication (Kress, 2000; Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996/2006). The questions that surface through a multimodal perspective on communication—questions regarding the systems or grammar of semiotic resources, the text types valued and privileged within and across contexts, and the cultural embeddedness of meaning—directly overlap the interests of educators and scholars in TESOL. Current research in multimodality, variously cited by the contributing authors, has influenced societies and education systems in important ways, and has the potential to serve a central role in English language learning and teaching for the current generation. Much of the early educational research on multimodality built on a reimagining of literacy education for and in locally diverse, globally connected societies (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; New London Group, 1996) and has been followed by detailed studies of multimodality in educational contexts including research, for instance, on the evolution of image and writing in 20th- and 21st-century textbooks (Bezemer & Kress, 2008, 2009), the place of interest in authoring and interpreting student texts (Kress, 2010; Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996/2006), and the reification of disciplinary identities in classroom configurations and ensembles (Bourne et al., 2004; Jewitt, Kress, Ogborn, & Tsatsarelis, 2001; Kress, Charalampos, Jewitt, & Ogborn, 2006). These studies into the transformations of texts and practice have influenced research on content-based instruction in K–12 contexts (e.g., Bunch & Willett, 2013; Gebhard & Harman, 2011; Lin, 2012), on academic language skills (e.g., Derewianka & Coffin, 2008; Lynch, 2011; Paltridge, 2012; Prior, 2007, 2013; Tang, Tan, & Yeo, 2011; Unsworth, 2014), and on the disciplinary texts of higher education (e.g., Hafner, 2014; Molle & Prior, 2008; Wingate & Tribble, 2012). Such research is further extended by a renewed interest in the inherent embodiment of communication, with the attendant need to consider how students’ ability to draw on their semiotic repertoires is impacted by modal affordances (e.g., Belhiah, 2013; Block, 2013; Potts, 2013; Rosborough, 2014). TESOL scholars figure prominently in this work, as Lotherington and Jenson (2011) make clear in their comprehensive review of these new basics of literacy instruction. Yet the demands these new basics impose on language learners have yet to receive substantial attention. Case studies of academic contexts in which students speak English as an additional language and in which English is a subject, language of instruction, and/or an additional language have illustrated how multimodal practices of transduction and translation deepen reading comprehension (Early & Marshall, 2008), mediate independent critical reasoning and problem solving (Lotherington, Holland, Sotoudeh, & Zentena, 2008; Potts & Moran, 2013), and support mastery of written genres (Adoniou, 2013; Vasudevan, Schultz, & Bateman, 2010) and apprenticeship in new literacies (Kendrick, Chemjor, & Early, 2012; Kendrick, Early, & Chemjor, 2013). A small but important group of studies focus on cultural and linguistic diversity in multimodal meaning making, including Stein and Newfield's (2006) and Stein's (2007) work with adolescents in South African townships, Cummins et al.'s (2006) report on the construction of multimodal dual-language books, Marshall and Toohey's (2010) research on the multimodal transformations of Punjabi children's family narratives, Lotherington and Chow's (2006) study of the use of digital media to develop writing, and Naqvi's (2008) documentation of use of multimodal dual-language books in content areas. More broadly, researchers into human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) and health education have described how nonlinguistic modes have enabled a more substantial understanding of difficult knowledge and experience than linguistic modes alone (Mutonyi & Kendrick, 2011). In each case, the work of TESOL researchers has raised critical questions regarding the place of learners’ plurilingual resources within their multimodal repertoires, and how students’ repertoires might figure in language pedagogies. From the outset, issues of privilege, social justice, and educational equality have deeply concerned language educators adopting a more expansive understanding of communication. Drawing on the same theoretical resources first used by researchers in England (e.g., Kress, 1997; Kress et al., 2005; Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001), Bhattacharya et al. (2007) demonstrated how texts in three ostensibly similar postcolonial high school English classrooms were taken up and remade to serve individual, state, and global aspirations, which in turn “opens up many questions of pedagogy in the multimodal textual environment of the classroom: the relations between learners, pedagogy and text, teacher agency, and how texts are redesigned in multimodal interaction” (p. 484). Interaction in the fullest sense is the heart of this research. Communities are people “acting in recognition and with the understanding of the socially made resources, in recognizably similar practices with these resources” (Kress, 2012, p. 371). It is not surprising that throughout Africa, when studies of the practices of language classrooms are broadened to include more familiar modal resources, seemingly disadvantaged learners are found engaging in the production of fresh stories (Stein, 2000, 2007) and using community practices of narrative to inform the interpretation and performance of new understandings (Kajee, 2011; Kendrick, Jones, Mutonyi, & Norton, 2006; Kendrick & Mutonyi, 2007; Newfield & Maungedzo, 2006). In a similar fashion, concepts of multimodality have informed Kajee's (2011) and Yi and Hirvela's (2010) research into the out-of-school literacies practices of 1.5 Generation students, Jwa's (2012) study of the multiple positionings taken up by second language (L2) writers of fan fiction, and Ajayi's (2009) analysis of the interplay of identity and sociocultural worlds. Such work highlights the intimate relationship between access to one's socially made resources and to issues of agency and identity, which Norton and Toohey's (2011) foreground in their state-of-the-art article on identity that attends to the ways the production of multimodal texts can engage students’ in countering “proper” school topics and in validating students’ cultures, literacies, and identities. These studies raise further concerns about pedagogic practices that act as gatekeepers and/or effectively bar students from drawing on the full range of their meaning-making potential, questions that are sharpened when viewed through a multimodal lens. Despite the substantial contributions by language education scholars to research on multimodality, the topic has been “on the margins” of TESOL Quarterly and in the TESOL community. Our proposal for a special topic issue argued the need to bring issues of multimodality and meaning making squarely into the center of TESOL's concerns, and contributors have done exactly that, highlighting the possibilities, challenges, and understandings that a multimodal lens brings to language education and particularly to the contested contexts in which English language education is granted special priority. But a single issue can only begin to address the scope of issues raised by a multimodal lens on language education. Perhaps, then, the most important function of this special issue is to chart a path for going forward. For this, Theo van Leeuwen's eloquent Afterword poses a series of questions that merit serious reflection and consideration. Future research at the intersection of multimodality and language education was also forefront in our minds as we read and reread the articles in this issue. Thus, as we introduce you to these articles, we have taken the opportunity to again highlight the issues they raise, the questions that remain unanswered, and the gaps that continue to demand our attention. In doing so, we see this volume as an invitation for continuing engagement with this work, these researchers, and the theoretical and pedagogic issues that accompany a multimodal perspective on the world of language education. As the articles evidence, the authors in this volume draw on an unusually broad range of literature along with scholarship from a social semiotic perspective. Language education has long been a field that sits at the nexus of multiple disciplines, most notably applied linguistics, psychology, and sociology. But in this issue, you will find that alongside familiar references to social semiotics and literacy studies (e.g., Street, 1984; Heath, 1983), researchers reach anew for ideas relevant to multimodal practices. Toohey and colleagues share an interest in theories of materiality (notably, Barad, 2003), but they also draw on Latour (2005). They along with Prinsloo and Sasman reference actor–network theory, but Prinsloo and Sasman combine this vantage with references to Blommaert (2010), Heller (2007), and Makoni and Pennycook (2007), and contemporary debates on the nature of language. Hafner's work on remixing is a form of remix in itself as he juxtaposes Bakhtin's heteroglossia (1986), Lessig's (2008) interest in copyright, and Knobel and Lankshear's (2008) work on digital literacies, including remixing. As part of their contribution, Newfield and d'Abdon bring together work on multimodality with work on orality (e.g., Finnegan, 2013), and in their work on identity, Cummins, Hu, Markus, and Montero combine meta-analyses of research on reading achievement with longstanding work on critical pedagogy by prominent educational researchers such as Gee (2004) and Moje and Luke (2009). In widening the lens on the challenges and possibilities confronting language learners, a multimodal perspective may simultaneous broaden the theoretical boundaries for research in language education. One overarching theme cutting across this issue is the extent to which a multimodal lens might inform traditional streams of language education research. If (for example) visual resources perform different functions, realize different meanings, and pattern differently across discourse communities and cultural groups, then such resources are not a neutral path to meaning. That understanding may require rethinking the design of images and graphics in beginners’ textbooks; the structure of visual prompts for tasks targeting fluency, accuracy, and/or complexity; and the textual conventions related to use of images and illustrations that are taught in academic writing classes. These concerns are different from longstanding discussions on the cultural appropriateness of visual images, because they relate the logical and lexicogrammatical relations of language and other communicative resources rather than to the ethical and/or cultural appropriateness of visuals. Brown's contribution in the Teaching Issues section is particularly helpful for reflecting on these types of implications for our everyday teaching designs, as well as for the potential of multimodal pedagogies for deepening our learners’ understanding of language as choice (Halliday, 1978). But we might also consider the implications of Prinsloo and Sasman's full-length article, and the extent to which new modes and resources are remade to “fit” with existing practices and meanings. These authors’ detailed analysis of South African classroom interaction shows how the meaning potential of semiotic resources can be subsumed by existing practice such that new bears a strong resemblance to old/established, with limited evidence that students benefit from the expanded range of resources. This is a theme in the work of Toohey et al., who ask what can be done so that digital tools are not employed “to accomplish the ‘same old’ objectives of school-as-usual” (p. 461, this issue). So a multimodal lens can improve our capacity to create pedagogic designs for language learning, but a micro-perspective on task and activity design is not enough. We need to bring the same multimodal lens to examinations of social practice. An interest in social practice unites many of this issue's contributors. This is not surprising given that much of the early work on multimodality is rooted in social semiotics, a theoretical perspective that foregrounds its importance. Social practice refers not to the individual events or instances we observe and hear over the course of a day, but to the larger patterns of doing, thinking, and learning that inform our understanding of appropriateness, norms, and acceptability. These patterns are patterns of semiotic resources—patterns of language and the other resources with which we make meaning—and patterns can privilege or disadvantage individual language learners. A multimodal orientation to meaning making raises questions about these patterns, much as Prinsloo and Sasman raise questions about the multimedia and networked literacy practices that impact the lives of the language learners they study. It also prompts reconsideration of conservative concepts of texts, and the need to simultaneously keep one eye focused on the aforementioned new basics and the other on the array of meaning–making resources learners bring to communicative encounters, learning or otherwise. Hafner's article addresses these challenges directly. In his examination of university students’ practices of remixing, he combines analysis of new forms of textual production with questions regarding the cultural understandings required to make sense of students’ choices. Culture must be understood on at least two levels in his work. First, there is the cultural knowledge that informs tertiary students’ remixing choices, including the music, dialects, and media references that are juxtapositioned in students’ videos. But culture is also the culture of the academy, with its traditions of referencing, citing, and copyrighting ideas. This context is different from Prinsloo and Sasman's, where the institutional pressures of syllabi appear to overwhelm the creative possibilities offered by interactive whiteboards. Still, one sees institutional requirements begin to encroach on the relatively free-wheeling video assignment when Hafner discusses the practical requirements of providing “clear guidance about what remix is, and about what kinds of remix practices are acceptable in the academy and in society” (p. 505, this issue). Already, we see the emergence of debates that parallel those around written texts, debates on when and if citations are required, what copyright may and may not allow, and perhaps most importantly, the fierce debates within the arts and other disciplines about where creative use and reuse begins and ends. It would be a mistake to think of multimodal practices as something “out there,” beyond the normative pressures that shape our more traditional understandings of the accepted text. A multimodal perspective on digital practices surfaces these contemporary tensions and their implications for language learners. Jewitt and Kress's (2003) definition of modes also opens space for reconsidering more traditional modes of cultural production, and Newfield and d'Abdon's article is a passionate plea for the continuing value of poetry in contemporary language curricula. As in Hafner's study, we find researchers engaging with the tensions between institutional textual practices and the dynamic, creative experience of textual production. However, in this piece the emphasis is on the deinstitutionalization of poetic practice, with the authors using a multimodal lens to remove poetry from the monomodal page and bring it to life. Poetry through a multimodal lens encompasses the embodied performance of text, the collective multilingual texture of verse realized in cloth and embroidery, and the history of poetry as engagement with a public. By no means do they ignore the imperative of academic success, and their contribution describes the transformations that have accompanied poetic practice in their South African context. But their contribution is first and foremost a treatise on the passion for learning that accompanies meaningful and embodied engagement with text, and for practices that recognize the value of the semiotic resources students bring to formal learning environments. For us, their work is also a powerful reminder that multimodality is not synonymous with the digital. Though Hafner and Newfield and d'Abdon examine very different student texts, both employ the concept of multimodal ensemble. Again, the social semiotic heritage of much of the work in multimodality is clear. Scholars in social semiotics have long held a more expansive notion of text, one explicitly theorized in relation to context and not limited to the written word (Halliday & Hasan, 1985). A multimodal lens extends that concept further to give equal weight to a range of modes, of which writing and speaking are but two (Kress, 2010; Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996/2006). Writing and speaking are treated separately because they draw on different sets of semiotic resources—the meanings communicated in writing are realized not only in language but also in the colour, font, and/or weight of the type, size, and so on in which a text is written; speaking makes use of resources such as volume, rhythm, and pitch. Both may be more or less interactive and/or be otherwise constrained by their context. But as modes, they are distinct and co-occur with the spatial relations of a page, the embodied responses of synchronous, face-to-face interaction, and/or the visuals in professional presentations, to name some examples. Modes function in relation to one another, if not always in harmony, and the concept of multimodal ensemble draws attention to this. There are obvious ramifications in both what to teach and how to teach when mode rather than language is foregrounded, but how our field will approach these differences is not entirely clear. Toohey and her collaborators attend to differences in modes and semiotic resources from an alternative perspective, drawing on theories of materiality to analyze the impact of semiotic affordances. Similar to Newfield and d'Abdon, they are concerned with the contribution of gesture and embodied response to interaction. However, their analytical lens is focused on the text around the text—the interaction around video production—and their perspective entails consideration of the materiality of context. As they suggest, attending to the sociomaterial context is necessary for understanding changes in participation and the pedagogic possibilities afforded by new resources. From our perspective as editors, this careful attention to the realities of classrooms is an exemplar of research that can inform pedagogic practice and assist educators in preempting educational initiatives that circle back to “school as usual.” Toohey et al.'s article is also useful for reflecting on the research challenges—and perhaps also publication—of working multimodally. The data for this article is a single interaction from a single phase of a unit in which students studied video production. Yet even with such a narrowed focus, the authors acknowledge that giving a full account of the data is not possible. Here is an on-going issue with multimodal projects. Understandings of communication have changed and means for data collection and analysis have expanded, but our field's practices for communicating research findings have remained relatively stable. This point is not raised in the article, but the article is an excellent exhibit for raising the point. All contributions in this special issue share an interest in the place of learners’ semiotic repertoires in contemporary language pedagogies. There is an underlying dimension of social justice in this interest, made more explicit by some than others, but Cummins et al. bring it to the fore. In an article that brings together research from multiple contexts, they sidestep the in-school/out-of-school dichotomy that often accompanies discussions of agency and identity to emphasize the educational success of pedagogies that draw on students’ existing semiotic repertoires. The practices they examine, what Cummins has termed identity texts, have a powerful impact on learners’ understandings of themselves as learners, as members of a community, and as members of a community that is valued by the larger educational establishment. Students’ multilingual repertoires are positioned within the array of resources available to students, as are the culturally produced images and signs of value to the students. This raises a further question. Perhaps because social semiotic theories of multimodality theorize writing and speaking as two separate modes, there has been less direct attention to languages and/or translanguaging as a multimodal process. Cummins et al., along with the persuasive Teaching Issues contributions from Darvin and Stille and Prasad, begin to correct that oversight. The work of these authors is compelling evidence of the significance of multimodal perspectives on communication to language teaching and learning, of the power of a multimodal lens to offer new insights to the language education field, and of the need for continued and sustained research at the intersection of multimodal theory and research in TESOL. As we have outlined above, when language is understood in relation to other communicative resources, new questions arise, new possibilities surface, and new challenges emerge in addressing the needs of English language learners. Yet as editors of this special issue, we cannot pretend we have been able to address all the issues that arise as language educators increasingly adopt a multimodal perspective on communication. For all the richness of the contributions, we are struck by the relative absence of articles exploring the changing communication demands of academic and professional work, of disciplinary textual practices, and of civic participation. There are also unaddressed questions at the intersections among the shifting nature of communication and increasing gaps in economic and social privilege so evident in much of the world. Each has its own implications for language pedagogy, regardless of one's geographic and/or teaching context. The talented contributors to this issue are not responsible for these absences. Rather, the scope of the issues, challenges, and opportunities is simply too great for a single issue to respond. Thus, this issue is an opportunity to invite the TESOL community to continue exploring the implications of ongoing shifts in communication and in the distribution of meaning for our learners. Our introduction has woven together the contributions of our diverse contributors and identified themes that transcend the geographic, linguistic, and demographic differences of their research and teaching contexts. We look forward to reading future research that builds on and extends this work. Finally, we would like to personally thank the many reviewers who contributed to the success of this issue: Catherine Beavis, Ava Becker, Hassan Belhiah, Alice Chik, Alister Cumming, Julia Gillen, Ruth Harman, Rachel Heydon, Carmen Lee, Carl Leggo, Heather Lotherington, Steve Marshall, Steven McCafferty, Guy Merchant, Rahat Naqvi, Bonny Norton, Delila Omerbašić, Kate Pahl, Paul Prior, Jennifer Rowsell, Ilana Snyder, Steven Talmy, and Paige Ware. Despite the inevitable tight deadlines surrounding special issues, our reviewers wrote thoughtful, detailed, and supportive responses to our contributors and to those whose submissions we could not publish. Special thanks also to Andrew Sampson, our research assistant who so admirably provided support to us and many of our contributors, and to Melanie Wong, who assisted with fact checking. Finally, thanks to the ever-patient Meaghan McDonnell, who inevitably bore the brunt of delays and extensions. A special issue is always a collaboration, and we appreciate the part each of you have played in bringing this issue to fruition." @default.
W1904542074 created "2016-06-24" @default.
W1904542074 creator A5032018013 @default.
W1904542074 creator A5033216584 @default.
W1904542074 creator A5064723036 @default.
W1904542074 date "2015-09-01" @default.
W1904542074 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
W1904542074 title "Multimodality: Out From the Margins of English Language Teaching" @default.
W1904542074 cites W1716297977 @default.
W1904542074 cites W1965991256 @default.
W1904542074 cites W1966772633 @default.
W1904542074 cites W1967382055 @default.
W1904542074 cites W1967409614 @default.
W1904542074 cites W1969235660 @default.
W1904542074 cites W1971660975 @default.
W1904542074 cites W1974913694 @default.
W1904542074 cites W1977073847 @default.
W1904542074 cites W1977298060 @default.
W1904542074 cites W1984904154 @default.
W1904542074 cites W1996149054 @default.
W1904542074 cites W1999969447 @default.
W1904542074 cites W2005550885 @default.
W1904542074 cites W2017185685 @default.
W1904542074 cites W2019467163 @default.
W1904542074 cites W2021193202 @default.
W1904542074 cites W2027316499 @default.
W1904542074 cites W2037491494 @default.
W1904542074 cites W2039426677 @default.
W1904542074 cites W2041550009 @default.
W1904542074 cites W2044309192 @default.
W1904542074 cites W2058555645 @default.
W1904542074 cites W2076181878 @default.
W1904542074 cites W2084039103 @default.
W1904542074 cites W2090508773 @default.
W1904542074 cites W2104428318 @default.
W1904542074 cites W2108592561 @default.
W1904542074 cites W2109664640 @default.
W1904542074 cites W2114138297 @default.
W1904542074 cites W2137529610 @default.
W1904542074 cites W2159800280 @default.
W1904542074 cites W2166392526 @default.
W1904542074 cites W2168257767 @default.
W1904542074 cites W2168878779 @default.
W1904542074 cites W2335111383 @default.
W1904542074 cites W2468619809 @default.
W1904542074 cites W2977541125 @default.
W1904542074 cites W3022292181 @default.
W1904542074 cites W4206492754 @default.
W1904542074 cites W4234760555 @default.
W1904542074 cites W4242911310 @default.
W1904542074 cites W4250445487 @default.
W1904542074 cites W4251501134 @default.
W1904542074 cites W583218842 @default.
W1904542074 cites W594098150 @default.
W1904542074 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.246" @default.
W1904542074 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
W1904542074 type Work @default.
W1904542074 sameAs 1904542074 @default.
W1904542074 citedByCount "75" @default.
W1904542074 countsByYear W19045420742016 @default.
W1904542074 countsByYear W19045420742017 @default.
W1904542074 countsByYear W19045420742018 @default.
W1904542074 countsByYear W19045420742019 @default.
W1904542074 countsByYear W19045420742020 @default.
W1904542074 countsByYear W19045420742021 @default.
W1904542074 countsByYear W19045420742022 @default.
W1904542074 countsByYear W19045420742023 @default.
W1904542074 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
W1904542074 hasAuthorship W1904542074A5032018013 @default.
W1904542074 hasAuthorship W1904542074A5033216584 @default.
W1904542074 hasAuthorship W1904542074A5064723036 @default.
W1904542074 hasBestOaLocation W19045420741 @default.
W1904542074 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
W1904542074 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
W1904542074 hasConcept C2780910867 @default.
W1904542074 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
W1904542074 hasConceptScore W1904542074C138885662 @default.
W1904542074 hasConceptScore W1904542074C144024400 @default.
W1904542074 hasConceptScore W1904542074C2780910867 @default.
W1904542074 hasConceptScore W1904542074C41895202 @default.
W1904542074 hasIssue "3" @default.
W1904542074 hasLocation W19045420741 @default.
W1904542074 hasOpenAccess W1904542074 @default.
W1904542074 hasPrimaryLocation W19045420741 @default.
W1904542074 hasRelatedWork W1992067916 @default.
W1904542074 hasRelatedWork W2373442452 @default.
W1904542074 hasRelatedWork W2462138927 @default.
W1904542074 hasRelatedWork W2748609568 @default.
W1904542074 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
W1904542074 hasRelatedWork W3111427900 @default.
W1904542074 hasRelatedWork W3131575276 @default.
W1904542074 hasRelatedWork W4200140903 @default.
W1904542074 hasRelatedWork W4205899436 @default.
W1904542074 hasRelatedWork W4302009627 @default.
W1904542074 hasVolume "49" @default.
W1904542074 isParatext "false" @default.
W1904542074 isRetracted "false" @default.
W1904542074 magId "1904542074" @default.