Introduction

Maria, a 19‐year‐old who studies law in Barcelona, Spain, has always been interested in jazz. She plays the trumpet and often dances swing with her friends. She adores classic jazz songs, and would love to understand and sing them, but unfortunately she is not proficient in English. Although she studied English at primary and secondary school, classes were not particularly instructive, and her family could not afford any private language school or study abroad (SA) stays. She feels now the urgent need to speak English, not just because of her personal interests, but also because she would eventually like to work for an international human rights organization.

She has had a temporary job at a fast‐food outlet throughout the last academic year, which has allowed her to hire the intermediary services of an au pair agency. She is now staying for the whole summer in Bristol, UK, where she is living with a host family. She takes care of two little children in exchange for accommodation and meals, as well as some pocket money. Her host family is very nice – they usually have dinner together and sometimes go with Maria on weekend excursions and sightseeing tours of Cardiff, Bath, or London. Unlike most of the au pairs she knows, she has decided not to enroll in any language school due to her previous frustrating language acquisition experience. Instead, she spends all her free time taking advantage of any opportunity she comes across to practice her English in a wide range of informal language‐learning contexts. Apart from the daily interactions with her host family, she goes to a library downtown which organizes cultural exchange meetings every Thursday, and she also takes fitness classes at a nearby gym, where she has met a local girl who has told her where she can find live jazz clubs in Bristol. After two months there, she has attended several jam sessions and has a good network of friends. One of them has recently told her about a volunteering association of musicians who play at children's hospitals for free, and she wants to join. By the end of the summer Maria not only realizes that her English has improved significantly, but she also feels like a different person, and she is so sorry about having to leave her new family and friends that she is determined to go back to Bristol as soon as possible.

In line with Maria's trip, traveling overseas to learn a foreign language over the last decades has been increasingly popular worldwide among language learners, who can also be considered language tourists benefiting from the services offered by both the tourism industry and language education providers. This chapter will examine various aspects of the language tourism experience abroad in relation to second language acquisition (SLA) in different educational contexts. Before focusing on those aspects, though, let us clarify what is meant by “language tourism” from a broader perspective.

The World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) classifies tourism trips according to their main purpose. The category of education and training comprises, for example, acquiring specific skills following educational programs in formal or informal contexts, including language or professional studies (UNWTO 2010). In turn, Ritchie (2003) distinguishes between two types of educational tourism: travel for purposeful study and travel incorporating learning elements. Following Ritchie and the UNWTO, language tourism may be defined as:

A tourist activity undertaken by those travellers (or educational tourists) taking a trip which includes at least an overnight stay in a destination outside their usual place of residence for less than a year and for whom language learning is a primary or secondary part of their trip.

(Iglesias 2016a, p. 31)

Language tourism and the market system in which language travel experiences take place have been recently investigated in a line of research aimed at defining language tourism, determining its variables, and designing a conceptual model on which future related studies can be grounded (Iglesias 2017a). The demand features have been analyzed in depth, namely travelers' demographics, perceptions, motivations, and travel behavior (Iglesias 2016a). On the other hand, some aspects related to the supply have also been examined, such as the language tourism product composition – with respect to both the language‐learning component (Iglesias 2017a) and the travel component (Iglesias 2017b) – the marketing and management structures (Iglesias 2016b), and the destination's social and environmental resource base (Iglesias and Feng 2017).

Drawing on our analyses, when planning a language trip, mediation in terms of searching for information and making the necessary arrangements and purchase may be fundamental, since relying on intermediary agents involves a different course of action from independent planning. SA providers can offer their own programs or act as intermediaries supplying practical information throughout the whole process, as well as predeparture preparation and travel arrangements. As travel planners they can take charge of the language course registration, housing and transport arrangements, academic orientation, support services (e.g. assistance in obtaining a visa or insurance), social guidance in situ (i.e. fostering socialization and solving unexpected problems), learning arrangements and/or provision, and quality supervision.

Since some government policies entail restrictive visa requirements, the choice of a language tourism destination actually depends on factors such as visa constraints and currency fluctuations (Smith 2011). Some arrangements (e.g. an admission letter or a placement test to identify learners' foreign language proficiency level) may be made through SA intermediary agencies, which are usually in charge of some legal formalities too. Such formalities can refer to the need to obtain certain documents in order to travel to the language tourism destination (e.g. a passport or ID card), a travel permit or a visa, and other optional documents, such as travel insurance. As language tourists may find a part‐time job, do an internship as part of in‐company training, or work as an au pair taking care of children or at a work‐camp, other legal formalities may be necessary as well, such as a contract or a temporary work permit.

All in all, language tourism can serve the double purpose of acquiring a foreign language and living new experiences in a different culture, which can have an impact on learners' linguistic identity and the way they see themselves and the rest of the world, including their own background. Language tourists establish bonds with the local culture through language learning, interacting with the host community at various integration levels while also relating to other international students. The fact of discovering and adapting to new life styles can turn them into more open‐minded, tolerant individuals. Furthermore, language tourists can engage in post‐experience activities which allow for sustained contact with the host community and culture and continuous language development. Therefore, language tourism provides the perfect ground for transformational experiences which are truly memorable and offer a wide range of benefits.

Language gains deriving from language tourism

The effects that the language tourism experience can have on the language learners who take part in SA programs have been explored quite extensively since the late 1960s, although research has referred to a limited range of contexts and target languages (Churchill and DuFon 2006). According to Freed, the traditional research topics in this field examined the linguistic advantages of SA programs – i.e. what was acquired by the participants, mainly with regard to oral development – and their perceptions of the SA experience, as well as how those perceptions shaped their SLA (Freed 1998).

Analytical research eventually shifted its focus from general proficiency to a more detailed look at specific linguistic gains, for example in terms of grammatical and prosodic characteristics or achievements in pragmatic competence and literacy skills, i.e. reading and writing (Churchill and DuFon 2006). Scholars have also compared SLA at home and abroad, as well as how different learners' abilities develop in singular ways, how students foster their own acquisition by using diverse strategies, and the role of learners' motivation and anxiety in this process. At present, numerous studies on significant individual variation in language related outcomes follow a qualitative approach, beyond simple correlations between performance and measures of linguistic development (Kinginger 2013).

Global reviews of SLA studies on the linguistic advantages of SA programs have reached a number of general conclusions. To start with, language gains have been reported at all proficiency levels, although to different extents (Freed 1998). Lower‐level learners seem to be in a better position to benefit from the experience (Churchill and DuFon 2006; Dewey et al. 2013a), while more advanced students seem to show fewer gains despite being more communicatively able to interact with the local community members. Kinginger concludes that SA sojourns can potentially enable learners to develop their communicative competence in every domain, albeit sometimes to a modest degree (Kinginger 2013).

The development of pragmatic competence in SA environments has been mostly investigated through ethnographic methods, e.g. analyzing routines, register, terms of address and speech acts in learner journals, interviews, recorded conversations, etc. (Churchill and DuFon 2006). Generally speaking, the results seem to suggest that learners' pragmatic competence is boosted as a consequence of increased natural social interaction opportunities with the host community in comparison with the formal instruction they receive at home, particularly regarding their oral production skills. Oral proficiency progress during SA has been the most studied aspect, and empirical evidence shows significant improvement in this respect, especially in relation to self‐confidence and fluency (Freed 1998).

On the whole, the learners' usage of formulaic expressions is enhanced. However, they tend to overuse these expressions, sometimes in inappropriate situations. Thus, it has been concluded that their pragmatic acquisition hardly ever reaches a native‐like level, and it may even deviate from the target norm. Similarly, sociolinguistic gains occasionally characterized by overgeneralization and misuse have also been reported (Freed 1998).

When it comes to the acquisition of listening skills through an SA stay, research has been far less abundant. This is also the case of scholarly interest in the development of literacy skills. It can be assumed that this actually indicates which aspects of SA programs are mostly promoted, and this in turn has an effect on learners' expectations. Despite being relatively scarce, though, studies indicate that some improvement in these areas is achieved as well (Churchill and DuFon 2006). Writing during SA stays has been related to strengthened lexical development, alongside speaking (Dewey 2008). In addition, evidence has been gathered in terms of improved reading and writing proficiency (Fraser 2002).

As for how sojourners begin to develop their communicative competence, speaking tasks in general favor proficiency gain, particularly asking native or fluent English speakers for directions or information (Baker‐Smemoe et al. 2012). Learners' ability to initiate a conversation also seems to foster SLA (Baker‐Smemoe et al. 2012). Another study conducted by Dewey, Belnap and Hillstrom reported that in the learners' view their language progress was most noticeable in areas related to survival skills. Conversely, less improvement, though still significant, was perceived in more challenging areas dealing with linguistically unfamiliar situations and involving discussion of abstract topics, speculating, and hypothesizing. In their SA stays, learners have to face survival situations on a daily basis, while discussing abstract topics or presenting and defending opinions may be more frequent than at home, but less likely than daily survival experiences (Dewey et al. 2013a).

Interacting with the host community

The mediation of the host context and the cultural differentiation in the provision of learning opportunities have also been researched (Churchill and DuFon 2006). Gender seems to be a feature that can determine SLA in some specific cultures (Isabelli‐García 2006; Siegal 1995), sometimes to the detriment of female students. Other factors, such as the learner's age, aptitude, and personality, can also intervene in SLA (Larsen‐Freeman 1991; Lightbrown and Spada 1993). The most successful learners seem to be those who are more open and avoid maintaining a close contact with their home, try to integrate into the host community or host family activities, and are persistent, managing to overcome negative encounters in their destinations (Dewey et al. 2013a).

Language learners' attitudes and motivations play a major role (Isabelli‐García 2006). Their beliefs regarding the language‐learning environment and the way they are perceived by locals in their destinations can influence their behavior to their advantage or to their disadvantage (Papatsiba 2006). In turn, the way locals deal with learners can alter their attitudes (Isabelli‐García 2006). If locals believe that the learners' proficiency in the target language really is an impediment or if the learners are not able or willing to follow the local norms, interaction may be restricted (Jackson 2005; Kinginger and Farrell 2004). This can cause rejection from the host community or generate a reduced or shallow contact, and result in learners' withdrawal (Papatsiba 2006).

The relationship between intercultural contact mainly generated by international tourism, language attitudes and second language motivation has been addressed by Dörnyei and Csizér (2005), for whom intercultural contact is both a means and an end:

On one hand, one of the main aims of learning second languages has traditionally been seen to establish meaningful contact across cultures, because L2 [second language] proficiency, by definition, creates the medium of communication between members of different ethnolinguistic communities. On the other hand, interethnic contact also creates opportunities for developing language skills and acts as a powerful influence shaping the learners' attitudinal/motivational disposition, thereby promoting motivated learning behavior.

(Dörnyei and Csizér 2005, p. 328)

Contrary to what learners experience in a traditional classroom setting at home, SA sojourners can suffer from the negative consequences of culture clash and communication breakdown at their destinations (Isabelli‐García 2006; Jackson 2005). The evidence collected by Tanaka and Ellis seems to suggest that some adjustment is needed so that learners' anxiety eventually decreases, which is key for enhanced self‐confidence when using the target language and for their social integration in the host culture (Jackson 2005; Tanaka and Ellis 2003). Anxiety is related to learners' self‐perceptions, and the anxious learner is less willing to engage target language speakers in informal interaction (Mitchell et al. 2013).

For SLA to be effective, the interactions of the participants in SA programs should provide opportunities for unmodified input and foreigner talk alike (Churchill and DuFon 2006). Research has also indicated that it is essential to engage in individual and group contact. If students interact individually, the input they are exposed to can be more finely adapted to their proficiency level, whereas group interactions can offer them the possibility of tuning out if they consider that they are beyond their abilities, or tuning in to capitalize on higher level conversations (Campbell 1996).

Kinginger indicates that whereas some participants in SA programs have been reported to engage closely with local communities through service work, social or religious organizations, and internships, others stick to their international fellow students or use the internet to remain virtually in their home countries (Kinginger 2013). Therefore, it is important for sojourners to try and integrate in different types of social networks. Apart from interacting with teachers inside and outside the classroom, students can also socialize with the host community members by taking part in a wide range of options, such as sports clubs, community service, or social events. Fraser has reported that significant social connections and linguistic development were achieved by SA students of German who played on local football teams, participated in internships, and played in an orchestra (Fraser 2002). Moreover, the most outstanding linguistic benefits have been found to come from friendship with local peers (Campbell 1996; Dewey 2008; Dewey et al. 2013a).

According to Dewey et al. (2013b), the most used social networking strategies contributing to sojourners' linguistic improvement were cold contacting, such as starting conversations with unknown people in public places, and referrals, such as meeting new friends through existing friends. Time spent with native speakers and learners' personality were key to build strong social relationships with locals. Additionally, one of the most relevant factors for the development of social networks was lodging location. Learners housed near a university campus became friends with college‐age peers, while being accommodated near small shops or a sports club facilitated friendships with local shopkeepers and club staff members.

The role of accommodation, leisure activities, and other travel components in facilitating SLA

Researchers have shown interest in the relevance for SLA of some aspects of SA program design such as length, housing, leisure activities, classroom arrangements, and learner grouping (Churchill and DuFon 2006). As mentioned in the section “Interacting with the host community,” accommodation may influence the type of relationships learners develop, since some accommodation formats naturally facilitate their interaction with their peers (for example when volunteering in a work camp or when staying at a student residence, apartment, or youth hostel), with the locals (the friends and service providers they become acquainted with, or even their teachers in home tuition language programs), or with the host families (for example, in the case of au pairs). This can have a direct effect on both the students' target language learning, on their perception of the local culture and host community, on their socialization and identity transformation, and on the satisfaction with the overall experience (Wilkinson 1998).

Language students who make homestay arrangements abroad can have another supply of authentic input from their host families and a good integration opportunity as long as they are willing to be an active member of the host family (Jackson 2005). Some studies have examined the roles adopted by the students and the host families (Wilkinson 1998) or the pros and cons of different lodging options (Churchill and DuFon 2006).

Seeking quality homestays for learners is essential for language tourism providers, and as it is a basic aspect of their business, the majority of them have their own policy of recruiting, screening, and managing potential families. Nevertheless, this service is increasingly being outsourced to specialized private companies (Norris 2015).

Another crucial aspect is the type of leisure activities carried out by students, mostly in informal contexts, which can be directly or indirectly related and conducive to language learning. Such activities can be considered informal language‐learning complements or they may be integrated in an activity‐led learning process and used as a vehicle for language acquisition. Activities can be a significant pull factor for the success of SA programs that combine them with language learning, and are usually designed to introduce international students to each other, to get to know the local inhabitants and culture, or as a means for experiential learning.

The leisure activities the participants engage in during their stay can be a more significant facilitator for their SLA than the actual formal instruction they receive (Fraser 2002). Leisure pursuits can promote meaningful contact with native speakers and provide a valuable source for unmodified input. This can have important implications with regard to the learners' attitudes and beliefs.

Since students increasingly ask for a wider range of activities and approaches, traditional and also more innovative options are on offer in combination with language learning. They include all sorts of sports (such as horse‐riding, golf, water sports, winter sports, team sports, etc.), arts and crafts, cookery, photography, music, dance, drama or yoga, just to mention a few. Furthermore, alongside socialization parties different tours are organized (e.g. safaris, gastronomic, wine‐tasting, etc.). Some recently introduced activities reflect present worldwide trends. For instance, volunteering in Latin America is the perfect chance for informal language learners to improve their Spanish or Portuguese language skills while helping urban communities, native wildlife, and the environment.

Most SA programs have a standard design for a specific market segment. However, nowadays more and more language travel providers need to face to the demands of both agents and students, and this sometimes entails adapting to specific needs in tailor‐made programs (as in one‐to‐one language courses) or offering alternative educational settings.

Alternative educational settings conducive to SLA

Gardner and MacIntyre relate formal situations mainly to the classroom as a source of direct language instruction (Gardner and MacIntyre 1992). Conversely, informal situations “refer to language acquisition contexts where learning is incidental to some other activities, as when one ‘picks up’ another language from friends or coworkers during interactions with them” (MacIntyre 2002). In informal settings individuals may voluntarily choose to interact with friends or colleagues in the target language, so motivation is essential in those informal language‐learning situations, and both cognitive and affective variables operate, generating linguistic and nonlinguistic outcomes (Gardner and MacIntyre 1992). Mitchell, Myles, and Marsden point out that whereas formal, planned, and systematic learning is classroom‐based, online exposure to the target language outside the classroom can facilitate informal and unstructured learning (Mitchell et al. 2013).

Krashen states that informal and formal settings facilitate second language development differently, since they contribute to acquired competence and learned competence, respectively. Krashen considers that informal contexts where active language use takes place on a regular basis must be distinguished from those characterized by irregular language use (Krashen 1976). In turn, Mitchell, Myles, and Marsden affirm that for most researchers there is no principled distinction between formal, conscious learning and informal, unconscious acquisition (Mitchell et al. 2013).

In informal settings adults generally develop a well‐structured, efficient, and simple form of target language which classroom‐based SLA does not produce, as maintained by Klein and Perdue. This is due to the fact that in a formal learning milieu acquisitional processes are affected by the teaching method, with a deliberate focus on specific language features (Klein and Perdue 1997).

Some researchers have reflected on the value for SLA of formal instruction in SA programs, particularly considering the numerous opportunities that sojourners have to engage in out‐of‐class language practice (Brecht and Robinson 1995; Siegal 1995). Indeed, the way individuals learn a foreign language in SA stays is a determining aspect in their language tourism experience, as it may not only contribute to their linguistic acquisition, but also to the fulfillment of their expectations with respect to other related outcomes, such as self‐realization. Even though many sojourners use the services of formal education providers, other language travelers may choose to develop their communicative competence autonomously, through immersion or sustained contact with members of the local community in informal language‐learning environments, such as host families hiring an au pair through acquaintances, companies with international mobility schemes and internships aiming at linguistic development, organizations arranging language exchanges for their employees' children, volunteer work camp associations, etc. Intermediary agencies nowadays also offer company internships or volunteer programs overseas to informal language learners in addition to their traditional academic packages.

A recent alternative trend is home tuition, acquiring the target language while living in a teacher's house, which enables more progress than in conventional schooling (Smith 2015). The flexibility of home‐based informal language learning is becoming increasingly attractive, since every program is designed for each individual's needs, particularly when specific objectives must be achieved or time is limited, so stays can be shorter and adapted to their requirements. Therefore, it is completely learner‐centered, and the duration, the content, the style of delivery, and the extra activities are tailor‐made. The students benefit from cultural immersion and development by means of continued language use.

Another growing trend is the innovative concept of traveling summer schools and multicenter language settings, where learners acquire the target language through immersion while touring several locations in the destination. This offers the opportunity to get to know a country as well as the local culture and the host community in its own environment while travelers also learn from their language teachers, who accompany them throughout the whole tour. They can get up to 200 hours language practice in just a fortnight and enjoy authentic experiences (Healy 2015a).

In traveling classrooms semistructured activities are integrated in the program so that individuals participate actively in their language‐learning process and feel less inhibited. For instance, in Australian “English through programs” learners may have a session where their English teacher introduces the topics and themes for the week, e.g. street art. The session is later complemented with a trip to explore the artistic uniqueness of a particular local neighborhood. Students are eventually required to organize their own tour and guide other students. Similarly, English can be acquired in Cape Town through experimental learning options which combine the instruction they receive from teachers with activities. Students leave the classroom three times a week and go on language excursions with a teacher and a qualified South African tour guide to meet a host, who is an artist, musician, storyteller or expert in a particular field (Healy 2015b).

SLA in work contexts

Learning a foreign language abroad is viewed as a professional need, so nowadays it is common for individuals to undertake in‐company training overseas or receive sponsorship for their studies abroad from their employers, as this is considered a worthy investment (Smith 2011; see also Janta and Keller, Chapter 15 of this volume). In addition, more and more language students look for programs that include work options in a foreign country to gain international experience and become more competitive. Interest in vocational education overseas has also grown, as it is perceived as a means to gaining professional skills and using them in work placements with local employers in an array of sectors (Norris 2017a). In higher education, programs can be complemented by in‐company training through internships. Government‐linked bodies play an active role in a global growing trend: the need for youngsters to acquire life skills, business awareness, and employability as an integral aspect of their education (Smith 2017b).

The European Council adopted in 2010 the so‐called Europe 2020 strategy, including two programs: An Agenda for New Skills and Jobs, which stresses the relevance of language competences to a more dynamic labor market; and Youth on the Move, which highlights the imperative need for improved language skills to enable mobility. The Erasmus+ Program (2014–2020) combines all the European Union's current schemes for education, training, youth, and sport, including the Lifelong Learning Program, Youth in Action, and five international cooperation programs aimed at different segments of youngsters and adults, not only Europeans.

One of the Erasmus+ Program's specific objectives in terms of education and training is to improve the teaching and learning of languages and foster linguistic diversity and intercultural awareness in the European Union. Thus, grants are offered to students to enable them to study and undertake work placements abroad, while teachers and education staff can also attend training courses overseas. Youth in Action, in particular, focuses on those activities related to youth nonformal and informal learning opportunities, mainly mobility projects for young people (such as youth exchanges and volunteering) and youth workers.

The push toward language acquisition for career development has been a clear driving force in relation to language tourism for some time now (Smith 2017a). According to the UNWTO, tourism trips cannot be undertaken with the main purpose of being employed by a resident entity in the destination and receiving compensation for the labor input provided. However, “if being employed and the payment received are only incidental to the trip, the traveler would still be a visitor (and the trip would still qualify as a tourism trip)” (UNWTO 2010, p. 13).

Following Smith, since the 1960s the language study market has evolved and continuously adapts to the demand, influenced by factors such as domestic and international politics and economies, education policies, and employment trends (Smith 2017a). Thus, a student's academic destination choice can be affected by visa issuance, work rights for overseas students, and security issues. Norris reports that between 2012 and 2016 the Canadian government's policy had a negative impact on international language student enrolments in Canada (Norris 2017b). This was mainly owing to the introduction of new federal and provincial regulations as well as the elimination of work rights for language students in 2014, which resulted in increased visa refusals for some nationalities and a reduced offer. As for the US, international language learners' enrolment in that country declined in 2016 and 2017, with providers expressing concern over the political climate and changes to visa policy under the current administration (Hancox 2017). In addition, both the US and the UK have suffered from a strong currency in the past years. At present more students learn English in their own countries or opt for alternative destinations than in the past, since government scholarships from certain countries like Brazil and Saudi Arabia are no longer available (Norris 2017b).

With respect to work placements in Europe, a difference must be made between sector‐specific roles, which are often chosen by international university graduates and undergraduates, and basic customer service and retail roles, where the emphasis is on English immersion in a relatively undemanding context. Students with a low level of English usually prefer retail and hospitality roles, since they offer the opportunity to practice their communication skills authentically. The retail sector is also the most popular option for short‐term internships of up to four weeks (Smith 2017b). Placements in the UK or Ireland tend to be carried out in the hospitality sector, with students living and working in a hotel. Some British agencies report that students must possess an intermediate level of written and spoken English to enroll on “English plus work experience” programs (Hancox 2016, p. 63).

A wide range of internship programs have been introduced in the UK due to visa changes, open to all the European Union citizens and Tier 5 visa holders (e.g. Japanese, Taiwanese, and South Korean students). As stated by Hancox, whereas paid options are available in hospitality and healthcare, there is a wider choice of sectors for unpaid placements in local companies, including also customer services, media, fashion, design, business administration, events management, public relations, and tourism. Students can benefit from “English for work” evening tuition alongside the internship aiming to acquire practical workplace language in motivating real‐life settings. Volunteer internships of between four and 24 weeks are on offer as well after having completed an English course, but work experience can only be provided to students from the European Union and to those with a youth mobility scheme visa, which limits its popularity (Hancox 2016, p. 63).

On the other hand, working in Australia can be an ideal way for individuals to learn English and interact with locals, and several providers arrange language programs that comprise a work placement. That country is clearly benefiting from being one of the few English language destinations to offer work rights to its English language students, so the part‐time work rights granted in 2014 seem to have been a key factor (Norris 2016).

To sum up, the use of English as the international means of communication in the workplace continues to grow, and for some informal language learners classroom‐based tuition is simply not enough to give them a professional edge, so a workplace environment can be a very meaningful facilitator of SLA.

Challenges and future research

Most SA research on SLA has traditionally focused on formal classroom contexts, where variables can be conveniently proved. The difficulties of accessing representative data outside educational institutions must be acknowledged from both a methodological perspective and in evaluation terms, for example when it comes to studying learning strategies and the outcomes of language tourism experiences for all those who take part in them.

According to Skehan, since aptitude has been mainly researched in conventional class‐based learning environments, a wider perspective should also be taken in order to investigate the relevance of individual differences in informal language‐learning settings (Skehan 1991). In fact, Klein and Perdue claim that even though SLA in and outside the classroom shares some common ground, straightforward comparisons between both learning environments should be handled with care because they also differ in various decisive features (Klein and Perdue 1997). As SLA research has traditionally stemmed from foreign language teaching needs, it has usually focused on classroom learning and on learners. Therefore, norms are naturally used as a reference, and how and why students deviate from them is analyzed in teaching research from a target deviation perspective. However, in these authors' view this approach “does not mean that it is equally natural and rewarding when we want to know something about how the human language capacity functions and which principles determine the acquisitional process” (Klein and Perdue 1997, p. 307).

For some scholars, SA research on SLA ought to encompass fine‐grained studies of language use, individual behavior, attitudes, and motivation combining both quantitative and qualitative methodologies like journals, participant observation, and interviews (DeKeyser 2007; Dewey et al. 2013a). Such an approach can provide the best ground for program recommendations. On the other hand, ethnographic research is viewed as potentially contributing to language‐related findings by examining sojourners' experiences and attitudes toward the host communities (Kinginger 2013). The influence of communications technologies in globalized societies should be taken into consideration, and current research should also see SLA abroad from a communicative angle, as a phenomenon driven by interculturality and crucial individual factors (Kinginger 2013). Indeed, if scholars pay attention to singularities and wish to come up with a multifaceted picture by means of triangulating different perspectives and methods, they cannot just rely on statistical compilations, since:

while quantitative data may reveal statistical patterns, the explanations of those patterns require the deeper, richer empirical materials that qualitative investigations are able to deliver as they capture the multiple social realities experienced by visitors to a destination (…).

(Killion and Fisher 2018, p. 24)

SA research has experienced a social turn and a considerable amount of corpus‐based evidence has been gathered, which has led to a better understanding of oral interactions through conversation analysis. Conversely, far fewer longitudinal investigations have been conducted, and the focal point has often been English‐speakers (Kinginger 2013). Consequently, far‐reaching research projects on linguistic development in other less predominant languages and with mid‐ and long‐term objectives are due. Another area worth exploring further is the correlation between different aspects of SA programs and the success of language tourism experience. In order to face up to the potential challenges, it is fundamental to maximize the strengths, minimize the weaknesses, capitalize on emerging opportunities, and avoid threats. Obviously, the first step consists in identifying all of these aspects so that they can be investigated thoroughly.

To highlight just a few examples, from the point of view of SLA the integrated leisure options currently on offer in many SA programs are a strength, as they provide the ground for informal learning. Notwithstanding, other leisure approaches (e.g. volunteering in local associations) might provide an opportunity for enhanced interaction with locals and more meaningful integration in the host community, which is one of the main weaknesses in most sojourns. Similarly, the role of accommodation can also be very significant in terms of either mingling with the residents or creating bubbles of international students who stick to other international students instead of trying to interact with locals. Another double‐edged feature is the need to detect and adjust to the characteristics of the ever‐changing demand. In this sense, the opportunities deriving from social media must not be overlooked. Such opportunities coexist with those posed by today's increasingly popular collaborative economies, but also with some global threats, like those related with security issues.

As already mentioned, the main challenges for language tourism nowadays lie in ensuring authentic integration in host communities, inducing long‐lasting effects from transformational experiences, and adapting to new requirements and needs. Nowadays language travelers are more well‐informed and demanding than in the past, and intense vital experiences in a shorter time are sought. A major, challenging goal in language travel should be devising language tourism approaches that contribute to meaningful SLA in and outside formal language‐learning environments, a topic that has recently been investigated through a number of case studies based in Barcelona (Spain) following different approaches (Iglesias 2016b, 2017b; Iglesias and Feng 2017; Aliaga et al. 2018). To this aim, proposals from various perspectives should be made, and their viability and effectiveness ought to be analyzed by means of follow‐up studies. Researchers could focus on the transfer of knowledge in professional contexts and the consequences of language tourism experiences, for example in terms of lifelong learning, sustained contact with the local community, and increased social awareness.

Future research lines may probe how language tourism inception and provision can be better bridged with respect to learning‐ and travel‐related aspects, how segmentation and marketing strategies can be optimized, and how the improved planning, promotion, and supply of language tourism experiences can be achieved. To that end, evaluating the effective intervention in language SA programs of some key elements is a must, namely motivating learning approaches, methodologies and materials, opportunities for genuine, stimulating contact with locals which fosters emotional involvement and ongoing relationships, purposeful social activities, and enjoyable leisure options.

Furthermore, learners' profiles and push factors ought to be identified so as to create the proper context for each individual's needs, preferences, personality traits, expectations, prior knowledge, and background. Thus, the influence of prior language tourism experiences on the tourists and the locals should be analyzed, since they can shape their forthcoming ones. Conducting an effective needs' analysis of language tourism demand, taking into account sojourners' expectations and getting to know their perceptions is also undoubtedly essential in order to improve SA program design, match their expectations to meet their needs, and offer a better program to enhance satisfaction.

It is essential to conceive programs of greater added value and adapt them to specific markets, so the spotlight is on the design, the implementation, and the environments where they take place. Good practices and successful cases should be examined, as well as the characteristics and potential of the offer in relation to the demand. The efficacy of the activities carried out should also be assessed. Baralo suggests creating a language tourism observatory to drive some strategic lines, since awareness of the importance of language tourism must be raised to assume new objectives and actions. A language tourism observatory might be in charge of promoting welcoming attitudes among target destinations' societies, and it could postulate language as a valuable resource so as to generate international collaboration and research networks among educational institutions and the service industry alike (Baralo 2015).

Gathering relevant information relating to language tourists' motivations is fundamental in developing up‐to‐date knowledge of the reasons behind SA sojourners' choices. This, in turn, can also have a profound impact both on the language travelers and on the target communities. Future research avenues could analyze the motivations which lead to the selection of specific language tourism destinations and language tourism programs concerning not only language learning (i.e. the educational input and the language‐learning complements), but also travel aspects (i.e. transport, accommodation, catering, and leisure) – not to mention the motivations underlying language travelers' preferred learning styles (e.g. in terms of educational objectives or self‐directed learning) and travel patterns of behavior in the destination (e.g. regarding learners' interactions and contact with the local culture), as well as pre‐ and post‐trip travel patterns (e.g. when it comes to planning a SA sojourn or concerning post‐experience follow‐up). Moreover, the way motivations for international mobility are shifting can be observed, for example toward social projects (such as volunteering in local associations) or specialized content (e.g. aimed at specific professional sectors).

On the other hand, further research can examine the effect of different informal language‐learning contexts and travel‐related aspects on SLA in practical terms. For instance, different types of accommodation or work placements could be put in relation to interaction potential in order to study to which degree they determine linguistic development and sociocultural integration. The cultural immersion of informal language learners can be looked into, as well as the benefits for themselves and for the host community. The local community's perspective and its relationship with visiting language tourists can also be an object of study to find out possible impacts on the sustainability of the destinations.

Last but not least, the impacts on the individuals' identity can also be researched. We must bear in mind the power of language as a means to know and appreciate a culture, the effects of linguistic and cultural knowledge on people's personality, value system, and emotional development, and how affective bonds with their origins and their newly met realities are generated. Delving into the research depths mentioned in this section will be a step forward toward fostering individuals' SLA and personal growth that can potentially derive from language tourism experiences.

REFERENCES

1. Aliaga, B., Corno, V., Iglesias, M. et al. (2018). Trips of the tongue: language tourism in Barcelona. Ara Journal of Tourism Research 8 (1): 7–20. http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/ara/article/view/20092.
2. Baker‐Smemoe, W., Cundick, D.K., Evans, N. et al. (2012). Relationship between reported out‐of‐class English use and proficiency gains in English. Applied Language Learning 22: 21–45. http://www.dliflc.edu/academic‐journals‐applied‐language‐learning.
3. Baralo, M. (2015). The value of language as a touristic, economic and cultural resource. Signos Universitarios 34 (51): 35–61. http://p3.usal.edu.ar/index.php/signos/article/view/3345/4171.
4. Brecht, R.D. and Robinson, J.L. (1995). On the value of formal instruction in study abroad: student reactions in context. In: Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context (ed. B.F. Freed), 317–334. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
5. Campbell, C. (1996). Socializing with the teachers and prior language learning experience: a diary study. In: Voices from the Language Classroom (eds. K.M. Bailey and D. Nunan), 201–223. New York: Cambridge University Press.
6. Churchill, E. and DuFon, M.A. (2006). Evolving threads in study abroad research. In: Language Learners in Study Abroad Context (eds. M.A. DuFon and E. Churchill), 1–27. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
7. DeKeyser, R.M. (2007). Study abroad as foreign language practice. In: Practice in a Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology (ed. R.M. DeKeyser), 208–226. New York: Cambridge University Press.
8. Dewey, D.P. (2008). Japanese vocabulary acquisition by learners in three contexts. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 15: 127–148. https://frontiersjournal.org/past‐volumes/vol‐xv.
9. Dewey, D.P., Belnap, R.K., and Hillstrom, R. (2013a). Social network development, language use, and language acquisition during study abroad: Arabic language learners' perspectives. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 22: 84–110. https://frontiersjournal.org/past‐volumes/volume‐xxii.
10. Dewey, D.P., Ring, S., Gardner, D., and Belnap, R.K. (2013b). Social network formation and development during study abroad in the Middle East. System 41 (2): 269–282.
11. Dörnyei, Z. and Csizér, K. (2005). The effects of intercultural contact and tourism on language attitudes and language learning motivation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 24 (4): 327–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X05281424.
12. Fraser, C.C. (2002). Study abroad: an attempt to measure the gains. In: German as a Foreign Language, vol. 1, 45–65. http://www.gfl‐journal.de/Issue_1_2002.php.
13. Freed, B.F. (1998). An overview of issues and research in language learning in a study abroad setting. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 4: 31–60. https://frontiersjournal.org/past‐volumes/vol‐iv.
14. Gardner, R.C. and MacIntyre, P.D. (1992). A student's contributions to second language learning. Part I: cognitive variables. Language Teaching 25 (4): 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144480000700X.
15. Hancox, N. (2016). English plus work experience in the UK. Study Travel Magazine (April). https://studytravel.network/magazine/issues/610.
16. Hancox, N. (2017). Market nalysis: USA. Study Travel Magazine (September). https://studytravel.network/magazine/issues/627.
17. Healy, E. (2015a). Languages on the go. Study Travel Magazine (October). https://studytravel.network/magazine/issues/604.
18. Healy, E. (2015b). Activities in South Africa. Study Travel Magazine (November). https://studytravel.network/magazine/issues/605.
19. Iglesias, M. (2016a). The language tourism market system: conceptualising language tourism. International Journal of Scientific Management and Tourism 2 (1): 25–40. http://www.ijosmt.com/index.php/ijosmt/article/view/69/79.
20. Iglesias, M. (2016b). Language travel supply: Marketing and management structures. Proceedings of the International Conference on Tourism, Naples, Italy (29 June–2 July 2016). International Association for Tourism Policy.
21. Iglesias, M. (2017a). Language travel supply: language tourism product composition. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching 4 (1): 1–17. http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/135/145.
22. Iglesias, M. (2017b). The role of travel‐related aspects in the language tourism experience. Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal 7 (2): 125–153. http://www.uhu.es/publicaciones/ojs/index.php/et/article/view/3153/2972.
23. Iglesias, M. and Feng, Y. (2017). Language travel supply: the case of Idealog. International Journal of Scientific Management and Tourism 3 (3): 91–110. http://www.ijosmt.com/index.php/ijosmt/article/view/249/237.
24. Isabelli‐García, C. (2006). Study abroad social networks, motivation and attitudes: implications for second language acquisition. In: Language Learners in Study Abroad Contexts (eds. M.A. DuFon and E. Churchill), 231–258. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
25. Jackson, J. (2005). Assessing intercultural learning through introspective accounts. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 11: 165–186. https://frontiersjournal.org/past‐volumes/vol‐xi.
26. Killion, L. and Fisher, R. (2018). Ontology, epistemology: paradigms and parameters for qualitative approaches to tourism research. In: Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research. Theory and Practice (eds. W. Hillman and K. Radel), 1–28. Bristol: Channel View Publications.
27. Kinginger, C. (2013). Introduction: social and cultural aspects of language learning in study abroad. In: Social and Cultural Aspects of Language Learning in Study Abroad (ed. C. Kinginger), 3–15. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
28. Kinginger, C. and Farrell, K. (2004). Assessing development of meta‐pragmatic awareness in study abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 10: 19–42. https://frontiersjournal.org/past‐volumes/vol‐x.
29. Klein, W. and Perdue, C. (1997). The basic variety (or: couldn't natural languages be much simpler?). Second Language Research 13 (4): 301–347. https://doi.org/10.1191/026765897666879396.
30. Krashen, S.D. (1976). Formal and informal linguistic environments in language acquisition and language learning. TESOL Quarterly 10 (2): 157–168. https://doi.org/10.2307/3585637.
31. Larsen‐Freeman, D. (1991). Second language acquisition research: staking out the territory. TESOL Quarterly 25 (2): 315–350. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587466.
32. Lightbrown, P.M. and Spada, N. (1993). How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33. MacIntyre, P.D. (2002). Motivation, anxiety and emotion in second language acquisition. In: Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning (ed. P. Robinson), 45–68. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
34. Mitchell, R., Myles, F., and Marsden, E. (2013). Second Language Learning Theories. Oxon: Routledge.
35. Norris, B. (2015). Homestay in the UK. Study Travel Magazine (September). https://studytravel.network/magazine/issues/591.
36. Norris, B. (2016). Global Market 2015. Study Travel Magazine (December). https://studytravel.network/magazine/issues/618.
37. Norris, B. (2017a). Growth in the vocational sector. Study Travel Magazine (August). https://studytravel.network/magazine/issues/626.
38. Norris, B. (2017b). Global Market 2016. Study Travel Magazine (December). https://studytravel.network/magazine/issues/774.
39. Papatsiba, V. (2006). Study abroad and experiences of cultural distance and proximity: French Erasmus students. In: Living and Studying Abroad: Research and Practice (eds. M. Byram and A. Feng), 108–133. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
40. Ritchie, B.W. (2003). An introduction to educational tourism. In: Managing Educational Tourism (eds. B.W. Ritchie, N. Carr and C. Cooper), 1–24. Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
41. Siegal, M. (1995). Individual differences and study abroad: women learning Japanese in Japan. In: Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context (ed. B.F. Freed), 225–243. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
42. Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13 (2): 275–298. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009979.
43. Smith, J.V. (2011). Changing student profile. Study Travel Magazine (June). https://studytravel.network/magazine/issues/660/articles/19900.
44. Smith, J.V. (2015). Especially for you — Home tuition programmes. Study Travel Magazine (October). https://studytravel.network/magazine/issues/604.
45. Smith, J.V. (2017a). “Ever‐changing scene.” Study Travel Magazine (January). https://studytravel.network/magazine/issues/619.
46. Smith, J.V. (2017b). Work experience in Europe. Study Travel Magazine (November). https://studytravel.network/magazine/issues/629.
47. Tanaka, K. and Ellis, R. (2003). Study‐abroad, language proficiency and learner beliefs about language learning. JALT Journal 25 (1): 63–85. http://www.jalt‐publications.org/jj/issues/2003‐05_25.1.
48. UNWTO (2010). International Recommendations for Tourism Statistics 2008. New York: United Nations https://unstats.un.org/unsd/publication/Seriesm/SeriesM_83rev1e.pdf.
49. Wilkinson, S. (1998). On the nature of immersion during study abroad: some participant perspectives. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 4: 121–138. https://frontiersjournal.org/past‐volumes/vol‐iv.