Introduction
SLA is, as its name indicates, the study of
second language (L2) acquisition. Questions
abound about what defines SLA, how far its borders
extend, and what the attributions and contributions
of its research are. Thus, there is a great
amount of heterogeneity in the entire conceptualization
of SLA. Some researchers tend to ignore certain
aspects of the field, while others scrutinize
those same aspects piece by piece.
The
definitions of key terminology in the field
of SLA are as numerous as are the researchers
in the field. According to Van Lier (1994,
p. 331), some researchers seek to posit facts
in SLA, while others focus more on communicating,
investigating, and finding common ground.
It is this diversity of opinions in the field
of SLA that has given rise to a number of
debates. The key points of contention are
related to the philosophical nature behind
SLA research, the goals and scope of SLA theory,
the kinds of methodological approaches employed
in SLA, the role of social context in SLA
research, and the relationship between SLA
research and practice. Scholars in the field
of SLA and related fields, such as Applied
Linguistics, are divided in their beliefs
about these points. The ongoing debate between
these researchers dominates the literature
on SLA today. Therefore, since these debates
are prominent in the field, we should look
more closely at them individually and summarize
the main issues.
I.
The philosophical basis of enquiry
The purpose of SLA research has changed tremendously
over the last decade or so. Earlier research
in the field attempted to describe and explain
how language developed in the minds of second
language learners. Such research was focused
purely on the Chomskyan view of a language
instinct within the brain which enables language
acquisition to take place. This Chomskyan
paradigm of learners being endowed with a
Universal Grammar places cognitive issues
as central concerns within SLA research. Language
is seen as being transferred from brain to
brain rather than as being a social and negotiable
product of interaction (Firth and Wagner,
1997, p. 290).
This focus on psycholinguistics places SLA
in the field of "hard" sciences.
The camp of "mainstream" SLA researchers
such as Beretta, Crookes, Gregg, Jordan and
Long holds that the ultimate goal of SLA is
the development of SLA theory, much the same
way as scientists work to develop theory.
As scientists adopt a rationalist approach,
so SLA researchers, in their opinion, need
to follow this approach (Gregg, Long, Jordan,
Beretta, 1997, p. 551).
The
opposing camp, consisting of such researchers
as Lantolf, Block, Firth and Wagner, points
fingers at this "mainstream" (used
here as a means of identification and distinction
and also to show the author's personal bias
against the arguments they present) group
and accuses them of holding a positivist,
rationalist attitude that is typical of modernists
who see steady progress as only possible through
scientific discovery as Long (1998, p. 96)
believed (Lantolf, 1996, p. 716). Accordingly,
this opposition group - under the leadership
of Lantolf - has, likewise, been accused of
being postmodernists (Lantolf, 1996, p. 732)
who follow a relativist approach. This opposition
group believes that the "mainstream"
group strives to rid the field of SLA of its
relativistic traits (ibid). Relativism allows
for multiple theories to "bloom"
and flourish, whereas the rationalistic perspective
holds that only theories worthy of acceptance
be discussed (Gregg, 2000, p. 384). Seen from
the position of the "mainstream"
group, relativism allows "all positions
to be defended equally well, regardless, of
its apparent truth" (Long, 1998, p. 98),
which they feel is ridiculous considering
that there can only be one accepted truth
from a rationalist point of view.
In
simple terms, the opposition group attributes
"science envy" to the "mainstream"
group (Block, 1996, p. 73). Relativists would
question SLA as being a science. SLA researchers
influenced by Chomskyism, such as the "mainstream"
group, believe that the mind imposes structure
on thoughts and languages, whereas a postmodernist
following relativism would say that language
imposes structure on the mind (Lantolf, 1996,
p. 721). The relativist might recognize a
variety of types of knowledge and not assume
that scientific solutions are better than
others (Van Lier, 1994, p. 331). In fact,
the relativist may never even try to put a
human issue such as language acquisition into
scientific categories (Van Lier, 1994, p.
332).
Thus,
the dispute between rationalism and relativism,
between science and humanities, looms large
in the debate concerning the philosophical
basis behind SLA. The "mainstream"
camp strives for SLA to be accepted as a science
and to have SLA theories culled to a limited
number (Long, 1990, p. 649). While striving
for SLA to become a "normal science",
assertions are made that multiple theories
in SLA are problematic and that the field
should be united around a few theories which
emphasize only the "accepted facts"
(Long, 1990; Crookes, 1997; Gregg, 1993).
Gregg (1993, p. 276) holds that too much diverse
research fogs the true goals of SLA. The "mainstream"
group holds that reducing the number of theories
is "an attempt to sort things out and
move forward" (Gregg, Long, Jordan and
Beretta, 1997, p. 547). Agreeing with this
point, Long (1990) states that a theoretically
smaller SLA would allow for greater knowledge
to be accumulated. SLA thereby would become
a process of discovery and explanation. In
this camp, the absence of a paradigm (taken
here to mean limited accepted theories) is
a weakness of the field.
The
opposing camp holds to the idea that attempts
to rule out certain approaches or theories
can lead to theoretical totalitarianism (Van
Lier, 1994, p. 335). Block (1996, p. 63) agrees
with this view and sees SLA as a process of
exploration and speculation. The "existence
of pluralism appears to provide fertile ground
for discussion and for the advancement of
the field" (Block, 1996, p. 66). Lantolf
and Block, believe that would-be SLA theory
should not be cut off "before it has
the opportunity to be taken seriously (i.e.,
to bloom)" (Lantolf, 1996, p. 713; Block,
1996, p. 77).
The
debate delves further into who has the right
to assess which theories should be accepted
and which should be rejected in the SLA field
(Block, 1996, p. 66). As pointed out, the
primary gatekeepers may be the editors of
applied linguistic journals (Block, 1996,
p. 67). Yet, when the editors publish ideas
beyond the scope of the "mainstream"
camp, they are criticized (see Gregg, Long,
Jordan, and Beretta, 1997, p. 554). Long (1998,
p. 114) confirms this sentiment and asks how
such researchers with dissenting opinions
got access to scholarly journals and were
able to publish allegations which lack substance.
II. The goals and scope of SLA theory
The field of SLA has a broad scope, as mentioned
above. With such a broad scope, many researchers,
especially those in the "mainstream"
camp, insist that it is impossible for SLA
to make a stronghold for itself. They, therefore,
call for a more limited scope (Long, 1997;
Gass, 1998; Kasper, 1997).
Moreover,
what the limited scope of SLA should be focused
on is also debated. The debate in the research
literature concerning the goals and scope
of SLA theory has led to criticism of "mainstream"
SLA approaches which traditionally have focused
on only the cognitive aspects of language
learning and have disregarded the social aspects
of acquisition (Tarone, 2000; Breen, 1985;
Firth and Wagner, 1997; Rampton, 1997; Larsen-Freeman,
2000). The imbalance in SLA theory in favor
of cognitively-oriented theories upsets some
researchers in the field, as it makes them
feel that SLA is an exclusive club which only
like-minded members can join (Firth and Wagner,
1997). What they saw as the exclusive nature
of SLA pushed Firth and Wagner (1997) to call
for a reconceptualization of the entire field
of SLA.
Firth
and Wagner (1998) point out the imbalance
in the field of SLA of cognitive and mental
approaches over social and contextual approaches
in learning a language. Acquisition cannot
occur without use, Firth and Wagner (1998,
p. 93) claim. Usage of language in communicative
situations leads to acquisition, they believe.
Therefore, the significance of learning a
language during interaction is challenging
the learners' internal cognitive processes
(Breen, 1985).
The relevance of social context - and use
- in acquisition is questioned by Long (1997,
1998). Firth and Wagner's points are rebutted
by Long (1998) most strongly who asks which
social dimensions are important (p. 90). Long
sees context as having nothing to do with
acquisition. He denies Hymes' view of language
as a social and cultural phenomenon (Long,
1997, p. 319) and asserts the importance of
understanding how the mind works in taking
in a second language and in using interlanguage
(IL) grammar. Use and acquisition are two
unrelated fields of L2 study in his opinion.
Furthermore, the Hymesian view of language
acquisition that "the acquisition of
competence for use can be stated in the same
way as acquisition for competence for grammar"
(Hymes, 1971, p. 279) is challenged by Acar
(2005). In Acar`s claim to consider the acquisition
of competence for use different from the acquisition
of competence for grammar, he puts forward
evidence that "while the acquisition
of the grammatical knowledge of language,
what Chomsky calls linguistic competence,
is complete in a certain period of time, is
acquired unconsciously, and once it happens
in childhood, shows almost no change throughout
the life of the individual, the ability in
the use of language appropriately in appropriate
situations and contexts develops throughout
the life of an individual" (pp. 58-59).
Thus
ensues the debate between communicating and
learning, between language and cognition (Breen,
1985, p. 126). According to the "mainstream"
group, in determining how knowledge evolves
in language acquisition, studies on "the
language used and not on the act of communication"
should be considered (Gass, 1998, p. 84).
In short, they assert that the question involved
in SLA is "How do people learn a L2?"
and not "How do people use a L2?"
(Gass, 1998, p. 85). Therefore, language use
is outside the scope of SLA (Long, 1997; Gass,
1998). The goal of SLA is to understand what
"types of interaction bring about what
types of change in linguistic knowledge"
and not to understand language use. Language
use does not show changes in grammatical systems
and therefore does not lead to acquisition
(Gass, 1998, p. 84).
Contrary
to this, Tarone (2000) has shown that skills
such as error detection, developmental sequences,
and negotiation of meaning may all be sensitive
to social context (p. 190). She holds that
Larsen-Freeman's (1997) proposal to join psycholinguistic
and sociolinguistic strands of research together
into a single framework is necessary (p. 193).
III.
Methodological approaches employed in SLA
Research in SLA today is predominately concerned
with coding, quantifying data, and replicating
results (Firth and Wagner, 1997, p. 288).
Experimental settings over natural settings
are preferred locations for research. Explanations
for the results of data collected are given
primarily to cognitive processes. Etic (analyst-relevant)
concerns are valued more than emic (participant-relevant)
ones. These are the approaches which the "mainstream"
researchers would like to see continued.
The opposition, spoken for most loudly by
Firth and Wagner, believes that such approaches
are limited. Rampton (1997) supports Firth
and Wagner and says that "in terms of
its methodologies and guiding philosophy,
a lot of L2 research is profoundly out of
tune with the themes of late modernity"
(p. 330). What is needed is a methodological
broadening of SLA with methods being contextually-sensitive,
value-relevant, and interpretative (Rampton,
1997). Firth and Wagner insist on using empirical
data about the social aspects of acquisition.
What Firth and Wagner (1997) have seen within
"communication strategies" are social
processes being interpreted from the cognitive
perspective (p. 289), and they believe this
needs to change.
Firth
and Wagner's position here is supported. Kasper
(1997) and Poulisse (1997) - although most
usually siding with the "mainstream"
group - see social context as somewhat influencing
SLA, while maintaining a cognitivist priority
in SLA. Kasper's language socialization theory
requires "establishing links between
culture, cognition, and language and between
the macrolevels of sociocultural and institutional
contexts and the microlevel of discourse"
(p. 311). Poulisse (1997) says, "You
first need to describe the basic processes
of learning and using language, and then to
discuss the contextual factors that may influence
these processes" (p. 324).
Moreover, the focus of research also is distorted,
according to the opposition group. According
to them, success is often ignored in SLA investigations,
which focus more on the difficulties and problems
associated with learning a second language
(Firth and Wagner, 1997, p. 288). The problems
are claimed to be created by one of the interactants
in a conversation due to the lack of language
skill. Gass (1998) agrees and also insists
that NS and NSS are handicapped in conversation
with one another in that there are always
breakdowns in communication. Yet, rather than
as a thing belonging to an individual, as
Kasper (1997) believes, Firth and Wagner (1997)
hold that problems should be seen as shared
inter-subjective social issues that can be
solved through negotiation. Perhaps because
communicative successes are less "psychologically
salient", they have been ignored (Firth
and Wagner, 1997, p. 288). However, concentrating
on stories of success would provide new insight
into SLA, in their opinion.
IV. The role of social context in SLA
There is disagreement about what constitutes
acquisition among researchers in the field.
There is a fine line between language acquisition
and language use. As the terms are fluid,
it is hard to tell where one begins and the
other ends. On a larger scale, it is equally
difficult to divide the roles of psycholinguistics
and sociolinguistics.
The tension of the cognitive weighted over
the social and contextual looms large in the
current debates in SLA research (Firth and
Wagner, 1997; Tarone, 2000). On the one hand,
the asocial aspect of SLA reduces active cognition
to "passive internalization" and
reduces language to the memorization of grammatical
points (Breen, 1985, p. 125). The social aspect
must be considered in that the context of
learning shapes what is available to be learned
(ibid). On the other hand, in SLA studies
the social context is so greatly controlled
that researchers have assumed that social
factors are irrelevant to their work (Tarone,
2000).
In this debate also, the role of the learner
or non-native speaker (NNS) in "mainstream"
SLA research is also under attack. Firth and
Wagner (1997) assert that in SLA research
the learner is seen as a "deficient communicator
struggling to overcome an underdeveloped L2
competence", with the highest goal being
to become more like the idealized native speaker
(NS) of the language. The learner is defined
as an "adult receiving formal education
in a S/FL" (Firth and Wagner, 1997, p.
288). The emic issues of the learner are ignored.
The learner has only one identity, solely
as a language "learner", nothing
more and nothing less. No other social identities
exist for the learner, such as a friend, father,
business partner, etc. Furthermore, the learner
is placed as subordinate to the NS who is
regarded as "King" (Firth and Wagner,
1997, p. 291).
The
preoccupation with the learner is defended
by Gass (1997) who, while defending the "mainstream"
position, concludes that "learners are,
after all, the sine qua non of acquisition"
when one is talking about learning (p. 85).
The "non" in nonnative speaker is
simply terminology in the field and does not
lower the status of the learner (Gass, 1997,
p. 85; Kasper, 1997, p. 309).
"Mainstream"
researchers use the native speaker as a prerequisite
for collecting baseline data. The NS is the
necessary and sufficient condition for SLA,
thereby forming the norm (Firth and Wagner,
1997). With NNS striving to achieve the norm
in communication in the second language, the
field in which few or none of the participants
are native is ignored (Long, 1998, p. 89).
In reality, though, acquisition often takes
place in contexts with little or no contact
with NS. World Englishes are devalued in SLA.
Long agrees but asserts that this is due to
the restraints of SLA researchers' work (i.e.
funding) (Long, 1998, p. 90). Yet, Rampton
(1997) sees the English-as-lingua franca societies
of the world as great places of research.
SLA studies need not have native-speaker base-line
data, in his opinion. Given the increasing
recognition of world Englishes and the inappropriateness
of native speaker norms forming the baseline
data, researchers are faced with the question
of what might be the alternative model or
competence. As a first serious attempt to
define competence in relation to English as
an international language, Nunn (2005) argues
that "EIL competence cannot be limited
to a single, limited, monolingual and monocultural
concept. It is composed of a set of interlocking
and interdependent competences that sometimes
compensate for each other, sometimes counteract
each other, and sometimes reinforce each other."
(p. 65).
Next, the debate over interlanguage exists
in this arena. Most studies are concerned
with the learners' interlanguage (IL), the
phase between the L1 and the L2 which all
learners eventually enter, according to the
"mainstream" camp. Studies in IL
show modifications in NS-NNS interactions
and place the NS in the role of "information
gatherer" and the NNS as "information
provider" (Firth and Wagner, 1997, p.
294). The premises of IL show that language
learning has an end; that is, the acquisition
of native-like competence (Firth and Wagner,
1998, p. 91). In fact, according to Firth
and Wagner, learning never stops and certainly
continues outside the classroom (as opposed
to Poulisse (1997, p. 327) who says that "learner's
L2 behavior continually changes in the direction
of that of the L1 speaker, until learning
stops").
Yet, the use of a "derogatory" term
such as "interlanguage" frustrates
the opposing camp. They believe that there
exists systematic variation in different contexts.
Each variation requires a different type of
language. For example, in English for Specific
Purposes (ESP) classrooms, the interlanguage
(IL) must be sensitive to the social setting.
SLA fails to take into account the social
reality (Larsen-Freeman, 2000, p. 168). Research
focuses on the learner and IL data but overlooks
the social reality in which the research is
conducted (ibid). The learner language forms
are different from the target language because
of the differences among the social purposes
in which the language is needed (p. 170).
Social context affects the degree to which
interlocutors make linguistic and conversational
adjustments for learners (Tarone, 2000, p.
188). Furthermore, input provided by others
leads to changes and improvement. Most namely,
repair (error correction), developmental sequencing,
negotiation of meaning, and balancing of L2
forms are all part of the social context in
which language must change to meet the situation.
The need for ongoing negotiation during interaction
increases the learners' overt participation
and perhaps even their innate capacity for
acquisition, although this has yet to be proven
(Breen, 2001b, p. 114). This "interaction
hypothesis" alerts the learners to failures
in making themselves understood and thereby
pushes them to reformulate what they want
to say (Breen quoting Long, 1996). However,
whether overt participation by learners can
lead to the acquisition of previously unacquired
aspects of the language remains to be seen
(Breen, 2001b, p. 127). Yet, in discourse,
there is a constant interrelationship between
use and acquisition (Breen, 2001b, p. 131).
V. The relationship between SLA research
and practice
The existence of a relationship between SLA
and language pedagogy (LP) is an additional
area on which few SLA researchers agree. Practice
and theory are seen as distinct entities (Van
Lier, 1994, p. 338). Since, though, many SLA
researchers were originally S/FL teachers
who became involved in SLA research in attempts
to improve S/FL teaching, there should be
a close relationship between SLA and language
pedagogy. However, quite to the contrary,
most S/FL practitioners do not perceive the
relevance of SLA research to their teaching.
Tarone (2000) states that the lack of contextual
perspectives in SLA turns off EFL/ESL practitioners.
Instructors in the field believe that the
effects of psycholinguistic processes have
nothing to do with what they are actually
concerned with on a daily basis. They say
that SLA is impervious to instruction. While
focusing on language theory, it provides little
direction into success in the classroom and
actual teaching, in their opinion. Information
gathered about L2 in artificial settings has
nothing to do with the language used in social
contexts in real situations both inside and
outside the classroom (Tarone, 2000, p. 183).
Therefore, many L2 teachers do not need to
know the results of current SLA research (p.
184) since it has basically nothing to do
with language pedagogy (Ellis, 1997, p. 69).
Furthermore, teachers' working conditions
further deter their interest in SLA matters.
Many S/FL teachers have long classroom hours
and little preparation time, and in consequence,
little time to read through published research
to find ideas for teaching (Crookes, 1997,
p. 94). Even when pedagogy-related matters
are addressed in SLA research, their presentation
is not accessible to practitioners of LP in
that the terminology is not on their level.
Discourses of SLA and LP represent different
worlds.
There is a need to breakdown the barriers
between theory and practice. These two worlds
can only be bridged by either increasing the
research knowledge of teachers or to publish
research in a more understandable language
without technical jargon (Ellis, 1997, p.
73). (Van Lier (1994) and Crookes (1997) disagree
with this latter opinion.) Practical activities
such as those that occur in the language classroom
are equally a source of theoretically relevant
data. Theory is not something that is constructed
and then practiced. Rather, theory should
be a reflection of practice (Van Lier, 1994,
p. 338). Teacher-researcher connections in
studies increase the likelihood that the findings
of the research will hold more prominence
to the practitioners (Crookes, 1997, p. 102).
Teachers can work in tandem with researchers
in action research in evaluating the needs
of the classroom. They can even conduct small-scale
research studies of their own (Crookes, 1997,
p. 102; Ellis, 1997, p. 85). Using the students
in their own classrooms as subjects for research,
teachers could do research generated around
SLA topics (Crookes, 1997, p. 102). Issues
in SLA which might be relevant to practitioners
include classroom interaction, task studies,
and grammar. However, because SLA is more
attuned to the learner rather than the teacher,
practitioners may have even little need for
studying those topics unless priority is given
to the teacher's perspective (Crookes, 1997,
p. 97).
The
"mainstream" camp in SLA "may
feel the practitioner's foray into theory
is a waste of time" and that they are
"meddling in complicated matters that
are outside his or her proper domain"
(Van Lier, 1994, p. 334). Others in this camp
cite "the unwillingness to recognize
the insights that language teaching has quietly
absorbed from SLA theory and research"
and do not feel the need to cater to the practicing
group (Long, 1998, p. 112).
Personal Conclusions
A reconceptualization of SLA, as proposed
by Firth and Wagner, is necessary in my opinion.
Learning how language is acquired as it is
used is important. Important to language use
is the social context. Students can learn
and even acquire language outside of the classroom,
while they are in their social roles of father,
friend, partner, etc. Language learning does
not stop when a student leaves school. Language
is an interactive phenomenon and is as dependent
on social context as it is on cognitive transfer.
A paradigm stressing the importance of both
of these factors is necessary.
The role of social context in language learning
needs to be reconsidered and reevaluated.
It is time to reopen the debate on this subject
and to consider where SLA is moving in the
21st century. It is hoped that not only researchers
but also practitioners in this field will
undertake further empirically-based quantitative
and qualitative research in their investigations
of contextual vs. cognitive approaches.
References
Acar,
A. (2005). The "communicative competence"
controversy. Asian EFL Journal, 7(3),
55-60.
Block, D. (1996). Not so fast: Some thoughts
on theory culling, relativism, accepted findings
and the heart and soul of SLA. Applied
Linguistics, 17, 63-83.
Breen, M. (1985). The social context for language
learning: A neglected situation? Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 135-158.
Breen, M. (2001b). Overt participation and
covert acquisition in the language classroom.
In M. Breen, (Ed.), Learner contributions
to language learning. Harlow: Pearson
Education, 112-140.
Crookes, G. (1997). SLA and language pedagogy.
A socioeducational perspective. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 93-116.
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA and language pedagogy.
An educational perspective. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 19, 69-92.
Firth, A. and Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse,
communication, and (some) fundamental concepts
in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal,
81(3), 285-300.
Firth, A. and Wagner, J. (1998). SLA property:
No trespassing! The Modern Language Journal,
82(1) 91-94.
Gass, S. (1998). Apples and oranges: Or, why
apples are not oranges and don't need to be.
A response to Firth and Wagner. The Modern
Language Journal, 82(1), 83-90.
Gregg, K. (1993). Taking explanation seriously:
or, let a couple of flowers bloom. Applied
Linguistics, 14(3), 276-294.
Gregg, K. (2000). Review article. A theory
for every occasion: postmodernism and SLA.
Second Language Research, 10(4), 383-399.
Gregg, K. (2002). A garden ripe for weeding:
A reply to Lantolf. Second Language Research,
18(1), 79-81.
Gregg, K., Long, M., Jordan, G. and Beretta,
A. (1997). Rationality and its discontents
in SLA. Applied Linguistics, 18(4),
538-558.
Hymes, D. H. (1971). On communicative competence.
In J. Pride and J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics.
Penguin, 1972.
Kasper, G. (1997). "A" stands for
acquisition: A response to Firth and Wagner.
The Modern Language Journal, 81(3),
307-312.
Lantolf, J. (1996). Review article. SLA theory
building: "Letting all the flowers bloom!".
Language Learning, 46, 713-749.
Lantolf, J. (2002). Commentary from the flower
garden: Responding to Gregg, 2000. Second
Language Research, 18(1), 72-78.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Second language
acquisition and applied linguistics. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 165-181.
Long, M. H. (1990). The least a second language
acquisition theory needs to explain. TESOL
Quarterly, 24(4), 649-666.
Long, M. H. (1997). Construct validity in
SLA research: A response to Firth and Wagner.
The Modern Language Journal, 81(3),
318-323
Long, M. H. (1998). Breaking the siege. University
of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL, 17(1),
79-129.
Nunn, R. (2005). Competence and teaching English
as an International Language. Asian EFL
Journal, 7(3), 61-74.
Poulisse, N. (1997). Some words in defense
of the psycholinguistic approach: A response
to Firth and Wagner. Modern Language Journal,
81(3), 324-328.
Rampton, B. (1997). Second language research
in late modernity: A response to Firth and
Wagner. Modern Language Journal, 81(3),
329-333.
Tarone, E. (2000). Still wrestling with context
in interlanguage theory. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 20, 182-198.
Van Lier, L. (1994). Forks and hope: Pursuing
understanding in different ways. Applied
Linguistics,15, 328-347.
