Abstract
Perceptions and beliefs play a significant role in directing human behaviour. In the SLA field almost two decades of research has revealed how students’ beliefs have the potential to shape their cognitive and affective processes in the classroom and impact on their actions. Various ideologically and methodologically diverse studies have shed light on the phenomenon, however, these have mostly been conducted from only one ontological perspective and one research paradigm limiting their potential. This paper attempts to characterize some of the dimensions of the major perspectives in SLA research, and in particular language learner beliefs studies, and show how both have followed parallel paths. The paper also argues for a pluralist sociocognitive framework which would provide a more holistic view in the area of language learner beliefs research and the SLA field in general

Key Words: epistemological perspectives, research paradigms, perspectives in SLA research

1. Introduction
The debate concerning various ontological and epistemological perspectives in the field of language education is not new. Indeed, Zuengler and Miller (2006), in a recent special issue of TESOL Quarterly take up such a debate, acknowledging that conflicting ontologies in second/foreign language acquisition (SLA/FLA) do exist. Yet the debate of different ideological viewpoints reflects a healthy state in scholarship and necessitates deeper reflections on all sides.

In the past, perceptions and beliefs (no differentiation of concepts is made here, though such exists in other disciplines; but see Goldman, 1986, on ‘perceptual beliefs’, and Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, for ‘inferential beliefs’), or metacognitive knowledge as it is sometimes referred to (Flavell, 1987), have been studied in various disciplines and within a number of research paradigms. Research and scholarship on perceptions and beliefs in the area of language learning has been growing and gaining prominence in the last two decades. This is evidenced by a growing number of academic papers, journal special issues, books and conference papers from around the world providing valuable cross-fertilization of ideas. While empirical studies and theoretical discourse have provided useful insights, they have often evolved into relatively closed competing paradigms. The diversity in perspectives of these belief studies point to the researchers' different ontological and epistemological assumptions that are clearly reflected in their research paradigms. Researchers within these paradigms often tend to avoid concepts and methodologies from neighbouring disciplines that could potentially enrich one’s own perspectives. Indeed, methodological debates surrounding research tools, participatory structures, and ethical dilemmas are important sites for engagement (Candlin & Sarangi, 2004) and this paper will attempt to address some of these with respect to the SLA field in general, and the field of learner beliefs in particular. 

2. Background
Early psychological studies into learners’ perceptions and beliefs about learning “opened a whole new Aladdin’s cave of personal beliefs, myths, understandings, and superstitions as they were revealed by the persons’ thoughts and feelings about their learning” (Thomas & Harri-Augstein, 1983, p. 338). These studies concluded that beliefs about learners’ own capacity and personal models of their own processes were much more central to understanding the individuals’ learning performances than more universally accepted theories of learning, and that these personal ‘myths’ explained much more about individual differences in learning than such psychometric measures as intelligence or aptitude. Moreover, they continue to provide a framework for understanding how learners conceptualize themselves as learners (i.e., their identity) and the situation they enter which provides a potential for learning – more obviously in the classroom and less obviously, perhaps, other social events in wider communities (Breen, 2001). Indeed, one’s beliefs and identity are often seen as mutually constitutive.

The recognition of the role of learners’ epistemological beliefs across various disciplines contributed to a growing body of evidence suggesting that they play a central role in learning experience and achievements (Ryan, 1994; Schommer, 1990), have a profound influence on learning behaviour as well as learning outcomes (Weinert & Kluwe, 1987), and act as very strong filters of reality (Arnold, 1999). Interdisciplinary research shows how one’s belief systems, social cognitions and metacognitions are a driving force in intellectual performance (Schoenfeld, 1983), and that learners may be directly influenced by their perception of success in learning and levels of expectancy (Yang, 1999; White, 1999), with realistically high expectations helping to build confidence, and low (or unrealistically high) expectations leading to de-motivation and disappointment (Puchta, 1999).

The study of beliefs in SLA is important, as it has been noted that successful learners develop insights into beliefs about language learning processes, their own abilities and the use of effective learning strategies in the classroom and beyond (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986; Oxford, 1990, 2003). It has been argued, that while some beliefs may have a facilitative effect on learning, others can hinder it. Supportive and positive beliefs help to overcome problems and thus sustain motivation, while negative or unrealistic beliefs can lead to decreased motivation, frustration, and even anxiety (Horwitz & Young, 1990; Horwitz, 2001). Therefore, it can be concluded that an awareness of learners’ beliefs is central to SLA classroom pedagogy.

Providing a definition for a very complex and latent concept such as ‘beliefs’ is always a challenge. Most often, researchers adopt definitions that suit the purposes of their own empirical frameworks and reflect personal ideological viewpoints. Thus, they either define beliefs along the lines of personal cognitive constructs or socially and culturally shaped folkloristic ideas, with others yet falling somewhere between the two polarities. For example, Victori and Lockhart (1995) define beliefs about language learning as “general assumptions that students hold about themselves as learners, about factors influencing language learning, and about the nature of language learning and teaching” (p. 224). This definition seems proximal to a sociocognitive view in that it encompasses both the endogenous (cognitive, affective, attitudinal) and exogenous (experiential, cultural, contextual) elements. Thus, sociocognition is understood here to be the interplay of both sociocultural and cognitive influences on learners’ metacognitive processes in SLA.

Rangelova and Meskill (2000) explain that the term ‘sociocognitive’encompasses a broad range of current beliefs about learning in general and language learning in particular. The term represents a growing attempt to reconcile the social and cognitive/affective side of learning concerning the acquisition of another language. They suggest that within the field of linguistics, it is most closely aligned with interactionist approaches to theory and research in language acquisition. It begins with the biological predispositions of the human mind for language and learning in consort with external reality (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991). Indeed, calls for a move towards a pluralist framework incorporating both the cognitive and social perspectives on SLA is not new (e.g., see Larsen-Freeman, 1991, 1997, 2002; Tarone, 2000), yet still one of the current dilemmas is which orientation to adopt (Cangarajah, 2006). Over a decade ago, Block (1996) argued that the "existence of pluralism appears to provide fertile ground for discussion and for the advancement of the field" (p. 66), though real progress in this direction seems slow to come.

In an attempt to better understand the nature and role of beliefs in SLA, various studies have taken up different, often opposing, approaches to their investigations. These can be more generally categorized as ‘cognitive’ and ‘sociocultural’, with a recently emerging ‘ecological’ perspective closely aligned to the latter. 

3. Cognitive approaches
The cognitive perspective, also referred to as ‘mainstream’ (Zuengler & Miller, 2006; Kalaja & Barcelos, 2003) dominated much of the SLA research over the past 20 years, and still continues to be “the logical choice for the field” (Long & Doughty, 2003, p. 869) since “nobody would doubt that language, whether first or second, is an aspect of human cognition” (DeKeyser & Juffs, 2005, p. 437). Early studies which attempted to describe and explain the process of language acquisition conceptualized much of the phenomena as various psycholinguistic entities. Mainstream research has been predominantly concerned with the role of the L1, acquisition orders, development sequences, input/output relationship, and the role of biologically-specified universal grammar (UG). Empirical work conducted from this perspective is still alive and well as evidenced by, inter alia, the existence of a number of major journals in the SLA field which embrace cognitively-based research. In addition, ground-breaking work in neurobiology, such as that reported by John Schumann (Schumann, 1998; Pulvermuller, & Schumann, 1994; Schumann, Crowell, Jones, Lee, Schuchert, & Wood, 2004) among others, provide useful insight into the role of cognitive and affective factors in the process of language acquisition based on findings from brain imaging. Schumann, et al., (2004) argue that  

If our thinking about second language learning is not constrained by the biology of learning, and if it is only constrained by an analysis of the product of that learning, then we can say almost anything about underlying mechanisms. …[w]e can invoke, as though they were real, mechanisms such as an affective filter, cognitive operating principles, noticing, monitoring, cognitive strategies… But… should we limit ourselves to metaphors? We can constrain our metaphors with biological knowledge (p. 13).

The positivist approach in such studies assumes that only scientific knowledge is ‘authentic knowledge’, and this philosophy has been guiding empirical work within the ‘hard sciences’ which aim at explanations and generalizations. Therefore, positivism denies any validity to speculation.

From this perspective, among factors of great importance are the cognitive and metacognitive learner contributions to language learning such as learners’ perceptions and beliefs, or metacognitive knowledge. Dufva (2003) notes that the ‘classic’ cognitive approaches to the study of metacognition have been, in part, shaped by rationalist and Cartesian perspectives. The Cartesian view stresses the mentalist (as opposed to behaviourist) aspect of metacognitive knowledge, and the rationalist (as opposed to empiricist) view stresses the innate aspect of the mind in their accounts of learning. Here, the emphasis is on the individuality of mental knowledge as representations or schemata stored in the mind, and contextual influences are seen as secondary. Thus, in this view, the properties of the mind are not necessarily dependent on the outside influences and once established are relatively static. 

The stable or static nature of beliefs is among the most central claims of the mainstream approach. A number of interdisciplinary studies suggest that learner beliefs are intertwined with factors such as self-concept and identity, self-efficacy, personality and other individual differences (Epstein, 1990), which possibly makes them less susceptible to change. Others have suggested that there is evidence of a progressive construction and crystalization of beliefs about learning, and such beliefs are argued to influence increasingly the more situationally-specific learning behaviour (Cantwell, 1998, p. 27), where this situation specificity could easily reflect a language learning context. While there is still paucity in literature reporting the results of longitudinal studies that investigate the stability and malleability of beliefs about language learning, some report little or no change (Kern, 1995; Peacock, 2001).

Studies using the cognitive approach have produced important insights on language learner beliefs. Early research focused on the nature of beliefs, though later expanded to include their relationship to other variables such as strategy use, motivation, anxiety, proficiency, gender, personality, autonomy, nationality, and institutional context, among others (e.g., Banya & Cheng, 1997; Bernat, 2006a, 2006b; Rifkin, 2000; Horwitz, 1999; Siebert, 2003). Generally, these studies have shown that learner beliefs are shaped by both individual learner differences and, to a lesser degree, culture and the context and in which they function. They also play an important role in students’ affect (i.e., motivation, attitudes, anxiety) in language learning. This evidence corroborates studies found in cognitive psychology literature that report on correlations between one’s beliefs and personal variables (for a review, see Bernat & Gvozdenko, 2005). More recently, the relationship between learners’ beliefs and that of their language instructors has come under investigation, with the majority of studies cited reporting a mismatch (for a review, see Bernat, 2007). This disparity, no doubt, bears on learner satisfaction with instructional methodologies and approaches in the SLA classroom.

In terms of empirical studies, mainstream investigative analyses of learner beliefs that characterize the cognitive framework rely heavily on the ‘normative approach’ of social and behavioural sciences (e.g., Horwitz, 1988; Kern, 1995; Mantle-Bromley, 1995; Chawhan & Oliver, 2000; Kim-Yoon, 2000). These utilize surveys and questionnaires as data collection methods and apply quantitative analyses. While quantitative, etic research methods in the normative approach provide clarity and precision through the use of well-designed questionnaires and descriptive statistics, can include a large number of respondents and afford them anonymity, they do have limitations. For example, the beliefs profiled in survey studies are generally limited to those identified by the researcher and therefore might not be representative of all the beliefs learners hold about language learning. There is also potential for misinterpretation of questionnaire items. Furthermore, some argue that a construct as intellectually and affectively complex and rich as is one's personal belief system is difficult to capture by people's responses to a set of normative statements (Wilkinson & Schwartz, 1989; Weinstein, 1994).

4. Sociocultural approaches
While sociocultural theory has its long established roots in areas such as sociology, anthropology and history, it has only become influential in SLA in the last two decades or so, and its momentous impact is now widespread in this field. Among most influential is Vygotskian sociocultural theory which is fundamentally concerned with the understanding of the development of mental processes as they are shaped, or ‘mediated’ by their social and contextual influences. This notion of mediation between human mental processes and culturally constructed auxiliaries is indeed central to sociocultural theory (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). Unlike traditional cognitive perspectives, the fundamentality of the sociocultural perspective resides in the belief that the social dimension of consciousness is primary, while the individual dimension is secondary (Vygotsky, 1979). In other words, what impacts the phenomenon (e.g., learner beliefs) is of greater importance than the phenomenon itself, yet both are important to understanding the whole.

Following the works of theorists such as Dell Hymes (1972), among others, language is seen as a social and cultural phenomenon – a socioculturally constructed mediational means (Lantolf, 2000; 2006), not an individualistic and purely mentalistic exercise. Understanding language is not a matter of decoding pre-established descriptive terms and rules of syntax or grammar, but of understanding utterances which are constructively interpreted in relation to their social and cultural contexts. Therefore, not only does dialogic interaction, among other communicative repertoires, transform the meaning potential of language, it also shapes its formal properties (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006).

For the field of SLA, the sociocultural lens has had great implications not only in terms of research directions (e.g., applying critical paradigms such as discourse analysis and Bakhtin’s dialogism, as in the work of Dufva, 2003), but also language teaching methodologies which saw an exponential rise in the development of social - and thus more communicative - approaches. According to Widdowson (2007), the development of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) drew its inspiration from changes in orientation in linguistics, influenced by the philosophical enquiry into pragmatics (especially Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969) and the sociolinguistic study of language in its social context (especially Hymes, 1972; Labov, 1972), but it is Hymes’ (1972) formulation of communicative competence, in particular, that lead to the conceptualization of CLT. From the sociocultural stance, both research and pedagogy typically focus on the learner’s language use in context, rather than isolated linguistic structures or rules of use.

The social locus of cognition has also been the interest of researchers investigating language learners’ perceptions and beliefs. In this view, Rust (1994) describes beliefs as socially-constructed representation systems which are used to interpret and act upon the world, acknowledging the role of context on mental processes. Here, beliefs are seen as fluid and dynamic, not stable entities within the individual. Investigative methods of socioculturally-based studies on learner beliefs include ethnographic classroom observations, diaries and narratives, metaphor analysis, and discourse analysis (e.g., see Kalaja & Barcelos, 2003) and aim to bring students’ emic perspectives into account. For example, the dialogic perspective extends from Bakhtian philosophy of the inherently ideological nature of language and emphasizes the learner’s voice. Applying the discursive orientation to her investigation, Dufva (2003) reports that learners’ beliefs can emerge through ‘negotiative’ interview techniques (i.e., unstructured conversations). In such dialogues, the learners’ biographies together with personal accounts of experience give insight to their beliefs. Similarly, Hosenfeld (2003) describes a longitudinal case study where learners’ beliefs repeatedly emerged through written journal entries, some – albeit enigmatically – are acted upon while others are not. The researchers emphasize the importance of interpreting the learning activity and the primacy of contextual variables in their investigations. Findings of such studies do not aim to make generalizations, but describe beliefs as embedded in the learners’ learning activity.

As discussed, empirical approaches using the sociocultural perspective typically employ qualitative research methods. Studies are usually small-scale and employ in-depth, descriptive and interpretive analyses. They can include a variety of data collection methods such as interview techniques, journal or diary entries, uses of metaphors, as well as classroom observations, enabling triangulation of data. However, the limitations of such studies are reflected by researcher’s selectivity of data, a degree of interpretive subjectivity, and context-specificity resulting in lack of application to broader SLA contexts (Bernat & Gvozdenko, 2005).

5. Ecological approaches
Under the broad umbrella of sociocultural approaches, yet distinct and a relatively recently emergent field of enquiry in SLA is ‘ecology’. The 2008 Summer Issue of the Modern Language Journal is devoted to discussion of the nature of language acquisition from the ‘dynamic/complex systems’ perspective (often referred to as the ‘ecological perspective’), evidencing a rapidly growing interest in this area. Ecology expands on the notions of Vygotsky’s view of language and the work of Saussure, while taking into account other semiotic traditions, notably Peirce, Halliday, and Bakhtin (for a comparative discussion, see van Lier, 2004). The currency of the ecological perspective is defended by van Lier (2004), where he espouses that “biology appears to be the new science par excellence” (p. 9). He further shows that two closely related sciences, psychology and linguistics, have come to include an ecological perspective among the current array of approaches to their fields, pointing to early pioneers of psychology who explicitly referred to their perspective as ecological (e.g., Brunswick, 1943; Barker, 1978; and, Lewin, 1943; cited from van Lier, 2004). More recently, Halliday’s (2001) work in linguistics also reflects this approach, and suggests that the term ‘ecology of language’ is best seen not as a separate field or discipline, but as a transdisciplinary endeavour. The ecological perspective, according to van Lier (2004), is neither a theory nor a method but a way of thinking, where language learning is seen as a semiotic emergence rather than a gradual, linear acquisition process (Lantolf, 2006). Indeed, an increasing number of phenomena in biology and physics are no longer reduced to forces but are treated as an emergence of semiotic relations (Potschka, 2004).

Yet, unlike the more traditional perspectives on SLA being of reductive nature that assume a simple casual relationship between input and output, the ecological perspective assumes that the processes are much more complex. Ecology involves the study of nonlinear systems that may not necessarily be predictable, or reflect a cause-effect relationship, and, as such, has been closely linked to chaos and complexity theories (van Lier, 2004; Larsen-Freeman, 1997, 2002). In this view, ecological research considers, among others, factors of space (the physical, social and symbolic) and time (both past, present and future dimensions). It is often associated with longitudinal descriptive and interpretative work such as ethnography - van Lier (2004) sees the work of Malinowski (1967) as ecological in this sense. (For a discussion of changes to research methodology motivated by the adoption of a complexity theory perspective on language development, see Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008). 

But how is the ‘ecological perspective’ relevant to SLA research in general, and beliefs research in particular? A key characteristic of any ecological approach is its contextualized or ‘situative’ character. Investigations typically focus on phenomena at the macro level (e.g., study of the school or classroom environment) and/or micro level (e.g., study of perceptions, affordances, and actions). Affordances, simply put, are opportunities for interaction which tie perception and attention to activity. In this view, context plays an important role and is not just something that surrounds language. It defines language while, at the same time, being defined by it. Whatever happens in the examined context becomes part of the investigation, inevitably leading to a critical perspective. van Lier (2004) claims that such a perspective often requires thinking outside the confines of our own particular paradigm, or ‘box’, and that although the ecological perspective lends itself to contextual and interpretative research framework, it does not necessarily rule out any particular type of research methods; “ruling out of which would only confine one to a particular box” (p. 7). In proposing the ecological perspective as a research paradigm for SLA, van Lier (2004) reminds us that cognitive activity does exist and that it is very important in language development, admitting that the ecological approach would be useless without its contribution. Yet, while the idea is plausible, to ensure that it is does not merely remain in the sphere of rhetoric, ecological studies need to reflect that scope. For example, the abovementioned concept of affordances could provide a starting point for explorations into learner perceptions and beliefs regarding their potentiality for actions in language learning, as well as language engagement outside the classroom.

Attention to perceptions and beliefs in relation to actions in these semiotic contexts has not yet received adequate attention among researchers. Hosenfeld (2003) and Alanen (2003) have undertaken research focusing on beliefs and the process of belief formation (or emergence, to use an ‘ecological’ term). Using interview techniques, observations and field notes, they show how certain learner beliefs about language learning are constructed in interaction – interpersonally (jointly constructed in interactions with other students or their teachers) as well as intra-personally (within one’s own thinking). Similarly, Wongsothorn (2005) investigated language beliefs among university entrants in Thailand using similar methods, however, there is still paucity of language learner belief studies which explicitly identify their research paradigms as ‘ecological’.

So far, I have attempted to show how the theoretical and applied areas of the SLA research field and the language learner beliefs research field have followed almost parallel developments over the last few decades. Various researchers have embraced divergent paradigms in their work, contributing to the development of our current knowledge in these areas.

6. Challenges ahead
Our challenge for the field of research is now threefold. The first, to continue to embrace various multidisciplinary approaches to empirical studies in the field of language learning, taking advantage of developments in cognitive and social research fields, as well as new approaches such as those afforded by the ecological perspectives and chaos/complexity theories (e.g., see Larsen-Freeman, 2002), among others. A number of proponents have also argued for such an integration (e.g., see Block, 1996) which could reflect a more holistic sociocognitive framework while enabling the triangulation of data obtained via different methodological means in empirical studies. Indeed, researchers have recently called for more interdisciplinarity in the field of foreign language acquisition in general (Dewaele, 2005; Guiora, 2005), and in the area of learner beliefs in particular (Bernat & Gvozdenko, 2005). While the current diversity of theoretical perspectives has steadily begun to create a rich tapestry of complimenting studies, there is a need for more plurality in this area given the scope and depth of one’s beliefs.

Importantly, alongside cognitively based quantitative studies, in recent years the respectability of social-based qualitative approaches to SLA study has grown, together with a greater acceptance of such approaches across the social sciences in general. Alanen (2003) points out, that neither cognitive nor sociocultural approaches are completely incompatible with one another, and that contemporary cognitive psychology and cognitive science are now evolving in ways that the study of cognition encompasses more and more of the social aspects as well. Indeed, disciplinary border-crossings have become much more acceptable in linguistics and language-related research (Larsen-Freeman, 1997), though more is needed in the area of learner beliefs.

Furthermore, it seems important to combine a number of research perspectives and methodologies in future studies given the constraints of purely quantitative methods investigating a phenomena as cognitively and affectively rich as learner belief systems and the interpretatively subjective and contextually specific nature of qualitative studies alone. Combinations of approaches and methods utilizing both qualitative with quantitative data could provide an even greater insight into a multitude of potentially interacting sociocultural/contextual, affective/ psychological, cognitive/neurobiological, and ideological factors that determine – to a variable extent – learner beliefs about language learning. 

More specifically, the second challenge is to investigate the impact of learner beliefs on their language learning processes as well as outcomes. While much has been reported on the nature and strength of learner beliefs, less has been said about their actual impact in the classroom and beyond (but see, Graham, 2006). Alanen (2003) admits that a question of great interest for future research will be to determine at which point or in which contexts beliefs start to be used as resources for self-regulation in language learning. This could perhaps be done via elicitation techniques such as stimulated recall, particularly when cognitive dissonance (dissonance between beliefs and actions) might have occurred. In sum, Alanen (2003) contends that in this particular aspect, the research questions within the neo-Vygoskian framework do not differ greatly from those proposed by cognitively-oriented research, providing optimistic common ground. 

Other recommendations include investigating a possible relationship of language learner beliefs and individual differences such as gender, as a number of recent studies have reported a positive relationship (Siebert, 2003; Piechurska-Kuciel & Bernat, 2008). Contextual or situational variables, as well as ethnic and nationality differences, could further be studied for the light they may shed on the nature (and possibly stability or malleability) of learner beliefs. Indeed, a number of studies on context/setting specificity (Rifkin, 2000; Bernat, 2006), and ethnicity (Horwitz, 1999; Siebert, 2003), have produced varied results in relation to these variables and language learner beliefs, yet these were predominantly quantitative in nature. Qualitative studies on contextual variables impacting learner beliefs which have already begun to receive attention in recent years (for some studies, see Kalaja & Barcelos, 2003) and will no doubt continue to extend our knowledge on their influence on learners’ metacognitive processes.

The mismatch between teacher and learner beliefs presents a third challenge for the field. Future research might include multi-method approaches to investigating ways of dealing with the mismatch between teacher and learner beliefs in the classroom. The majority of studies sighted report significant belief differences between teachers and their learners (see Bernat, 2007). For example, students tend to hold a higher preference for learning grammar, translation, vocabulary and pronunciation exercises, and often hold unrealistic expectations about the length of time it takes to learn a foreign language. Indeed, significant differences between student and teacher beliefs might create tension in the classroom, thus emphasizing the need for studies to explore the most productive ways of minimizing this gap.

Consequently, there is a need to investigate possible intervention measures and their effectiveness in changing or restructuring learner beliefs in the classroom context, should they be found to be unproductive, unrealistic, or hampering the acquisition process. The field of language learner beliefs has yet to determine the possibility and plausibility of changing learner beliefs in the classroom context. Almost two decades ago, Horwitz (1988) reported that over a third of the students in her study held misconceptions with respect to the length of time it takes to learn a foreign language, to name but one of many instances of unproductive beliefs. Horwitz’s findings are corroborated by a number of other more recent studies (e.g., Siebert, 2003; Bernat, 2007; Kern, 1995). Whether learner beliefs can (and even ought to) be changed in the classroom context is a currently much under-researched area, reflected by the paucity of literature on the issue. Dole and Sinatra (1994) point out that “most often studies did not examine long term changes in beliefs by re-administering dependent measures over time” (p. 253). Yet, a number of psycho-cognitive (among others) theories exist (e.g., see Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Chaiken, 1987) which could provide a theoretical framework for future studies exploring the possibilities of belief change and change continuity in the SLA context. However, a cautionary note is due here. Namely, we need to have a better understanding and a stronger foundation of learner beliefs, before any intervention measures are applied. Over a decade ago, Mantle-Bromley (1995) argued that “we do not yet know enough about the nature of incoming students’ beliefs to design effective curricular intervention addressing those beliefs” (p. 377), a view which was more recently expressed by Woods (2003). Whether we have already gained enough knowledge in this area in order to successfully intervene with theoretically sound intervention methods is still, in the view of some, a matter for debate and research.

7. Conclusion
This discussion has attempted to elucidate some important theoretical and empirical contributions various often opposing perspectives have made to the SLA field in general and to language learner beliefs research in particular. It has provided a synopsis of research studies into learner perceptions and beliefs about language learning which were underpinned by both the cognitivist and social research paradigms.
On a pragmatic level, a number of recommendations have been made concerning future directions of learner beliefs research. These include investigating the actual (as opposed to perceived) impact of language learner beliefs in SLA, investigating the relationship between learner beliefs and other individual and contextual variables, as well as examining the congruence of learner and teacher beliefs in the classroom context and exploring ways of minimizing possible gaps.

On an ideological level, it has proposed the sociocognitive framework for SLA research, but in particular language learner beliefs studies. The potential convergences of both the cognitive and sociocultural perspectives appear optimistically fruitful and perhaps worthy of further consideration. Rangelova and Meskill (2000) suggest that cognitive orientations have the potential help to fill in gaps in social-cultural studies related to second language learning, and that clinical experiments that illustrate certain architectures and tendencies of the mind can and ought to be incorporated into sociocultural theory and practices. Such established lenses can be used to gain additional perspective on learning phenomena in situ. Likewise, socially oriented enterprises also need to be factored into cognition-based research.

Reflective of the socio-cognitive matrix is a poignant analogy once given by Michael Sharwood Smith in a conference paper. Sharwood observed that “the ‘cake’ of SLA is cognitive, while the ‘icing’ is social” (cited from Zuengler & Miller, 2006, p. 36). Crucially, while the focus on the ‘icing’ is experiencing an exponential rise in some SLA circles, we ought not forget the biological cognitive bases of language and thought processes while being enticed by the more recently emergent purely positivist research paradigms. Clearly, each perspective has different yet important offerings.

Combining the discussed methods and assumptions of both traditions - one concerning metacognitive/cognitive elements of the workings of the mind, the other with socially construed understandings of these same processes - can certainly aid in addressing the shortcomings of both orientations: one being exclusionarily scientific, the other often accused of lacking scientific rigor. As Rangelova and Meskill (2000) conclude, “where differences in orientations in the ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ sciences have more frequently been pitted one against the other in paradigm wars, terminological battles, and the wrestling of ideologies” (p. 6), a convergence of these respective stances can indeed emerge. 

References
Alanen, R. (2003). A sociocultural approach to young language learners’ beliefs about language learning. In P. Kalaja, & A. M. F. Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New research approaches (pp. 131-153). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.

Arnold, J. (Ed). (1999). Affect in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.

Barker, R. (1978). Ecological Psychology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Banya, K., & Cheng, M. (1997, March). Beliefs about language learning ‑ A study of beliefs of teachers' and students' cultural setting.  Paper presented at the 31st Annual Meeting of the Teachers of Speakers of Other Languages, Orlando, Florida.

Bernat, E. (2007).  EFL learners’ and teachers’ mismatched beliefs about language learning in an academic setting.In C. Gitsaki (Ed.), Language and languages: Local and global tensions (pp. 171-184). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Bernat, E. (2006a, June). Assessing EAP learners’ beliefs about language learning in the Australian context. Asian EFL Journal, 8(2). Retrieved May 31, 2008 from
http://www.asian-efl-  journal.com/June_06_eb.php.

Bernat, E. (2006b). Learners’ contributions to language learning: Preconceived notions and psychological type.  Paper presented at the XVIIIth International Conference on Second/Foreign Language Acquisition, Szczyrk, Poland, May 18-20.

Bernat, E., & Gvozdenko, I. (2005, June). Beliefs about language learning: Current knowledge, pedagogical implications and new research directions. TESL-EJ, 9(1). Retrieved May 28, 2008 from http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej33/a1.html.

Bernat, E. & Lloyd, R. (2007, August). Exploring the role of gender in EFL learners’ beliefs about language learning. Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 7, 79-91. Retrieved July 1, 2008 from
http://www.newcastle.edu.au/group/ajedp/Archive/Volume_7/v7-bernat_lloyd.html

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.

Brunswick, E. (1943). Organismic achievement and environmental probability. The Psychological Review, 50, 155-272.

Breen, M. P. (Ed.) (2001). Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

Candlin, C. N., & Sarangi, S. (2004). Making applied linguistics matter. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-8.

Cangarajah, A. S. (2006). TESOL at 40: What are the Issues? TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 9-34.

Cantwell, R. H. (1998). The development of beliefs about learning from mid-to-late adolescence. Educational Psychology, 18(1),471-495.

Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model or persuasion.  In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium, Volume 5 (pp. 3-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Chawhan, L. & Oliver, R. (2000). What beliefs do ESL students hold about language learning? TESOL in Context, 10(1),20-26.

DeKeyser, R., & Juffs, A. (2005). Cognitive considerations in L2 learning. In E. Henkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 437-454). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dewaele, J-M. (2005). Investigating the psychological and emotional dimensions in instructed language learning: Obstacles and possibilities. The Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 367-380.

Dole, A. J., & Sinatra, G. M. (1994).Social psychology research on beliefs and attitudes: Implications for research on learning from text. In A. Garner, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and instruction with text (pp. 245-265). NJ: Hillsdale.

Dufva, H. (2003). Beliefs in dialogue: A Bakhtinian view. In P. Kalaja & A. M. F. Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New research approaches (pp. 131-153). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.

Epstein, S. (1990). Cognitive-experiential self-theory.  In L. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research(pp. 165-192).NY: Guilford.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculation about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. E. Weinert, & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 1-9).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Goldman, A. I. (1986). Epistemology and cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Graham, S. (2006). A study of students’ metacognitive beliefs about foreign language learning and their impact on learning. Foreign Language Annals, 39(2),296-309.

Guiora, A. Z. (2005). The language sciences – the challenges ahead: a farewell address. Language Learning, 55, 183-189.

Halliday, M. A. K. (2001). New ways of meaning: The challenge to applied linguistics. In E. Fill & P. Mühlhaüsler (Eds.), The ecolinguistics reader (pp. 175-202). London: Continuum.

Hosenfeld, C. (2003). Evidence of emergent beliefs of a second language learner: A diary study. In P. Kalaja, & A. M. F. Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New research approaches (pp. 131-153). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.

Horwitz, E. K. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 112-126.

Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning foreign language students. The Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 283-294.

Horwitz, E. K. (1999).Cultural and situational influences on foreign language learners' beliefs about language learning: A Review of BALLI studies [Special Issue]. System, 27(4),557-576.

Horwitz, E. K., & Young, D. (Eds.) (1989). Language anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implications. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 207-242). Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Kalaja, P., & Barcelos, A. M. F. (Eds.) (2003). Beliefs about SLA: new research approaches. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.

Kern, R. G. (1995). Students’ and teachers’ beliefs about language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 28(1), 71-92.

Kim-Yoon, H. (2000). Learner beliefs about language learning, motivation and their relationship: A study of EFL learners in Korea. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin.

Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Lantolf, J. P. (2006). Language emergence: Implications for Applied Linguistics – a sociocultural perspective. Applied Linguistics, 27(4),717-728.

Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Research methodology on language development from a complex systems perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 200-213.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). Language acquisition and language use from a chaos/complexity theory perspective. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives (pp. 33-46). London: Continuum.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18(2),141-165.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). Second language acquisition research: Staking out the territory. TESOL Quarterly, 25(2), 315-350.

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.

Lewin, K. (1943). Defining the ‘field at a given time’. Psychological Review, 50, 292-310.

Long, M. H., & Doughty, C. J. (2003). SLA and cognitive science. In C. J. Doughty, & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 866-869). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Malinowski, B. (1967). A diary in the strict sense of the term. London: Routledge.

Mantle-Bromley, C. (1995). Positive attitudes and realistic beliefs: Links to proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 79(3),372-386.

Oxford, R. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: Concepts and relationships. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 41(4),271-278.

Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies and beyond: A look at strategies in the context of styles.  In S. S. Magnan (Ed.), Shifting the instructional focus to the learner (pp. 35-55). Middlebury, VT: Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.

Peacock, M. (2001). Pre-service ESL teachers’ beliefs about second language learning: a longitudinal study. System, 29(2), 177-195.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: Brown.

Piechurska-Kuciel, E., & Bernat, E. (2008). Gender differences in language learner beliefs of Polish high school students acquiring English. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Potschka, M. (2004, July). Innate and social characteristics of language capacity: Chomsky, Searle, and beyond. Internet-Zeitschrift für Kulturwissenschaften, 15. Retrieved from http://www.inst.at/trans/15Nr/01_2/potschka15.htm on 28th May, 2007.

Puchta, J. (1999, April). Beyond materials, techniques, and linguistic analysis: The role of motivation, beliefs, and identity.  Plenary paper, 33rd International IATEFL Annual Conference, Edinburgh.

Pulvermuller, F., & Schumann, J. H. (1994). Neurobiological mechanisms of language acquisition. Language Learning, 44, 681-734.

Rangelova, K., & Meskill, C. (2000). Relocating the ‘cognitive’ in socio-cognitive views of second language learning. In R. Rapp (Ed.) Linguistics on the way into the new millennium: Proceedings of the 34th Colloquium of Linguistics. London: Peter Lang-Verlag Publishers.

Rifkin, B. (2000).Revising beliefs about foreign language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 33(4),394-420.

Rust, F. (1994). The first year of teaching. It's not what they expected. Teaching and Teacher Education,10, 205-217.

Ryan, M. P., (1984) Monitoring text comprehension: Individual differences in epistemological standards. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 248-258.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1983). Beyond the purely cognitive: Belief systems, social cognitions, and metacognitions as driving forces in intellectual performance. Cognitive Science, 7(4),329-363.

Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3),498-504

Schumann, J. H. (1998). The neurobiology of affect in language. MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Schumann, J. H., Crowell, S. E., Jones, N., Lee, N., Schuchert, S. A., & Wood, L. A. (2004). The Neurobiology of Learning: Perspectives from second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge University Press.

Siebert, L. (2003). Student and teacher beliefs about language learning. The ORTESOL Journal, 21, 7-39.

Tarone, E. (2000). Still wrestling with context in interlanguage theory. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 182-198.

Thomas, L. F., & Harri-Augstein, E. S. (1983). The self-organised learner as personal scientist: A conversational technology for reflecting on behaviour and experience.  In J. Adams-Webber, & J. C. Mancuso (Eds.), Applications of personal construct theory (pp. 223-250). Ontario: Academic Press Canada.

van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Victori, M., & Lockhart. W. (1995). Enhancing metacognition in self‑directed language learning .System, 23(2),223-234.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1979). Thought and language. Lisbon: Editions Antidote.

Weinert, F. E., & Kluwe, R. H. (Eds.) (1987). Metacognition, motivation and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Weinstein, C. E. (1994). A look to the future: what we might learn from research on beliefs.  In R. Garner, & P. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and about instruction with text (295-302). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

White, C. (1999). Expectations and emergent beliefs of self-instructed language learners [Special Issue]. System, 27(4),443-467.

Widdowson, H. (2007). Un-applied linguistics and communicative language teaching: A reaction to Keith Johnson's review of Notional Syllabuses. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17(2), 214–220.

Wilkinson, W. K., & Schwartz, N. H. (1989, March). Epistemological orientation: Its meaning and role in learning and instructional contexts. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California.

Wongsothorn, A. (2005). Ecological approach to ELT at university level. Paper presented at the CULI 2005 National Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, 3-7 December.

Woods, D. (2003). Social construction of beliefs in the language classroom. In P. Kalaja & A. M. F. Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New research approaches (pp. 131-153). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.

Yang, D. (1999). The relationship between EFL learners’ beliefs and learning strategy [Special Issue].System, 27(4),515-535.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies.  American Educational Research Journal, 73(2),614-628.

Zuengler, J., & Miller, E. R. (2006). Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives: Two parallel SLA worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 40(1),35-58.