On Discourse, Communication, and (Some) Fundamental Concepts in SLA Research

This article argues for a reconceptualization of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research that would enlarge the ontological and empirical parameters of the field. We claim that methodologies, theories, and foci within SLA reflect an imbalance between cognitive and mentalistic orientations, and social and contextual orientations to language, the former orientation being unquestionably in the ascendancy. This has resulted in a skewed perspective on discourse and communication, which conceives of the foreign language speaker as a deficient communicator struggling to overcome an underdeveloped L2 competence, striving to reach the “target” competence of an idealized native speaker (NS). We contend that SLA research requires a significantly enhanced awareness of the contextual and interactional dimensions of language use, an increased “emic” (i.e., participant‐relevant) sensitivity towards fundamental concepts, and the broadening of the traditional SLA data base. With such changes in place, the field of SLA has the capacity to become a theoretically and methodologically richer, more robust enterprise, better able to explicate the processes of second or foreign language (S/FL) acquisition, and better situated to engage with and contribute to research commonly perceived to reside outside its boundaries.

The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Acquisition Edina Torlakovi! (edina_@scs.carleton.ca) Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies; Cognitive Science, Carleton University 2214 Dunton Tower, 1125 Colonel By Drive Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6 Andrew Brook (abrook@ccs.carleton.ca) Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies; Cognitive Science, Carleton University 2216 Dunton Tower, 1125 Colonel By Drive Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6 Abstract In this paper we argue that in order to resolve the controversy in Second Language Acquisition research concerning whether or not direct instruction is needed for second language acquisition, we need to use a broader sense of ‘consciousness’ than is used by second language researchers. Block's classification of consciousness into Access and Phenomenal consciousness seems promising. We associate Phenomenal consciousness with explicit knowledge and suggest that explicit instruction is useful. It enhances linguistic competence. Introduction This paper addresses a question that is of great importance for Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research. The question is 'what should the role of consciousness in second language (L2) acquisition be?' It is important to answer this question in order to resolve one of the biggest debates in the field of SLA, namely whether or not direct instruction is necessary or even valuable in L2 acquisition. SLA researchers interested in consciousness should start by considering what others have to say about it. This is necessary to develop a comprehensive picture of consciousness. The debate in SLA needs to be informed by an adequate notion of what consciousness is. Only in this way can we reach an adequate view about its role. One place to start is to consider what is said about consciousness in philosophy. We will start by comparing the different definitions of consciousness used by SLA researchers and by philosophers. Next we will introduce the controversy over whether L2 learners need to be conscious of grammar rules to learn the target language. Then we will examine Block’s well-known distinction between access (A) consciousness and phenomenal (P) consciousness and where language, or more specifically second language, fits into this categorization. With this, we might be one step closer to understanding the role of consciousness in L2 learning/acquisition. Issues and Positions Definition(s) of Consciousness How do SLA theorists and philosophers think about consciousness? As it turns out, quite differently. Let us look at some of the similarities and differences. When SLA theorists talk about consciousness, they use the term in a quite narrow sense. Schmidt (1995), for example, points out that there are three different senses of the term 'consciousness' as it is used in SLA theory: levels of perception, noticing, and understanding. By contrast, philosophers have a broader understanding of the term. According to Clark (2001), the possibilities include wakefulness, self-awareness, availability for verbal report, availability for control of intentional action, and qualia. To determine if all these terms are discussing the same, complex entity, they need to be further defined. If one desires to apply concepts of one discipline to another (philosophy to SLA in this case), this is something that we need to know. According to Schmidt, ‘levels of perception’ could be defined as levels of a process of obtaining and perhaps processing information. Schmidt defines ‘noticing’ as rehearsal in short-term memory, while by ‘understanding’ he refers to rule understanding, i.e., grasping the meanings of rules and becoming thoroughly familiar with them. Definitions of the terms from Clark's list of possibilities might go as follows: wakefulness is defined as a state in which we are sensitive to our surroundings and in which we can process incoming information and respond to it appropriately. Self-awareness he defines as a capacity to represent ourselves and to be conscious of ourselves 'as distinct agents'. Availability for verbal report is the capacity to access our own inner states and to describe them using natural language, while qualia concerns how things feel to us. From the above, one can conclude that SLA theorists take consciousness to be something narrower than philosophers

Despite the existence of a vast growing literature on second language acquisition (SLA) research and a heated debate among second language (L2) researchers about the applicability of research to practice, there is scanty empirical evidence in this area (Nassaji, 2012). Accordingly, this paper reports on a study investigating in-service teachers' perspectives on the interface between SLA research and L2 teaching. A total number of 119 English language teachers responded to a questionnaire which collected both qualitative and quantitative data. The results revealed teachers' familiarity with SLA research. Although they held positive views towards the relevance of SLA research to language teaching practice, a low percentage of them indicated that they seek insights from research articles. Lack of time and ability were the most frequently reported reasons for not conducting SLA research. Similarly, teachers' lack of time and the difficulty associated with SLA research articles were the most frequently reported reasons for not reading these articles. Majority of the teachers appeared to conceive of teachers' and researchers' works as related and connected. However, in almost all cases a considerably higher percentage of MA teachers than their BA counterparts viewed SLA research as more relevant and useful for teaching purposes. Teachers also expressed their expectations from SLA research to address practical issues. Further, they highlighted practical aspects of SLA research as more relevant to their practice.

SLA Research and Language Teachingby Rod Ellis Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1997, 280 pp. Reviewed by David Pinto University of California, Los Angeles In SLA Research and Language Teaching Rod Ellis addresses the existing gap between Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research and language teaching in the classroom. After initially demonstrating its how the gap has developed and is noting continuing expansion, he attempts to bridge this gap. The book di- vided into six parts: Background; Making Research Accessible; The Application of Theory; Second Language Acquisition Research in the Classroom; The Teacher as Researcher; Conclusion. It is aimed at language teachers who are interested in what found SLA it research has to say about language learning but who, perhaps, have difficult to apply the findings to the classroom. Ellis examines some of the research findings of the last twenty years along with factors affecting their adoption in classroom teaching practices. explicit He presents the notions of implicit and knowledge and introduces a model is for using the research in this area to build a structural syllabus that as compatible with instructed language acquisition, opposed to naturalistic acquisition. To further bridge the gap, he suggests that teachers carry out research in their the criticisms of own classrooms and defends this practice against SLA academics. In the first part of the book Ellis examines the gap between SLA research and language teaching and also presents some ideas for bridging this gap. It seems that most SLA research in the 1960's focused on language pedagogy. There were two main approaches - research to investigate the relative effectiveness of differ- ent teaching methods and empirical study of how learners acquired an L2. The latter approach involved looking at individual learners and their errors. Teachers could easily relate to these studies which tended to be more rewarding than studies of methods in that they opened the way for further research. (p. 5). As a result, its studies of L2 learning continued and SLA was born As SLA grew, opposed it became more of an academic pursuit in own right as to a support for the practice of language teaching. There are large bodies (e.g. of research that have nothing to do with the classroom research on Universal Grammar). Other role of input fields of SLA have closer ties to the classroom. The study of the in and interaction L2 in acquisition and the study of form-focused in- struction both address issues of extreme relevance to language teachers. the However, methods they have adopted order to satisfy the demands of academia have knowledge, made their findings of questionable relevance to the classroom. As an academic discipline, SLA seeks to contribute to technical Issues in Applied Linguistics ISSN 1050-4273 Vol. 10 1999, Regents of the University of California No.

Reviewed by: Second language acquisition by Roumyana Slabakova Tania Ionin Second language acquisition. By Roumyana Slabakova. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Pp. xxi, 483. ISBN 9780199687275. $40. Introduction This book is a textbook of second language acquisition (SLA) written within the theoretical framework of the generative approach to SLA research. The intended readers are advanced undergraduate students and graduate students who have some background in linguistics, in particular in syntax and semantics. The text is intended first and foremost for students with a prior background in generative linguistics. While the main linguistic concepts are explained when they are introduced, such explanations are necessarily brief, and students with no prior background in linguistics would find the more technical parts of the text somewhat difficult to follow. However, students or other readers who have a general interest in language and/or language acquisition, but lack a background in generative linguistics, should still be able to follow the main concepts presented in the book. This textbook is quite unique in that, while its focus is on theoretical research on SLA, it explicitly makes the link to potential pedagogical relevance of the research findings. Brief summary The book consists of thirteen chapters, divided into three parts. Each chapter ends with a section of exercises; at the end of the book are a glossary, references, and an index. Part I, ‘Language’, provides a brief overview of the relevant background information that readers need to have in order to fully appreciate the rest of the book. Ch. 1, ‘Language architecture’, lays out the central argument of generative linguistics for the innateness of language and introduces the reader to several famous proposals on the structure of the language faculty. Ch. 1 then addresses the task faced by a second language learner and lays out the logic of the methodology used in generative SLA research. Ch. 2, ‘Language variation’, walks the reader through the history of the generative study of language variation, from principles and parameters through the minimalist program. Like Ch. 1, Ch. 2 ends by considering the implications of the theoretical linguistic research for the learning task of a second language learner. The goal of Ch. 3, ‘The psychological reality of language in use’, is to prepare the reader for later chapters that address second language processing by reviewing the central models and findings of the literature on language processing and psycholinguistics more generally. Part II, ‘Language acquisition’, has the goal of placing the study of SLA into the study of language acquisition as a whole by considering a number of different language-acquisition scenarios. The focus of this part is on the respective contributions of age of acquisition and of input quantity and quality to the task of language acquisition. Ch. 4, ‘The critical period hypothesis’, goes over the history of critical period studies and addresses the debate about the existence of critical or sensitive periods in SLA. This chapter also considers the role of input, bringing together a number of quite distinct phenomena, including variable input, comparisons between heritage speakers and second language learners, and variability among native speakers at different educational levels. Ch. 5, ‘First language acquisition, two first languages’, provides an overview of the process of first language acquisition; most of the chapter is devoted to monolingual first language acquisition, but the last section discusses simultaneous bilinguals, who form a natural link between monolinguals and adult second language learners. In Ch. 6, ‘Child second language, multilingual and heritage language acquisition, language attrition’, a variety of other types of language acquisition scenarios are discussed. Throughout this chapter, and especially in the last section, the focus is, once again, on the relative contributions of age of acquisition and input quantity and quality to the outcome of the language acquisition process. The position taken in this chapter, and [End Page e198] throughout the rest of the book, is that the effects of age can potentially be overridden by rich input, and that universal grammar remains active in SLA by adults. Part III, ‘Second language acquisition’, is the heart of the book. In addition to providing an overview of SLA research in the core areas of linguistics (with the one exception of...

This chapter examines the relationship between second language acquisition (SLA) research and learner corpus research (LCR). It has the dual aim of examining the usefulness of learner corpora for second language acquisition research and of outlining the importance of SLA theory for the design and analysis of learner corpora. In the early stages of LCR, the focus was on description rather than interpretation. This focus has gradually shifted, however, and efforts have been made in the LCR community towards a better grounding in SLA theory (Granger 2012a). Despite such evolution, second language researchers have been rather slow in taking advantage of learner corpora and their associated computerised methodologies (Myles 2005), and LCR is not always fully informed by SLA research, making collaboration between the two fields sometimes more of a wish than a reality (Hasselgard 1999). The chapter will take stock of bidirectional moves (more LCR in SLA and more SLA theory in LCR) by providing a survey of some SLA studies informed by learner corpus data, and it will argue the theoretical and empirical case for the need for SLA research methodologies to move into the digital age and for LCR to take full account of developments in SLA theorising. Of central concern to both fields is the need for good learner data, as argued by SLA theorists and LC researchers alike: ‘It seems self-evident that one of the most precious resources in SLA research, alongside a clear conceptual framework, is a good quality dataset to work on’ (Myles and Mitchell 2004: 173). ‘There is nothing new in the idea of collecting learner data. Both FLT and SLA researchers have been collecting learner output for descriptive and/or theory building purposes since the disciplines emerged’ (Granger 2004: 123–4). Learner corpora seem to provide the ideal meeting ground to discuss the data needs of both fields. This chapter is written from the perspective of SLA theory. On the one hand, it considers why learner corpora are essential to advance and enhance our endeavours towards a better understanding of the nature of second language (L2) learner development and, on the other hand, it specifies what kind of corpora are needed if we are to bring answers to some of the current questions SLA theory is investigating, before providing illustrations from recent studies.

The Douglas Fir Group Framework as a Resource Map for Language Teacher Education

Conceptions of Language Input in Second Language Acquisition: A Case of Vietnamese EFL Teachers

Oxford, The Study of Second Language Acquisition by Rod UK: Oxford University Press, 1994. vii + 824pp. Scarlett L. Ellis. Reviewed by Robbins University of California, Los Angeles of second language acquisition (SLA) research, now more is expanding rapidly and widening the scope both of its research interests and perspectives (e.g., cognitive, grammatical, neural, pragmatic, and socio-interactive aspects of language learning and use) and of its applicability to other fields (e.g., anthropology, cognitive psychology, second/foreign language teaching, sociology, theoretical linguistics). With three journals devoted primarily to SLA research (e.g., Language Learning, Second Language Research, Studies in Second Language Acquisition) and numerous others regularly publishing articles on the topic (e.g., Applied Language Learning, Applied Linguistics, Issues in Applied Linguistics, TESOL Quarterly), the task of presenting a comprehensive review of the literature on SLA has become a daunting one indeed. Ellis' The Study of Second Language Acquisition is an attempt to accomplish just that task. Ellis claims that the acceptance of SLA as a discipline in its own right depends upon its status as a defined field of inquiry and the existence of a body of research and knowledge related to it (p. 3). With this volume, he sets out to satisfy these defining criteria and thereby to establish SLA as a discipline in its own right. He first delimits the range and scope of the field of SLA research and then comprehensively reviews the existing SLA literature in a logically organized fashion so as to demonstrate the conceptual coherence of this broad, multi-perspective, and somewhat The field than 25 years old, diverse field. The Study of Second Language Acquisition is aimed primarily at future second/foreign language teachers who, Ellis argues, would benefit substantially from knowledge of SLA research. This book can provide teachers with invaluable insights and help them to make their assumptions about SLA explicit and, as a consequence, to more effectively evaluate their pedagogic practices (p. 4). The text is also aimed at introductory level SLA students and SLA researchers in need of a reference text. The text consists of 15 chapters organized into seven parts and is supplemented by an extensive glossary, a bibliography, and author and subject indices. Ellis sets out in Part One to define the field of SLA research by considering the basic questions which it seeks to answer and to Issues in Applied Linguistics ISSN 1050-4273 Vol. 6 No. Regents of the University of California

In recent years, a number of researchers in the field of second language acquisition have voiced discontent regarding the tendency of second language acquisition (SLA) research to be conducted within a framework of cognitive science (Firth and Wagner, 1997; Atkinson, 2002; Johnson, 2004). Watson-Gegeo (2004) expresses this same discontent, and goes beyond it to call for a new SLA paradigm, the ‘language socialization paradigm’. In this article, I point out the various ways in which Watson-Gegeo has misunderstood the nature of cognitive science research in general, and SLA research in particular, and show why her call should go unheeded.

This paper argues that the goal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) research should be to construct a reliable evidence-base with ‘engineering power’ and generality upon which the design of future CALL software and activities can be based. In order to establish such an evidence base for future CALL design, it suggests that CALL research needs to move away from CALL versus non-CALL comparisons, and focus on investigating the differential impact of individual attributes and affordances, that is, specific features of a technology which might have an impact on learning. Further, in order to help researchers find possible explanations for the success or failure of CALL interventions and make appropriate adjustments to their design, it argues that these studies should be conducted within the framework of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) theory and research. Despite this, a recent review of research examining the effectiveness of CALL in primary and secondary English as a Foreign Language (EFL) found that CALL vs. non-CALL comparisons are still common and studies focusing on individual coding elements are rare. Further, few studies make links with SLA and few measure linguistic outcomes using measures developed in the field of SLA. One reason for this may be poor reporting of methods and difficulty in obtaining the instruments used in SLA research. Reporting guidelines and the use of the IRIS database ( www.iris-databse.org ) are introduced as possible solutions to these problems.

The field of second language acquisition (SLA), a relatively new field of academic study, traces its roots only to the second half of the last century. The field of SLA has roots in various disciplines and areas of study, including the fields of child first language (L1) acquisition, linguistics, psychology, and language pedagogy. Thus, SLA has moved well beyond a one-sided focus on learner internal mechanisms, be they linguistic or cognitive. A great deal of SLA research has concentrated on differences between L1 and second language (L2) acquisition in terms of ultimate attainment. Some SLA researchers argue that learning is based on experience of language usage. More recent SLA research conducted within a cognitivist approach has been designed to provide online measures of processing and interpretation of the L2 and has thus shifted somewhat away from the analysis of naturalistic corpora.

SLA research in postmethod era: Neglects, misunderstandings and alternatives

Japanese has figured frequently in second language acquisition (SLA) research, but more often than not it appears as the first language (L1) rather than the target. In this article, first I discuss the problems addressed and the insights obtained in these studies. I then consider two issues. One is what the field of SLA research should include. I suggest that it should include two categories, namely Core SLA Research, where second language (L2) linguistic knowledge is investigated, and Broad SLA research, where researchers study factors that influence the development of L2 knowledge. The other issue is what we can expect in Core SLA research concerning the L2 acquisition of Japanese. This article illustrates how studies of the L2 acquisition of Japanese can contribute to our understanding of SLA.

Considering the issues of EFL (English as a Foreign Language) teacher education, recruitment, and supervision system in Iran, this study investigated the Iranian EFL teachers’ familiarity, involvement with, accessibility to, and their judgments about usefulness of SLA (Second Language Acquisition) research. The sources the teachers consult about teaching and SLA research were also explored. Moreover, the mentioned issues were explored in terms of the teachers’ majors in order to find any significant associations between the teachers’ majors and the raised issues or any significant differences between the two participating groups of teachers’ perspectives in the above-mentioned subjects. Quantitative data were collected through a questionnaire. 142 participating Iranian EFL teachers were divided into two groups of TEFL (Teaching English as a Foreign Language) and Non-TEFL majors based on their university degrees and their opinions were compared. Significant associations were found between the teachers’ majors and their familiarity with and their access to SLA research and materials. Moreover, significant differences were found between the opinions of two groups of teachers about the relevance and usefulness of SLA research for classroom teaching as well as two of the items under the topic of teacher-researcher relationship. However, both groups of the Iranian EFL teachers seemed to be willing to cooperate with the SLA researchers and no significant difference was revealed between them. To improve the condition, creating a culture of collaboration as well as the amending of the language teacher education programs and supervision system are vital steps to be taken in Iran.