English language teaching in its social context candlin christopher n1 , mercer neil

", a guiding itructure is to take three main perspectives on English language interprJtatio.r ofl"...r"rr' and teachers' strategies and goals in the classroom context, theirprr.ptr... On

.=-.8

English Language Teaching in its social Gontext

_ - r l l i s h L a n g u a g e T e a c h i n g i n i t s s o c i a l c o n t e x t o f f e r s s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c , e t h n o g r a p h i c , a n d , , , a l - p s y c h o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e s o n T E S 0 L t e a c h i n g a n d l e a r n i n g a n d i n t r o d u c e s t h e = a n t li t e r a t u r e o n s e c o n d l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n I t p r e s e n t s E n g l i s h l a n g u a g e t e a c h i n g a r i e t y o f s p e c i f i c i n s t i t u t i o n a l , g e o g r a p h i c a n d c u l t u r a l c o n t e x t s '

- - l s Reader o f f e r s p e o p l e u n f a m i l i a r w i t h r e s e a r c h i n t h i s f i e l d a n o v e r a l l u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f = u i s s u e s i n c o n t e m p o r a r y E n g l i s h l a n g u a g e t e a c h i n g w h i l e a l l o w i n g t h e m o r e e x p e r i e n c e d = a d e r t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e l a t e h i s o r h e r e x p e r i e n c e s t o t h e th e o r i e s p r e s e n t e d '

M A i n E d u c a t i o n ( A p p l i e d L i n g u i s t i c s ) u i s i t w w w o p e n a c u k / a p p l i e d - l i n g u i s t i c s

M a c q u a r i e U n i v e r s i t y i n t r o d u c e d d i s t a n c e v e r s i o n s o f i t s i n f l u e n t i a l o n - c a m p u s d e g r e e s i n ] 9 9 4 a n d n o w h a s s t u d e n t s i n o v e r t h i r t y c o u n t r i e s B o t h t h e P o s t g r a d u a t e D i p l o m a

a n d th e M a s t e r s a r e o f f e r e d i n t h r e e v e r s i o n s : A p p l i e d L i n g u i s t i c s , A p p l i e d L i n g u i s t i c s ( T E S O L ) a n d A p p l i e d L i n g u i s t i c s ( L i t e r a c y ) C r e d i t s a r e fr e e l y t r a n s f e r a b l e b e t w e e n t h e

and N{ercer's Reader provides kev insights into contemporarv knon.ledge

introduction to the interaction betu,een theorv, research and professional practiceu'hich lies at the heart of applied linguistics.' Guv Cook, IJniversitli oJ Readtng, iK

'This

volume links the teaching of English to the development of autonomousindividuals rvho prize debate, negotiation and interaction, and rvho will ultimatelv beable to build giobal communications of like-minded English speakers around thervorld Readers u'ill find in this collection of excellent papeis some of the classic mile-

'Experienced

lvill find this series forms a coherent basis to develop their understanding of iurrent trends,sociocultural diversitv, and topical interests in teaching English as a second or foreignlanguage around the u.orld All three volumes pror.ide ample flexibilitv for discussion,

'This

series provides a collection of essential readings r,r'hich r,r'ili not only provide theTEFL/TESOL student and teacher rvith access to the most up,to-date thinking andapproaches to the subject but u'ill gir.e anv person interested in the subject an overvi,ew ofthe phenomenon of the use and usage of English in the modern '"vorid Perhaps moreimportantly, this series r'r'ill be crucial to those students w.ho do not have available to thernarticles that provide both a w'ide spectrum of information and the necessary analytical tools

to investigate the language further.' Joseph A Fole1, Southeast Asia lLinisten of Education

'The

strong representation of the seminal Angio-Australian development of the Europeanfunctional tradition in the'studv oflanguage and language education makes this a refreshinglvbracing series, r.vhich should be u'idelr used in teacher education for English langua=g

'ln

a principled and accessibie manner, these three volumes bring together major."vritings onessential topics in the studv of English language teaching Ther.provide broad coverage ofcurrent thinking and debate on major issues, providing an invaluable resource foi the

3 3 9

3 3 9

3 4 2

The editors and publishers r,r'ould like to thank the follou'ing for permission to usecopyright material:

learning: a neglected situation' in Studres in Second Language Acquisition,7 , 1985

Michael P Bte.n a.rd SEAMEO Regional Language Centre for'Navigating the discourse:

on what is learned in the language classroom' in Proceedings of the 1997 RELCSeminar

Universitv) Includes material in Fig 2 adapted from Learning Styles in Adult MigrantEducationbyWilling K., also rvith permission from the National Centre for Engiish

A Suresh Cangaraja and TESOL for'Critical ethnographv of a Sri Lankan classroom:ambiguities in student opposition to reproduction through ESOL' in TESOL @Lartetly,

Rod Ellis for'second ianguage acquisition research and language pedagogy' in Sl,4 Research

Oxford Universitv Press

Patsv M Lightborvn and Nina Spada for'Factors affecting second language learning' in How

Lightbown and Nina Spada 1999.) Reproduced bv permission of Oxford UniversityPress

Michael Long and John Benjamin's Publishing Co for'Focus on form: a design feature inlanguage teaching methodolog ,-' in Fotetgn Language Research in a Cross-cultural Perspective.Ediiedbv K de Bot, R.B Ginsberg and C Krausch John Benjamin's Publishing Co.,

1 9 9 1

A C I ( N O W L E D G E M E N T S X i i i

Rosamond Mitchell and Florence Mvles for'Second language learning: kev concepts andissues' in Second Language LearningTheories, 7999

T ) n , h i n n V n r r i v 1 9 9 Q I u L ' t t L r y

discourse' in Working Papers in Applted L)nguistics,Vol 4, Thames Vallev Universitv, I 998.Peter Skehan for'Comprehension and production strategies in language iearning'in.4Cognitive Approach to Language Learntng bv Peter Skehan ( Oxford Universitv Press 1998.;Reproduced bv permission of Oxford Unir-ersitv Press

i-rolders of works reprinted tn Engltsh LanguageTbaching in its Social Context, this has notlreen possible in everv case Thev u-ould lr.elcome correspondence from individuals or.ompanies thev have been unable to trace

\\'e n'ould like to thank the authors u'ho contributed their chapters, as rvell as colleaguess'ithin and outsideThe Open Universitv and Macquarie Universitv rvho gave advice on thelontents Special thanks are due to the follorving people for their assistance in theproduction of this book

Helen Boyce (course manager)

Pam Burns and Libbl'Brill (course secretaries)

Lrz Freeman (Copublishing)

\anette Re-vnolds, Frances Wilson and the staff of the Resource Centre of the NationalCentre for English LanguageTeaching and Research, Macquarie Universitv

Critical readers

ProfessorVijav K Bhatia (Department of English, Citv Universitr', Hong Kong)

Geoff Thompson (Applied English Language Studies Unit, Liverpool Universitv, UK)Professor Leo van Lier (Educational Linguistics, Universitv of Monterev, USA)

External assessor

Professor Ronald Carter (Department of English Studies, Nottingham Universitq UK)

Developmental testers

Ilona Czirakl'(ltalv)

Eladyr Maria Norberto da Silva (Brazil)

Chitrita Mukerjee (Australia)

Dorien Gonzales (UK)

Patricia Williams (Denmark)

We have reproduced all original papers and chapters as faithfuilv as r,ve have been able,given the iner.itable restrictilns of rp"." and the need to produce a coherent and readable

r e t a i n e d a : i n t h e o r i g i n a l te x t s

Christopher N Gandlin

and Neil Mercer

I N T R O D U C T I O N

: n Macquarie Universitr'-, in Svdnev, Australia, and The Open University, in Milton

: study at Master's level, the partnership brought together The Open University's

: uistics and language education, backed bv its or,vn existing distance learning programme.'

collection of articles in this book and its trl-o companion volumes are one result of that aboration.While the edited coliections har.e been designed as one part of an overall study: {ramme, complemented b1'other learning and studv materials comprising study guides, i accompanving video and audio recordings, the-v stand alone as extensive vet focusedliections of articles rvhich address ket contemporarv issues in English language teaching

I a p p l i e d l i n g u i s t i c s

.{ major concern in editing these three volumes has been t}re desire to present Englishrrguage teaching (ELT) in a varietv ofspecihc institutional, geographic and cultural contexts.:{ence, as far as possible across the three r,olumes, we have attempted to highllght debate,.cussion and illustration ofcurrent issues from different parts ofthe English-speaking and:rqlish-using world, including those rvhere English is not learned as a first language In doing.'ris rve recognize that English language teaching comprises a global communitv of teachers.rd learners in a range ofsocial contexts

Itis Engltsh LanguageTeaching in jts Social Context rvhich is the title of this second volume:.r the series, and it lvill be useful to decide earlv on lvhat lve mean bv this term.We have number of interpretations and perspectives in mind One that is central is that of the

:,ature and qualitv of language iearning No language teaching and learning takes place:rowever, in a classroom lvhich is isolated from the rvorld of experiences and personal ngagements and investments of learners outside the classroom itself In that sense the w.ider,acial context of life outside the classroom has an important effect on lvhat takes olace in thescinteractions betrveen learners and teachers, and among learners For manv j""rn"rs, therontexts outside the classroom are not onlv r,vhere they make use of the English they havelearned in class, but tiev can aiso constitute a por,verful incentive (or disincentive) for furtherlearning Moreover, it is not onlv the contexts of learning and using English that are

themselves rvitlin this interactive process of classroom teaching-and-learning Finall1., w.eneed to take account of the socio-cultural context bv rt.hich communicating partners in this

process evoke and create shared knou'ledge and use it for making sense together, in a sense

a structured coilection oi r.t.".tJa papers like this can do is to map out the territory, and fill

in enough of the topographical f""i i", so that the beginning reader can obtain an overalli-pr.rri"io., of it, urt{tiphr,, r,vhile the experienced reader can bring her or his own rich

"*p i r." of ttauelii.r! und-rn"p-.nuking to fill in the details of those territories of whichthev have special *'u r"., and knorvledge We need to be cautious, how'ever' No map is.r".,trul Th first maps lvere products of the cartographers of Europe, so their world was aEuro-centric o.r",

"rd, in their ou.n Sino-centric lval', those devised bv the Chinese were just

as biased Readers have been alerted, therefore, to a natural tendencv tow-ards a particular

iu.rgrrug" learning At the same time, maps have to be true to their territories, and it wouldU" JU.,i.a to igno"re a psvchological perspective on language learning, one which highlighted

as incentives for further

".td -o relined map-making In the same way, teachers do not justfollow a set ofpresented instructions, thev activelv create and chart their own Progressthrough the teriitories of learning in their orvn ciassrooms' Accordinglv, it isimportant that,,rch Jfo.rrr"d collection as this gii-es a major place to classroom-based research, in particular,

What a collection of papers needs to have, is an argument, one'i""'hich carries the reader

that amount Jf guidunce r-r"." rtt' Ultimatelv, though, r,vhether we have gauged the rightdegree of that giidu.r required, or simplv led readers bv the nose, only vou can say'WhatorrJh"u dorr

", a guiding itructure is to take three main perspectives on English language

interprJtatio.r ofl" r"rr' and teachers' strategies and goals in the classroom context, theirprr.ptr and their beliefs; and, finallr', a description and analvsis.of teachers' and learners't"huuiotr., and practices, rvho thev are, rvhat thev do, what thev think about languagelearning and rvhat their attitudes are'

How is language learning explained?

The argument begins rvith a focus on the explanation oJ language learning with a paper byRosamind Mitch;ll and Florence Mvles The authors outline a model of second languagelearning and identifv its kev factors.Three kev questions underpin all these factors:What isthe natirre of language? What is the nature of the language learning process? What arethe characterlstics of the second ianguage learner? In addressing these questions the paperidentifies the complementaritv of nature and nurture in language iearning, and relates whatresearch has to say about language learning rvith u.hat r,ve knolv about learning more

Language learning is clearl,v not just about processes It involves learners So, asking questions

"boit riho theselearners are and rvhat learner characteristics and factors affect language

: N T R O D U C T I O N 3

-arning, and in which rvays, is a centrai question for teachers of language Patsv Lightbor,vnlnd Nina Spada take up this necessarv dualism in their account of the cognitive and'rehavioural

re arner' As we u.ill see later in the argument of this book, there has to be a third aspect to:nv such account, namelv the influence of the social conditions of language learning on the

iearn them more or less r,vell or badlr', on the street, in the communitv, and in the u'orkplace

r, -otiuution-, aptitude, p.rro.rulitu, intelligence, learner preferences and learner beliefs, rvill:e high on any teacher's list, but so rvili factors of age, social background, gender and

d u c a t i o n a l a t t a i n m e n t

research-rnq and teaching is a kev element in lvhat some have referred to as the teacher as'reflective'practitioner Rod Ellis' paper on research and pedagogv in the context of second language

manating from practical classroom problems, or knowledge-driven research starting fromtheoretical hypotleses, are but trvo sides of the same coin At the heart are the practices ofrhe classroom, or encounters rvith the target language in other contexts That these worlds:,iteaching and research have often been at odds is an issue for this paper, and for this book

rultures ofteaching and researching and achieving at Ieast mutual understanding, ifnot activecollaboration.What is clear after reading Ellis is that it isn't going to be enough for teachers

re search One useful and productive ground for such collaboration is that of researching.earners'styles and strategiesin language learning, looking at what learners do as aspects of theirpersonality, or in response to problems and tasks that teaching, or just life itself, confronts

relationship between input to the learner, lr'hat the learner confronts, and u,'hat the learner

in this book, are the \4-ays in which learners neBotjate meaning, guided bv teachers, in theirroad towards understanding the foreign language

If negotiation of meaning smacks of the marketplace, then perhaps that is no bad imageior the exchange of language goods rvhich characterizes both classrooms and socialinteractions more generallv Estimating the values to be placed on these goods is, after all,u'hat a good deal of teaching (and learning) is all about Leo van Lier's, Celia Roberts'and Michael Breen's papers are all sited in the marketplace of learning and teaching It is time,then, to begin to look at the contexts oJlearning Nou-a nelv set of questions arise Howlearners interact rvith each other and other speakers, lvhat do thev do r,vhen they are learning

a language, what effect their attitudes, beliefs and feelings have on language learning, whatkinds of personal investment thev are prepared to make, holv far thev can draw on the supportofothers, what effects teaching has on learning, and to rvhat extent the social conditions andpriorities of the social rvorld outside the classroom, and the learners' piaces in that world,affect what learners do in classrooms and hou' effectivelv thev can learn'

second language learning map In fact, as u'e rvill see in the papers rvhich follor,v in thecollection, such questions make us redrau'our projection in a number of important ways:

to take account of the Iearning of strategic competence not merelv of language comPetence;

of the appraisal of learning sites, contexts and modes as kev variabies in language acquisition;

of the variably positive and negative effects of learners' social and personal commitment to

Ianguage learning; of the need to take into account the multiple identities of learners, affected

as they are by issues ofgender, class, race and po!\€r; and, especially, ofthe need to engage

in micro-exploration of the interactions of learners rvitl learners and learners with teachers,

or other target language speakers

In his paper, Leo van Lier drau.s on exactlv this shift of perspective towards the social

contextualisation and construction ofsecond language learning He also takes up in practice

many of the issues raised earlier in the Ellis paper, particuiarlv his account of interpretative

research.What he adds, however, in his account of the possible tt.pes of interaction and types

of discourse to be found in the second language classroom, is the importance of the effect

ofpower and control on rvhat kinds oftalk are encouraged, discouraged or even forbidden

Such issues are also central to Celia Roberts' paper w'ith its critical evaluation of more

traditional and cognitive approaches rvhich see second language learning as essentially a

matter of personal endeavour and accomplishment Her focus on learner identities and the

effects of learning contexts on language learning r'r'ithin an overall sociolinguistic and social

constructionist model, links learning to living in an original way, and, in so doing, addresses

some of the questions w.e identified earlier as important to the argument of this collection

of papers It is important to note, though, that this shift of emphasis is not one u,hich abandons

learning capacity.The point is to forge a connection betrveen both paradigms.This is in large

measure achieved in Michael Breen's paper on the social context of language learning In his

anthropological metaphor ofthe classroom as coral garden, teacher-researchers are directed

at the importance of the multiple discourses of the classroom, where w.hat is said and how

it is expressed among the participants of this cuitural rvorld takes on a key significance for

of the essential differences among language learners His defining characteristics of the

classroom as a special socio-cultural r.vorld, together r,vith his emphasis on the analysis of the

discourses of teaching and learning, offer the teacher-researcher a means by which he or she

can stand outside the realitl', much like a cartographer, and chart more dispassionately this

now newly-imagined and newlv-perspectivized setting

Strategies and goals in the classroom context

As active participants in teaching and learnin$, teachers and learners do not simply

inhabitants of Malinow'ki's coral garden (adopted and adapted bv Breen), they draw on them

to Pursue their orn-n strategic goals.Thus, in order to advance the argument of this active

participation, all the papers in this second major section of the book target the realization

of t}ese strategic goals in classroom action, and the unique role played bv teachers in the

facilitation and structuring of that action The way in rvhich teachers carry out this

refer to them as metaphors, in that thev stand for particular, ideologically invested systems of

belief, about language, about learning, and about teaching Like all metaphors they are to be

approached r,varily and treated rvith caution Lakoff and Johnson's critical account of the

'metaphors

rve live by'gives a sense of their porverful inf'luence.We make no apology for

being critical in this book of such language learning and language teaching metaphors In our

experience, and tlat of the authors of some of the papers in this section, methodoloqies

are frequentlv theorized rvithout a close grounding in teaching experience, and mau be

.,il1 ili1l iltm

di'n

,tr nm

rD

I N T R O D U C T I O N

.:rsensitive to particular local and cultural conditions Methods, on the other hand, mav shift., ildlv from one theoretical position about language and learning to another Whether they

i-rve to conceal the rich varietv of classroom language learning and teaching r'r.ork bv offering

It is important, therefore, to stand back and take a conceptual and historical perspective:: n'e lvant to understand horv such methods and methodologies came to be popular and.,,r u'idel)'adopted Such a perspective is provided bv Paul Knight's paper, surveving:cvelopments in ELT methodologv and illustrating some of their characteristic features-From this paper \rre come to see that despite their individualizing labels, manv methods andnethodologies share features in common, that thev are rarelv except in some extreme casesrursued in some'pure' form, and that, in the end, thev remain profoundlv unexplanatorv,i some of the ket-factors affecting language learning, both cognitive and social, that we havelentified earlier It is from this starting point that Jack Richards' paper begins Questioning

.rss concerned n-ith stipulating u-hat methods to follo*' and much more concerned with,liscovering what effective teachers actuallv do Resisting the deproJesstonalizlng effect of some

cractices of reflective and effective language teaching might be.What these practices are is

a matter of teachers'strategic choices in relation to some particular content, and takentogether with teachers' beliefs and theories about teaching and learning, these constitute arationale for teaching

The three papers that follow', bv Michael Long, David Nunan, andAnne Burns illustraterhese practices in different contexts and rvith different subject-matter, and involve distinctive

rhev all resist the concept of method, and focus instead on hor,v teachers' varied and.:ontingent procedures are the means bv u.hich the processes and products of language learningare made to interact Long's paper has as its central tenet the important distinction to be

sr-stematic nature of language) and a focus onJorms (that is, the teaching of isolated andunconnected sentence structures) What is important for the reader of Long's paper is hisreliance for his argument on experimentallv obtained evidence about learner behaviour Toreturn, if onll' briefly, to our map-making metaphor, Long displavs the indispensable value

of grounding conclusions about the shape of the second language learning territory incarefully observed and recorded data from learner performance

The issue of form and forms naturallv evokes a central area of content in languageteaching and learning, the approach that teachers take to the teaching of grammar, itself thetopic of David Nunan's paper.With grammar as its focus, lvhat is notable in Nunan's argument

is how the lvav w-e define grammar is contingent on ho'iv lve go about teaching it to learners

participatory, task-based approach to pedagogv, so strong has been the focus in ELT on thedidactic instruction of grammatical forms.Yet this paper makes such a connection, and in sodoing redefines grammar less as some asocial and technicist form than as a functional resource

get things done is the topic of Anne Burns'paPel; focusing in particular, though, on howteachers can assist learners to get things done in *'riting Drawing on work in systemicfunctional grammar and the concept of genre, she reports on a national project conducted

University, Svdnev, involving teachers in studving hor,v a genre-based approach to w'riting

could be used bv adult second language learners at the beginning stages oflearning a secondlanguage Of particular interest in the paper is her exposition of what she and her colleaguesrefer to as the'teaching-learning cvcle'.

We have emphasized the importance to our understanding of second language learning

has been and is a core theme of manv papers in this book There has, however, been a tacitassumption, though perhaps not so much in the paper bl Roberts earlier, that such contextscalled up differentiated, but essentiallt cooperatirz learners.That this mav not be so, and ofteni.r not so, is the theme of the two final papers in this second section of the book, those bySuresh Canagarajah and Keith Chick Both papers focus on the degree to which externalsocio-cultural factors, and learners' self-perceptions oftheir identities as learners ofEnglish,affect what thev do in class, and rvhat they are prepared to do in class, and thus ultimatelyimpinge on their second ianguage learning performance In particular, the papers identify'

p r o c e s s e s o f l e a r n e r s ' r e i s t a n c e , i n t h e c a s e o f C a n a g a r a j a h , a n d i n t h e c a s e o f C h i c k , l e a r n e r s '

consid-erable importance in discussions of the cultural appropriateness of some English languageteaching Both these papers have another significance, hor,vever, one r.r'hich relates to Ellis'earlier accounts ofresearching ianguage learning.The papers are valuable not only for theirinnovative re-examination of the goals and practices of language teaching, but also for theirclear and detailed accounting of a critical ethnographic research methodology intended to

wav in which t}e learning and teaching of English in particular is deeply embedded in thepoiiti.ul, social and educational fabric of post-colonial societies Once again they reinforceour vierv that the beliefs and ideologies of teachers about all aspects of their subject-matterand their practice have a profound effect on the planning and the moment-by-momentdecisions thev take in class.To refer to these latter as intuitive, or personal, downplays boththeir effect and our capacity to explore their underpinnings.That these are deepiy engendered

by the social contexualization of learning and teaching, and the educational, social andpolitical contexts ofclassroom practice can, after reading these latter papers, hardly be indoubt

Analysing teaching and learning

The importance of the anallsis of the interactions among learners and betlveen learnersand teachers to an understanding of the processes of ianguage learning has been a centralpart of the argument of this book Exploring these relationships has been both the provinceofresearchers as w'ell as ofteachers, and several papers in this collection have argued for

this distancing has been due to the dif{icultv of making the results of research necessarily anddirectlv applicable to changes in classroom practice, or to the design and delivery of inno-vative teaching and learning materials Nonetheless, there are studies of classroom behaviourw.hich can help teachers conceptualize those factors lvhich influence life in classrooms,directed at exploring the dual nature ofclassroom lessons, as pedagogic and as social events

lanquaqe Iearninq

D O O

Influential in this context is the u'ork of the Russian sociocultural psvchologist LevVygotsk,v Central toVvgotskv's theories about learning is the piace accorded to language as

I N T R O D U C T I O N

: onl\- a medium for exchanging and constructing information but also as a tool for' rking Language is seen bvVvgotskv both as a cultural and a cognitive tool, heiping us to:.:nize our thoughts but also used for reasoning, planning and revierving Of greatest :ihcance for the argument and the map of this book, then, isVygotskv's insistence that,::ninq is interactive and social Such a position resonates u.ell lr'ith the earlier papers in- eollection, notablv those br.r,an Lier and Breen, especiallv r'vith their highlighting of the

:'.::.rences mav be dralvn about the processes of language learning Mercer's socio-cultural.: nroach to the analvsis of classroom behaviour sits u'ell r'r-ith earlier papers in Part II of this: ,,,k, and paves the u'av for a detailed discursive and linguistic analvsis of such classroom:.:traction provided bv Pauline Gibbons' exhaustive example in her paper She draws on

, -:;qesting a link betr,veen the u'ork of Michael Hailidav and that of LevVygotskv, one which ^t oth"" contemporarv researchers of classroom interaction have also mad" Gibbons'

- rper is also noter,vorthv for her careful anaivsis of the immediate contexts of that meaning:.-.lotiation u'hich w-e have earlier identified as central to language learning

It may be useful to recall here our comment at the outset of this Introduction that the rpers in this collection are all in different \\'avs intimateiv concerned w'ith the definition of.::itext,in its various interpretations.The relationship between language and context is neitherrlrect nor unitarv We can see in the papers bv Gibbons and Mercer two possible.rterpretations of this relationship On the one hand, context is a feature of texts, somethinq.nduring that belongs to the text-as-entitv that linguists seek to describe In this sense,:crhaps that found more in Pauline Gibbons' paper, context mav be the texts that learners:incl teachers produce, or the ph-vsical settings rvithin r,vhich their texts are produced On the

,f people's thinking, more the configuration of information that people use for making sense,ilanguage in particular situations In this sense, conrext is more of a mental rather than aohvsicai phenomenon, something dvnamic and momentarv, but dependent for its creation

jn the classroom on the careful constructing bv the teacher of a continuity and a community, l s h a r e d u n d e r s t a n d i n g u i t h l e a r n e r s

Such aVvgotskian vierv of context places a premium on the exploration of the emotionaland affective engagement of learners in the acts and processes of learning Such anengagement is not explicable, hor,vever, onlv from an analvsis in terms of the activities of theclassroom As in earlier papers in this collection, rvider social factors play a role In her paper,

is linked to the work of the French sociologist Bourdieu in an attempt to explain the nature

of these factors Are classrooms replicative of learners' social worlds or do thev have the

One kev exampie of a site for such a transformation is that of the cultural perspectives andideologies present in tvpical textbooks and the degree to rvhich classroom practices maintain

a conformist, or can exercise a challenging stance in relation to them

ofteaching and learning Although rather different, the research described in each ofthemencourages the vieu' that the qualitv of the interaction betlveen teachers and learners inthe language classroom, and betlveen learners if thev rvork together, is a strong determining

key theme in the paper bv Assia Slimani r,r.hich follorvs From a teacher-researcherperspective, w'hat is significant about her paper is the rvav in tvhich she matches learners'olvn statements about rvhat they believed thev had learned, rvith the evidence offered by

figured in their classroom interactions Closelv connected rvith this comparative mode ofaialysis is Michael Breen's second paper in this ;ollection rr-here h .o.r.".rtrutes on w-hat he

our cartographic metaphor offers perhaps some explanatorr value For Breen, the classroom

is full of distinctive discourses, in part pedagogicallv oriented, in part socialiy, in partindividually.These discourses invoke a range of different meanings and contexts Learnersare faced with the considerable challenge of finding their rvays through this obscured terrain,drawing on their natural language instincts and analytical capacit-v to make sense of asemantically and pragmaticallv complex environment

Mapping the territory of second language learning and teaching has been the guidingmetaphor for this collection of papers The cartographv of this territorv may be left as theprovince ofresearchers, or it mav be also colonized bv reflective teachers eager to exploreand understand more of second language learning in action in their o*.i clu.rroo.nr.Indispensable to such a project, horvever, is the capacitv to describe classroom interaction.This is the theme of the final paper in the collection, by Joan Swann, in which she setsout some procedures that English language teachers can usefullv follow if they wish todescribe, interpret and explain the interactive processes of their own classrooms or those ofcolleagues.We think that Swann's paper is an admirable wav of closing a theoretical and apractical collection of papers

What are the general principles that n'e mav derive at the end of this particular journey? Fromthe arguments in the papers here, rve u'ould like to identifv the follon'ing:

that are constructed through classroom practice;

living and learning outside the classroom;

of their students, remembering that this is not to dor,vngrade in any lvav the need for

language learning and their direction;

use ofcertain procedures bv teachers, can have both positive and negative effects on

r A R T ONE

H ow is language learning

e xp lained?

Rosamond Mitchell and Florence Myles

The main themes to be dealt lvith in follouing sections are:

First, however, \\.'e must offer a preliminarv definition of our most basic concept, 'secondlanguage learning' We de6ne this broadlv to include the learning of any language to any1evel, provided onlv that the learning of the'second' language takes place sometime later thanthe acquisition of the first language (Simultaneous infant bilingualism is a specialist topic,u'ith its ow-n literature See for example relevant sections in Hamers and Blanc 1989;

R o m a i n e 1 9 9 5 )

encountered within the local region or communit)' ( g at the u.orkplace, or in the media),

indeed be the second language the learner is rvorking rvith, in a literal sense, or they may betheir third, fourth, fifth language We believe it is sensible to include'foreign' languages

learning processes are essentiallv the same for more local and for more remote target

We are also interested in all kinds of learning, rvhether formal, planned and systematic

1 2 R O S A M O N D M I T C H E L L A N D F L O R E N C E N I Y L E S

i s ' p i c k e d u p ' the communitv) Some second ianguage researchers have proposed a

brmal, conscious learning and informal, unconscio-us

interchangeablv

What makes for a good theory?

Second language learning is an immenselv complex phenomenon Millions of human beingshave experience of second language learning, and mav have a good practical understanding

of the activities w-hich helped them to iearn (or perhaps blocked them from learning) Buttiis practical experience, and the common-sense knou-ledge r'r'hich it leads to, are clearlv notenough to help us understand fullv hor,v the process happens.We know-, for a start, that peoplecannot reliablv describe the language rules u-hich thev ha'l'e somehorv internalized, nor the

We need to understand second lanquage learning better than we do, for two basicreasons

1 Improved knorvledge in this particular domain is interesting in itself, and can alsocontribute to more general understanding about the nature of language, of human learning,and of intercultural communication, and thus about the human mind itself, as well as howall these are interrelated and affect each other

2 The know.ledge will be useful If w-e become better at explaining the learning process,and are better able to account for both success and failure in L2 learning, there will be a pay-off for millions of teachers, and tens of millions of students and other learners, r,vho arestruggling r,vith the task

We can onlv pursue a better understanding of L2 learning in an organized and productivewav if our efforts are guided bv some form of theorv For our purpose s, a theory is a more orless abstract set of claims about the units that are significant within the phenomenon understud1., the relationships that exist betr.veen them, and the processes that bring about change

and iestricted in scope,b?rnore elaborate, explicit and comprehensive (A theory of L2learning mav deal onlv r,vith a particular stage or phase o[ learning, or with the learning ofsome particular sub-aspect of language; or it mav propose learning mechanisms u'hich aremuch more general in scope.)Worthrvhile theories are collaborative affairs, which evolvethrough a process of systematic enquiry, in lvhich the ciaims of the theorv are assessed against

through formal experiment, or through more ecological procedures, r,vhere naturallyoccurring data is analysed and interpreted (See Brumfit and Mitchell 1990 for fullerdiscussion and exemplification of methods.) Finallv, the process of theory building is areflexive one; nelv deveiopments in t}re theorv lead to the need to collect nerv informationand explore different phenomena and different patterns in tIe potentiallv infinite w'orld of'facts'

and data Puzzling'facts', and patterns rvhich fail to fit in, lead to new theoreticalinsights

To make these ideas more concrete, an example of a particuiar theorl' or 'model

o f s e c o n d l a n g u a g e 1 e a r n i n g i s s h o r v n i n F i g u r e t 1 , t a k e n r s p @

overall relationship betr,veen contextual factors, individual learner differences, learningopportunities, and learning outcomes It is thus an ambitious model, in the breadth ofphenomena it is trving to explain The rectangular boxes shou' the factors (or variables)lvhich the researcher believes are most significant for learning, i e r""-here variation can lead

to differences in success or failure.The arrolvs connecting the various boxes shor,l'directions

Learning opportunities (formal or informal)

Linguistic and non-linguisticoutcomes for the learner

the interplay between learnerand situation determining

But whatever the particular focus of a given theory, w'e would expect to find thefollou'ing:

claims which it is making;

gathering and interpretation I

public discussion (Long 1990a) The remaining sections of this chapter offer apreliminarv overvierv of numbers of these

Views on the nature of language

Levels of language

Linguists have traditionally vielved language as a complex communication svstem, whichmust be analysed on a number of levels: phonology, ,/ntax, morphology, semantics and 1exis,pragmatics, discourse.The,v have differed about the degree of separateness/integration of theselevels; e.g while Chomskv argued at one time that'grammar is autonomous and independent

of meaning' (1951 ,p.17),another tradition initiated by the British linguist Firth claims that'there

is no boundary between lexis and grammar: lexis and grammar are interdependent'

will first of all be looking at the levels of language u.hich thev attempt to take into account,and the relative degree of prioritv they attribute to the different levels (Does languageIearning start n ith words, or w-ith discourse?)We will also examine the degree of integration/separation that the-v assume, across the various levels.We will {ind that the control of syntax

theories try to account for development in this area Other levels of language receive muchmore variable attention, and some areas are commonly treated in a semi-autonomous way,

as specialist fields; this is often true for Sll-oriented studies of pragmatics and of lexicaldevelopment (see e.g Kasper 1995 on pragmatics;Meara 1996a, 1995b on vocabulary)

Competence and perJormance

Throughout the trventieth century, linguists have also disagreed in other lvays over theirmain focus of interest and of studr' Should this be the collection and anah'sis of actual attested

ild it be to theorize underlving principles and rules which govern language behaviour,.: potentiallv infinite varietv?The linguist Noam Chomskv has famouslv argued that it is

.: juage rnorvieoge hero r6!rce ouinexis

y t h i s v i e * ' h a s b e e n f f i-

- :.ruaqe learnlnq researcn.-

HJru.u , foilinguists committed to this dualist position, there are difficulties in studyingnpetence Language performance data are believed to be an imperfect reflection of

: 'rther forms of language production, and rvhich lead to errors and slips More importanth',' , believed that, in principle, the infrnite creativitv of the underlying svstem can never, , : q u a t e l v b e r e f l e c t e d in a f i n i t e d a t a s a m p l e (s e e e g C h o m s k y 1 9 6 5 , p 1 8 ) S t r i c t l v

, i under controlled conditions, e.g through Brammaticahty ludgement tests (roughly, when:,rple are offered sample sentences, rvhich are in (dis)agreement with the rules proposed: the underlving competence, and invited to sav rvhether thev think they are grammatical r.rot: Sorace 1996)

.:,pear In a recent review ofthis tradition, Stubbs quotes Firth as describing suc_ l :

+

a quiTe unnecessari-nuisance'(Firth 1957, p 2n, quoted in Stubbs 1996,p.44) In the

iterence is one ol perspective

l r

: actual text, anY more than the underlving climate of some geographical region of the' orld can be modelled from todav's r"''eather (a metaphor of Halliday's: Stubbs 1996, pp

i rvords of running text can be stored electronicalh' and analvsed r,vith a growing range of,,rtirvare tools, has revitalized the u.riting of 'observation-based grammars' (Aarts 1991,'), ol:he integrated kind favoured bv Firthian linguistics.'Work u'ith corpora provides new'wavs,i considering the relation betlveen data and theorrv, bv show'ing hou' theorv can be grounded

In making sense of contemporarv perspectives on SLL, then, we will also need to takeaccount of the extent to u'hich a competence/performance distinction is assumed.This wili

positions, e.g the extent to u'hich these pav attention to naturalistic corpora of learnerlanguage samples, or rely on more controlled and focused - but more indirect - testing oflearners'underlying knorvledge For obvious reasons, theorists' view-s on the relationshipbetween competence and performance are also closeiv linked to their vierv of the language

1 e a r n i n g P r o c e s s i t s e I f , a n d i n p a r t i c u i a r , t o t e

q r a m m a t i c a l o r l e x i c a l c o m p e t e n c e i n t h e l a n g u a g e )

"

1 6 R O S A M O N D M I T C H E L L A N D F L O R E N C E M Y L E S

The language learning process

l{ature and nurture

nature-nurture debate Hor,r' much of human learning derives from innate predispositions.i.e some form of genetic pre-programming, and how' much of it derives from social andcultural experiences rvhich influence us as we grorv up? In the tlventieth centurv the best-knolvn controversv on this issue as lar as first language learning \\'as concerned involvedthe behaviourist psvchologist B F Skinner and the linguist Noam Chomsky Skinnerattempted to argue that language in all its essentials couid be and r,r'as taught to the young

(ln Skinner's case, the mechanisms rvere those envisaged bv general behaviourist learningtheorv - essentially, copying and memorizing behaviours encountered in the surroundingenvironment From this point of vien', language could be learned primarily by imitating

c a r e t a k e r s ' s p e e c h )

is too complex to be learned, in its entiretl', from the performance data actually available to

this type of information r,vhich Chomskv doubts children could discover from scratch, in thespeech they hear around them Instead, he argues that there must be some innate core ofabstract knon'ledge about language form, rvhich pre-specifies a framework for all natural

accept the basic notion ofan innate predisposition to language, though this cannot accountfor all aspects of language development, rvhich results from an interaction between innateand environmental factors That is, complementarv mechanisms, including activeinvolvement in language use, are equallv essential for the development of communicativecompetence (see e.g Foster 1990)

How does the nature-nurture debate impact on theories of second language learning?

If humans are endorved w-ith an innate predisposition for language, then perhaps theyshould be able to learn as manv languages as thev need or want to, provided (importantprovisos!) that the time, circumstances, and motivation are available On the other hand,the environmental circumst

'Eiceot

earnins as far as possffi

stances

and psychological obstacles In the last trt'ent-v vears there has been a closer and more criticalexamination of environmental factors rvhich seem to influence L2 learning; some of these

learning', on page 2 1

Modularity

A further issue of controversy for students of the human brain has been the extent to whichthe brain should be view'ed as modular or unitary.That is, should \\'e see the brain as a single,flexible organism, lr'ith one general set of procedures for learning and storing different kinds

of knowledge and skills? Or, is it more helpfuilv understood as a bundle of modules, w-ith

The modular vierv has consistentlv found support from rvithin linguistics, most famously

acquired as a stage in general cognitive development; no speciai mechanism was therefore

required to account for hrst language acquisition Chomskl"s general vierv is that not onh'

rs language too complex to be iearned from environmentai exposure (his criticism of

Skinner) , it is also too distinctive in its structure to be learnable bv general cognitive means

Universal Grammar is thus endorved rvith its olvn distinctive mechanisms for learning

in the mind.There are also those n-ho argue that language competence itself is modular, with

However, there is no general agreement on the number and nature of such modules, nor on

.Vodularity and second language learning

The possible role of an innate, specialist language module in second Ianguage learning has

logical possibilities :

of second language learning possible, in the same rvav that thev make {irst language

l e a r n i n g p o s s i b l e ;

some way when learning a second ianguage;

and must be supplemented bv other means

The first position rvas popularized in the second language learning Iield bv Stephen Krashen

in the 1970s, in a basic form.While Krashen's theoretical viervs have been criticized, this has

particular perspective has been rer-italized bv the continuing development of Chomsky's

Universal Grammar proposals (Cook and Neu.son 1996)

On the other hand, thinking about those general learning mechanisms which may

the cognitive psychologist J R Anderson on human learning, from an information processing

perspective, has been applied to various aspects of second language learning b,v different

11*

if.

1 B R O S A I V I O N D I V I I T C H E L L A N D F L O R E N C E M Y L E S

Systematicity and variability in L2 learning

When the utterances produced bv L2 learners are examined and compared with targetlanguage norms, thev are often condemned as full of errors or mistakes Traditionally,

concentration on the part of learners If onlv learners w.ould trv harder, surelv their

mid-twentieth centur\, under the influence of behaviourist learning theorl',

".io., were oftenvierved as the result of 'bad habits', rvhich could be eradicated if onl-v learners did enoughrote learning and pattern drilling using target language models

that though learners' L2 utterances mav be deviant bv comparison w.ith target languagenorms , they are bv no means lacking in svstem Errors and mis akes are patterned, and though

e this is bv no means true ofsome

lefrners r'vork their r'vav through a number of developmental stages, from very primitive anddeviant versions of the L2, to progressivelv more elaborate and target-like versions Just likefullv prolicient users of a language, their ianguage productions can be described by a set ofunderlving rules; these interim rules have their orvn integrity and are notjust inadequatelvapplied versions of theTL rules

the formation of negative sentences It has commonit been found that learners start off brtacking a negative particle of some kind on to the end of an utterance (no you are playinghere); next, thev learn to insert a basic negative particle into the verb phrase (Mariananot coming today); and finalir', thet' learn to manipulate modifications to auxiliaries andother details of negation morphologr., in line with the full TL rules for negation (l can't plarthat one) (examples from Ellis 1994 , p 1 00) This kind of data has commonly been interpreted

to show'that, at least as far as kev parts of the L2 grammar are concerned, opment follorvs a common route, even if the rate at which learners actually travel along thiscommon route mav be verv different

and Hawkins identifv it as one of the key features rvhich L2 learning theories are required

t o e x p l a i n (1 9 9 4 , p 5 )

H o r t ' e v e r , l e a r n e r l a n g u a g e ( o r i n t e r l a n g u a g e , a s i t i s c o m m o n l v c a l l e d l i s n o t o n l r '

I

chafEacterized bv sr stematicit\' Learner Ianguage systems are presumabll'- indeed, hopefullr'

- un-Sfa5le and rn course-dfdrangd; certainl-v, thev are characterized also by'high degrees ofvariability (Torvell and Hau-kins 1994,p.5) Most obviousll', Iearners'utterances seem to var\from moment to moment, in the types of 'errors' rvhich are made, and learners ,."* li"bl

to su,'itch betu'een a range of correct and incorrect forms over lengthy periods of time .\well-knon'n example offered bv Ellis invoives a child learner of English as L2 who seemed

to produce the utteranc es no look mv' card , don't look my card interchangeablv over an extended

French as L2 , who l-ariablv produced forms such as non animal, je n'ai pas de animal rvithinthe same 20 minutes or so (to sav that he did not have a pet; the correctTL form should be1e n'ai pas d' animal) Here, in contrast to the underlving svstematicity earlier claimed for thedevelopment of rules of negation, we see performance varying quite substantialll frommoment to moment

Like svste-miIii-it1', r,ariabilitv is also found in child language development However, the

children; again, variabilitv is described bvTolvell et al (19961as a central feature of learner

interlanguage r,vhich L2 theories u-ill har-e to explain

Creativity and routines in L2 learning

productions can be described as svstematic, at least in part This svstematicitv ls linked

klowledge to creative use, even at the verl' earliest stages of L2 learning It becomes most

obvious that this is happening, r'r'hen learners produce utterances like the highly deviant non

animal (no animal = 'l haven't got anv pet'), w.hich r've cited before This is not an utterance

n'hich anv native speaker of French rvould produce (other than, perhaps, a very young child) ;

rr-r,rch the most likelv rvav that the learner has produced it i, rhio"gh:;ottt"*;;

";?;i, primitive interlanguage rule for negation, in combination r,r,ith ,"-? u.'ri , i"u"r".,

But how did this same learner manage to produce the near-tar get 1e n'ai pas de animai,

s ith its negative particles correctlv inserted w'ithin the verb phrase, and corresponding

almost-periect modification to tle morphologv of the ro.r.r phrur", rvithin a fer,, minutes oi

the other form? For us, the most likelv expianation is that at this point he w-as reproduciProouclng

an utterance u,hich he has indeed heard before (and b l v r e h e a r s e d l u h i c h h a s b e e n t l

memorized as an unanalysed r,vhole a formula

Work in corpus hnguistics has led us to theh

routlnes

U!Sb'native speakers; when we talk,our everydav L1 utterances are a complex mix of ""tiiiliild-frE6b.iiation lSinclair

processing constraints; for older L2 learners, however, memorization of lengthl', unanalysed

language routines is much more possible (Think of those opera singers who successiully

Analvsis of L2 data produced bv classroom learners in particuiar, seems to shou,

extensive and svstematic use of chunks to fulfil communicative needs in the early staqes

r , l

This phenomenon has attracted relativeh- little attention in recent times, compared with

that given to learner creativitr- and svstematicitv (\ ,/einert 1995) How.ever, rve believe it is

s o m e m o r e s u s t a i n e d a t t e n t i o n fr o m L 2 l e a r n i n g th e o r r

In comp lete success an d Jo s sili z ati on

Young children learning their first language embark on the enterprise in rvidelv varving

situations around the lvorld, sometimes in conditions of extreme poverty and deprivation,

n'hether physical or social.Yet vrith remarkable uniformit.,', at the end of fir,e v.ur or ro,

their cost that this is bv no means the case lvith second languages, embarked on after these

critical earlv vears Feir'; if anr', aclult learners ever come toll".ra indistinguishably with the

2 0 R O S A M O N D M I T C H E L L A N D F L O R E N C E [ / I Y L E S

community of target language'native speakers';most remain noticeably deviant in therr

pronunciation, and manv continue to make grammar mistakes and to search for lvords, even

r.vhen rvell motivated to learn, after r.ears of studr', residence and,/or w'ork in contact r'vith

the target ianguage

Second language learning, then, is tvpified bv tncomplete success; the claimed svstematic

doomed, most often, never to integrate completelv lvith its goal Indeed, w-hile some learners

go on learning, others seem to cease to make anv visible progress, no matter how mant

iu.rg.rug" l"rrl thev attend, or how activelv thev continu io ,ri" their second language for

deviant stage

the process of L2 learning, r,r'hich an\ serious theorv must eventuall,v explain As we will

see, explanations of two basic tvpes have in fact been offered.The 6rst group of explanations

are psycholtnguistic: the language-specific learning mechanisms available to the young child

simpl,v cease to rvork for older learners, at least partll', and no amount of study and effort

not have the social opportunities, or the motivation, to identifv completely rvith the native

speaker communitv, but mav instead value their distinctive identity as learners or as

foreigners

Cross-linguistic infuences in L2 learning

Evervdav observation tells us that learners' performance in a second language is influenced

by the Ianguage, or languages, that thev alreadv knou,.This is routinelv obvious from learners'

'foreign

accent', i.e pronunciation u'hich bears traces ofthe phonology oftheir first

Ianguage It is also obr.ious u.hen learners make certain characteristic mistakes, e.g when a

native speaker of Engiish savs something in French like 7e su;s douze, an utterance parallel tc

- I have trvelve vears.)

This kind of phenomenon in learner productions is often called b1' the term lanBuage

as Gass+ulsj t (.1996) Behaviourist theorists vierved language transfer as an important source

Lt i., Ll

-Gemln-g",aowever,

because of their preoccupation rvith identifving creative processes at r.l'ork

in L2 development; thev pointed out that manv L2 errors could not be traced to L-linflucnle,

and *'ere primarilv o

this creative front

Theorists todar, as rve shall see, lvould generallv accept once more that cross-linguistic

influences play an important role in L2 learning Horver.er, rve u'ill still find rvidely differing

views on the extent and nature of these influences Some researchers have in fact claimed

that learners r,r.ith different L1s progress at somervhat different rates, and even follou'

different acquisitional routes, at least in some areas of the target grammar (e.g Keller-Cohen

1979,Zobl 1 982, quoted in Gass 1996, pp 322-3)

III

I

The relationship between second language use and second language learning

{i.e performing in) an L2, and learning (i.e developing one's competence in) that samelanguage

We should note first of all, of course, that 'performing' in a language not onlv involvesspeaking it Making sense of the language data that lve hear around us is an equallv essential

learning, of lvhater.er description, that it is necessar,\'to interpret and to process incomingianguage data in some form, for normal language der,elopment to take place There is thus.i consensus that language inpur of some kind is essential for normal language learning In fact,during the late 1970s and earlr' 1980s, the vier,r' r,vas argued bv Stephen Krashen and othersrhat input (at the right level of difficultr'; rvas all that u.as necessary for L2 acquisition to take

p l a c e (K r a s h e n 1 9 8 2 , 1 9 S 5 ) T h i s position has been r-ieu'ed b r l - o r " r e c e n t t h e o r i s t s a s

Krashen u'as unusual in not seeing any central role for language production in his theorv

i second language acquisition Most other theoretical vieu'points support in some form

, r ) E L U r r u r d r r t u d t c dLqursrLrutt lvlusL uuler LrlcorcLlcal \te\\'Polnts support ln some lolm

:he common-sense r-ierv that speaking a language is helpful for iearning it, though they offer, u-ide varietv of explanations as to x'hv this should be the case For example, behaviourist

ifl-bEhavi ouri s t thinki n r'

owever, various contemporarv theorists still lav stress on the 'practice' function ofrnguage production, especiallv in building up fluencv and control of an emergent L2 system

'.,nsists of both a knowledge component ('knou'ing that') and a sfri11 component ('knowing 'rr\'').While they mav accept a r.arietv of possibie sources for the first component,

An even more stronglv contrasting vieu'to Krashen's is the so-calle d comprehensible output.i pothesis, argued for bv Merrill Srvain and colleagues (e.g Su'ain 1985; Srvain and Lapkin

,r a full grammatical analvsis If u'e don't need to pav attention to the grammar, in order to

' e try to sav something in our chosen second language, \\-e are forced to make grammatical:roices and hvpotheses, in order to put our utterances together The act of speaking forces.) to try our ideas about horv the target grammar actuallv "r.orks, and of course gives us therance of getting some feedback from interlocutors lr-ho mar-fail to understand our efforts

So fai in this section, n-e have seen that theorists u.r hold different vieu.s on the.'ntribution both of language input and language output to language learning However,.nother w'av of distinguishing among current theories of L2 learning from a'performance'

!.rsPective has to do u'ith their view'of L2 tnteraction - u'hen the speaking and listening

i n'hich the learner is engaged are vieu'ed as an integral and mutuallv influential r.vhole, e.g.' everyday conversation T*-o major perspectives on interaction are apparent, one r'cholinguistig, jngjgcrolinguistic

Fro _-+ =4t oint of vieu.', L2 interaction is mainlv interesting because of

r I

, - o p p o r r u n i t i e s i t o I T F F S T S i n d i r i d u a l L 2 l e a r n e r s t o f i n e - t u n e r h e Ianguage input ther are

2 2 R O S A M O N D M I T C H E L L A N D F L O R E N C E I V l Y L E S

receiving This ensures that the input is rvell adapted to their orvn internal needs (i e to the

present state of development of their L2 knorvledge).What this means is that learners

need the chance to talk rvith native speakers in a fairlv open-ended way, to ask questions, and

to clarifv meanings rvhen thev do not immediatelv understand Under these conditions, it

is believed that the utterances that result rvill be at the right level of difficult-v to promote

learning; in Krashen's terms, thev r'r'ill provide true'comprehensible input' Conversational

"pi,od"-sfi'-ol@6,n,go,,o,ionoJmeaninghu""b"",,intensiveI1.studiedb,vmany

Interaction is also interesting to iinguistic theorists, because ofrecent controversies over

rvhc-ther the provision of negative evtdence is necessarv or helpful for L2 development _4'

Whv is there a controversv about negative evidence in L2 Iearning? The problem is that

:,,rrection often seems ineffective and not onlv because L2 learners are laz,v I!:eglg!-lthgt

^.arners often cannot benefit from correction, but continue to make the shme mistakes

iervs have one thing in common, holvever; they view n learner as operatiQand der.eloping a relativelv autonomous L2 system, angjgs intelgction

r a \vay of feeding that s,ystem lvith more or less fine-tuned input data whether positive_ or

)rocess i]-r-iewed as essentiallv social: both the identitv of the learner

are collaboiativelvt6nstmcted a

- : trucTed in thc course of interaction.

S6me theoriiiiiTGE7Foad vieu'of the second language learning process as anjpllgnti:gshp

I

analvsing the det1ililinteraction betvr.een more expert and less expgrt speakels, to determine

I

how the learner is scffilded into using {and presumabh learning) neu L2 forms

Views of the language learner

Who is the second language learner, and horv are thev introduced to us, in current SLL

research?'second language'research generallv deals ll'ith learners lvho embark on the

learning ofan additional language, at least some vears after they have started to acquire their

first language.This learning may take place formallv and svstematicallJ', in a classroom setting;

or it may take place through informal social contact, through work, through migration, or

c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n e c e s s i t r '

So, second language learners mav be children, or thev mav be adults; thev may be

learning the target language formally in school or college, or'picking it up' in the

play-ground or the w'orkplace Thev may be learning a highlv localized language, which will help

them to become insiders in a local speech communitv; or the target language may be a

development and public life

Indeed, in the late trventieth centurv, the target language is highl-v likelv to be English;.r recent estimate suggests that r.vhile around 300 million people speak English as their firstianguage, another 700 million or so are using it as a second language, or learning to do so

rvhether rvith children or adults, is concerned r'vith the learning of English, or w-ith a verv

are manv multilingual communities todav (e.g tow'nships around manv fast-growing cities)n-here L2 learning involves a much wider range of ianguages Holvever, these have beencomparativelv little studied

The learner as language processor

It is possible to distinguish three main points of vierv, or sets of priorities, among SLLresearchers as far as the learner is concerned Linguists a15ljsysbolinguists have typicallybeenconcernedprimariIl.lvithanalr'singandmo@,"uiilubl"

developmental route along rvhich learners travel Researchers for w'hom this is the primeqoal are less concerned rvith the speed or rate of development, or indeed with the degree

of ultimate L2 success.Thus thev tend to minimize or disregard social and contextual

t o a l l n o r m a l h u m a n b e i n g s

As we shall see, hou'ever, there is some controversv among researchers in this

essentially similar rvavs? Or, is there a crirical are w-hich divides l'ounger and older learners

bv other compensatorv wavs of learning? The balance of evidence has been interpreted br

ch a cut-off point, and many other researchersagree with some version of a r-ieu' that 'vounger - better in the long run' (Singleton 1 995,

Dffirences between individual learners

Real-life observation quicklv tells us, how-ever, that er,en if L2 learners can be sho',vn to befollowing a common ievelopmental route, thev differ greatlv in the degree of ultimatesuccess which the-v achieve Sociai psvchologists have argued consistentlv that these

2 4 R O S A M O N D M I T C H E L L A N D F L O R E N C E M Y L E S

CognitiveJactors

lntelligence: Not verv surprisinglv perhaps, there is clear evidence that L2 students lvho are.bfi;;;G" o., fo.*ul *".r,i , of i.ttelligence and/or general academic attainment tend

Language aButude: Is there realh' such a thing as a'gift' for language learning, distinct from

' Y ' r , L

general intelligence, as folk rvisdom often holds? The most famous formal test of language

to be predictive of L2 learning success: (a) phonetic coding abilitv, (b) grammatical sensitivitr,

and Hart 1997)

Language learning strcteflies: Do more successful language learners set about the task in

,orn" ditii.tna;fr-Dffiev har,c at their disposal t-"" p".iul repertoire of wavs of

learning, or strat"gtei? [f this ulere true, could these even be taught to other, hitherto less

used by learners at different levels, and to link strategv use to iearning outcomes; it is clearthat more proficient learners do indeed emplov strategies that are different from those used

bv the less proficient (Oxford and Crookall 1989, quoted in Gardner and Maclntvre 1992,

strategies to be used, has not been fullv clarified, horvever

Afectivefactors

Language aI!l!!&!;ocial psvchologists have iong been interested in the idea that the attitudes

largely been conducted lvithin the framervork of broader research on motivation, of whichattitudes form one part

achieve a particular goal, devotes considerable effort to achieve this goal, and experiencessatisfaction in the activities associated w'ith achieving this goal' (1993, p 2) So, motivation

e f f o r t e x i e n d e d i n t h i ' r d i r e c t i o ' , u ' d s a t i s f a c t i o n l v i t h t h e t a s k ' f f i l ,

Canadian school students learning French as a second language, and have developed a range

of formal instruments to measure motivation Over the vears consistent relationships havebeen demonstrated betw.een language attitudes, motivation, and L2 achievement; Gardneraccepts that these relationships are complex, holvever, as the factors interact, and influenceeach other ( 198 5, cited in Gardner and Maclntvre 1993 , p 2)

, < - ' , - - l _ - - - 1 - r r r - r r

its obverse, :]i.gq&rrg) For these authors, language anxietv 'is seen as a stable alitv trait re6rring to the propensitv for an individual to react in a nervous manner lvhenspeaking in the second language' (1993,p 5).ltis tvpifiedbv self-belittling, feelings of

also less w'illing to speak in class, or to engage target ianguage speakers in informal action Gardner and Maclntvre cite manv studies rvhich suggest that language anxietv has anegative relationship'ivith learning success, and some others lvhich suggest the opposite, forlearner self-confi dence.

inter-The learner as social being

The tw.o perspectives on the learner rvhich rve have highlighted so far have concentratedfirst, on universal characteristics, and second, on individual characteristics But it is alsopossible to vier'v the L2 learner as essentiallv a social being, and such an interest rvill lead toconcern u'ith learners' relationship u-ith the social context, and the structuring of thelearning opportunities r,r,hich it makes available The learning process itself mav be vieu'ed

differences appear, u'hich distinguish this vie'nr- of the learner from the last (for the socialpsychological vier,v of the learner rvhich rve have just dipped into is also clearly concernedwith the individual learners' relationship r,r.ith the 'socio-cultural milieu' in rvhich learning

is taking place)

First, interest in the learner as a social being leads to concern r,vith a range of sociailyconstructed elements in the learner's identitv, and their relationship *'ith learning so c1asr,ethnicitlt, and gender rnake their appearance as potentiallv significant for L2 learning research

sau'that relationship as being governed br a bundle oflearner traits or characteristics (such

as aptitude, anxiety, etc.), ll.hich rvere relativelv fixed and slou'to change More sociallvoriented researchers view motivation, learner anxietr, etc as being constan-tlv reconstructedthrough ongoing L2 experience and L2 interaction

oes it have anl' immediate practical applications

remain divided on this point Beretta and his colieagues have argued for'pure' theorv-building

i n S L L , u n c l u t t e r e d b v r e q u i r e m e n t s fo r p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n (1 9 9 3 ) V a n L i e r ( 1 9 9 + ) ,Rampton (1995b) and others have argued for a sociallv engaged perspective, wheretheoretical development is rooted in, and responsive to, social practice, and languageeducation in particular.Yet others have argued that L2 teaching in particular should be guided

This tension has partlv been addressed bv the emergence of instructed language

Spada 1997).We think that language teachers, rvho w-ill form an important segment of ourreadership, will themselves n'ant to take stock of the relations between the theories w'esurvey, and their or,vn beliefs and experiences in the classroom Thev r,vill, in other lvords,

experience and their practice, w'hile not necessarilv changing it

Links with social practice

2 6 R O S A M O N D M I T C H E L L A N D F L O R E N C E M Y L E S

References

ar.-Altenberg, B (eds), Engltsh corpus linguisrics Harlo'rr': Longman' ++-62

Beretta,A (ed.) (1993) 'Theorv construction in SLA' Special issue of ,4pp1ied Linguistics,14

2 2 1 4

research,'ir-Brumfit, C J and Mitchell, R (eds), Research in the language classroom ELT Document

Chomskl', N (1957) Syntactic structures.The Hague: Mouton

- ( 1 96 5 ) Aspects oJ the theory oJ syntax Cambridge, MA : NIIT Press

Blackrvell

Press

Ellis, R (1985)'sources of variabilitv in interlanguage' Applied Linguistics 5, 118-3 1

- (1 994) The stud,v oJ second language acquisition Oxford: Oxford Universitv Press.

Foster, S (1990) The communicative competence oJloung children Harlor,v: Longman

Gardner, R.C (1985) Social psvchology and second language learning: the role oJ attitudes an:motivation London: Edrvard Arnold

Gardner, R.C and Macintvre, P.D (1992)'A student's contributions to second languag.Iearning Part I: cognitive variables', LanguageTeaching 25, 21 1 20

variables' , LanguageTeachtng 26, I-11

transfer', in Ritchie,WC and Bhatia,T.K (eds), Handbook oJsecond language acquisitior

Hall, J.K (1995) '(Re)creating our worlds rvith rvords: a sociohistorical perspective of face interaction' , Applted Linguistics 15,205 32

Universitv Press

ir-classroom learners of different starting ages', Srudies in Second Language Acquisiilon 19.379400

Johnson, K (1996) Language teaching and sktll learning Oxford: Blackrvell.

Kasper, G (ed.) (1996) 'The development of pragmatic competence' Special issue of Studies r:Second Language Acquisition, 18 , 2

Pergamon

- 11 9821 Principles and prcctice in second language acquisition Oxford: Pergamon

- (1 985) The input hlpothesis: issues and implications Harlo'w': Longman

@tarterly 24, 6+9-66.

Acquisition 12, 25 1-85

- (1993) 'Assessment strategies for SLA theories' Applied Linguistics 14,225 -+9.

Ritchie, \A'.C and Bhatia, T.K (eds), Handbook oJ second language acquisition San Diego:

A c a d e m i c P r e s s , 4 1 3 5 8

Mclaughlin, B ( 1987) Theories oJ second,language learning London: Edrvard Arnold

Meara, P (1996a.1 'The classical research in L2 acquisition', inAnderman, G.N{ and Rogers,M.A (eds), Words, words, words: the translator and the language learner Clevedon:Multilingual N1atters, 2l -40.

Williams, J (eds), ?erJormance and competence in second language acquisition Cambridge:

l a n g u a g e i n c l a s s r o o m f o r e i g n l a n g u a g e l e a r n i n g ' , L a n g u a g e L e a r n i n g 4 8 , 1 1 0 - 1 3 5

O'Malley, J and Chamot, A ( 1 990) Learning strategies in second language acquisition Cambridge:

Rampton, B (1995a) Crossing:language and ethnicitl'among adolescenrs Harlow-: Longman.

2 3 3 - s 6

explicit adult second language learning' , Language Learilng 47, +5-99

R o m a i n e , S ( 1 9 9 5 ) B i l i n g u a l i s m 2 n d e d n , O x f o r d : B l a c k r v e l l

Sinclair, J ( 199 1) Corpus, concordance, collocation Oxford: Oxford Universitv Press

language acquisition Clevedon: Nlultilingual Matters, 1-2 9

Skehan, R ( 19S9) lndividual dfferences inJoreign language learning London: Edw'ard Arnold

Sorace, A (.1996) 'The use of acceptabilitv judgements in second language acquisition research,

in Ritchie, W and Bhatia, T (eds), Handbook oJ second language acquisition San Diego:

classroom and laboratory research' , LanguageTeaching 30, 73 87

Spolsky, B (1989) CondittonsJor second language learning Oxford: Oxford Universitv Press

Stubbs, M (1996) Tbxt and corpus anal1sis Oxford: Blacku'ell

comprehensible output in its der.eiopment' , in Gass , S M and Madden, C G (eds) , lnput

in second language acquisition Rorvlev, NIA: Newburt'House, 235-53

generate: a step torvards second language learning' , ,lpplied Linguistics 16,371-91

Tor,ve1l, R and Harvkins, R (1994) Approaches to second language acqujsition Clevedon: lingual Matters

learners of French' , Applted Linguistics I 7, 84 1 1 5

learners, u'-hose s,uccess_varies greatlv.

nf u",n of rJU"ti.r." ilutlEu-:*- have certain characteristics which lead to more or lesssuccesslul language learning Such beliefs are usua-llr'-b3se-d-oq'@@Elgrl&;A}ftett.g.tt

$.' ur" o.rvi.r d that extror,e,rtcd]c-af.rgls wfio interact rt-i[hout inhibition in their secondlanggagg aqd-_fiqd manv opportunities to praciiselinguage iki'lls-w;ill6e tlti -ort successful_ l"ui".i In additioq 1o p ro.t"lito'characteristics, other fictors generally considered to be,,9 l"uu.rt,o tung.rug i""."i"g are intelligence,-aptitude, motivation -and attitudes' Another

v

important factor is the age at yhigh learning begins

In this chapter, rve u.ill see r,r'[e,tllre-t ane{-d_otal evidence is su,pported bl research findings

intellectual abilities, their motivation, or their age?

-Activity

Characterjstics oJ the 'good language \earner'

It seems that some people har,e a much easier time of learning than others Rate ofdevelopment varies r,videlv among first language learners Some children can string togetherfive-, six-, and seven-rvord sentences at an age rvhen other children are just beginning to labelitems in their immediate environment Nevertheless, all normal children eventually mastertheir first language

In second language learning, it has been observed countless times that, in the sameclassroom setting, some students progress rapidlv through the initial stages of learning anew language u-hile others struggle along making verv slou progress Some learners neverachieve native-like command of a second language Are there personal ch?Iacteristics that

The follou.ing is a iist of some of the characteristics commoniy thought to contribute