A Transdisciplinary Framework for SLA in a Multilingual World
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A Transdisciplinary Framework for SLA in a Multilingual World THE DOUGLAS FIR GROUP1 THE PHENOMENON OF MULTILINGUALISM indigenous, minority, or heritage languages, (b) is as old as humanity, but multilingualism has to explain the linguistic processes and outcomes been catapulted to a new world order in the of such learning, and (c) to characterize the lin- 21st century. Social relations, knowledge struc- guistic and nonlinguistic forces that create and tures, and webs of power are experienced by many shape both the processes and the outcomes. One people as highly mobile and interconnected—for of many contributors of knowledge into the learn- good and for bad—as a result of broad socio- ing and teaching of languages in the wider feld political events and global markets. As a con- of applied linguistics, SLA remains focused on sequence, today’s multilingualism is enmeshed understanding linguistic development in an addi- in globalization, technologization, and mobility. tional language. Begun as an interdisciplinary en- Communication and meaning-making are often deavor over half a century ago (e.g., Corder, 1967; felt as deterritorialized, that is, lived as something Selinker, 1972), SLA’s early research efforts drew “which does not belong to one locality but which on scholarly developments from the felds of lin- organizes translocal trajectories and wider spaces” guistics and psychology and drew on practical con- (Blommaert, 2010, p. 46), while language use and cerns for language pedagogy in the post-World learning are seen as emergent, dynamic, unpre- War II era (see Huebner, 1998). In the early 1980s, dictable, open ended, and intersubjectively nego- Hymes’s (1974) work in sociolinguistics and his tiated. In this context, increasingly numerous and notion of communicative competence were in- more diverse populations of adults and youth be- strumental in the reconceptualization of prof- come multilingual and transcultural later in life, ciency in a second language (Canale & Swain, either by elective choice or by forced circum- 1980) and thus in expanding SLA constructs (see stances, or for a mixture of reasons. They must Hornberger, 2009). However, the legacy of lin- learn to negotiate complex demands and oppor- guistics and psychology meant that most the- tunities for varied, emergent competencies across ories and insights remained strongly cognitive their languages. Understanding such learning re- in orientation and generally ignored other re- quires the integrative consideration of learners’ search, such as Labov’s (1970, 1972) in variation- mental and neurobiological processing, remem- ist sociolinguistics (Tarone, 1979, 1988). A pro- bering and categorizing patterns, and moment- cess of epistemological expansion was initiated in to-moment use of language in conjunction with a the late 1980s and reached momentum by the variety of socioemotional, sociocultural, sociopo- late 1990s (Block, 2003; Firth & Wagner, 1997; litical, and ideological factors. Lantolf, 1996), resulting in a feld that has un- The feld of second language acquisition (SLA) dergone enormous interdisciplinary growth in seeks (a) to understand the processes by which the last 25 years or so (Atkinson, 2011; Swain & school-aged children, adolescents, and adults Deters, 2007). learn and use, at any point in life, an ad- In part, the expansion has been driven by an ditional language, including second, foreign, increase in the number of researchers from a wider range of intellectual traditions and disci- The Modern Language Journal, 100 (Supplement 2016) plinary roots who are interested in the study of DOI: 10.1111/modl.12301 language learning by adults and youth. Inform- 0026-7902/16/19–47 $1.50/0 ing their research efforts are concepts, theories, C °2016 The Modern Language Journal and methodologies from felds that are more 20 The Modern Language Journal, 100, Supplement 2016 socially attuned, including anthropology, cogni- SLA in the 21st century, (c) to serve as a plat- tive science (particularly in its variants of cog- form for the development of practical, innovative, nitive integration, situated cognition, and niche and sustainable solutions that are responsive to construction), education, and sociology. Various the challenges of language teaching and learn- areas that are considered subfelds of linguis- ing in our increasingly networked, technologized, tics and/or psychology entered the SLA scene and mobile worlds, and (d) to improve commu- thereafter and have contributed to this expan- nication with a wider range of audiences, espe- sion as well, such as anthropological linguistics, cially any and all stakeholders that SLA investi- cognitive linguistics, corpus linguistics, cultural gates or whom it hopes to beneft, so they can psychology, developmental psychology, neurolin- use SLA work to improve their material and social guistics, bi/multilingualism, sociolinguistics, and conditions. systemic-functional linguistics. The document presents the framework using Beyond the enrichment brought on by this in- the following progression: We frst position our- terdisciplinary expansion, our present collective selves as authors in relation to the feld of SLA. text is motivated by the conviction that SLA must We then explore the changing nature of lan- now be particularly responsive to the pressing guage learning and teaching in a multilingual needs of people who learn to live—and in fact world. Those considerations usher in our bid for do live—with more than one language at various transdisciplinarity. We describe the framework it- points in their lives, with regard to their educa- self in terms of 10 closely interrelated themes. tion, their multilingual and multiliterate develop- After briefy recapitulating them we sketch out ment, social integration, and performance across some forward directions for language learning diverse contexts. A new SLA must be imagined, and teaching that it implies and conclude with an one that can investigate the learning and teaching invitation to vigorous and fruitful professional de- of additional languages across private and pub- bate of our proposal. lic, material and digital social contexts in a mul- tilingual world. We propose that it begin with the POSITIONING OURSELVES IN RELATION TO social-local worlds of L2 learners and then pose THE FIELD OF SLA the full range of relevant questions—from the neurobiological and cognitive micro levels to the In order to provide an interpretive context macro levels of the sociocultural, educational, ide- for the rest of the document we would like to ological, and socioemotional. explain who we are and how the present text To meet this challenge, we offer here a came about. The framework proposed here is framework for SLA that is transdisciplinary. In the result of intensive collaboration over an ex- agreement with scholars who have called for tended period of time2 among a group of 15 transdisciplinarity in other domains of applied scholars with different theoretical roots, includ- linguistics (e.g., Hornberger & Hult, 2006), ing in no particular order: sociocultural theory we characterize such a framework as problem- (Johnson, Lantolf, Negueruela, Swain), language oriented, rising above disciplines and particular socialization theory (Duff), social identity theory strands within them with their oftentimes strong (Norton), complexity and dynamic systems the- theoretical allegiances. It treats disciplinary ory (Larsen–Freeman), usage-based approaches perspectives as valid and distinct but in dialogue (Ellis, Ortega), the biocultural perspective (Schu- with one another in order to address real-world mann), ecological and sociocognitive approaches issues. Specifcally, it seeks to integrate the many (Atkinson), variationist sociolinguistics (Tarone), layers of existing knowledge about the processes systemic functional linguistics (Byrnes, Doran), and outcomes of additional language learning by and conversation analysis (Hall). Many but per- deriving coherent patterns and confgurations of haps not all of us would consider SLA as one of fndings across domains and “over many different the main research communities in which we par- levels of granularity and timescale” (N. C. Ellis, ticipate actively. We fnd it a strength that our 2014, p. 399). disciplinary and theoretical allegiances with SLA In making this proposal we have four aims: should be so varied. Our views are also enriched (a) to advance fundamental understandings of by the diverse parts of the world in which each of language learning and teaching, including un- us has worked, done research, and collaborated derstandings of linguistic development in an with others. Nevertheless, we must recognize that additional language, taking into account forces our affliation with institutions in only two parts of beyond individual learners, (b) to promote the the world, the United States and Canada, bound development of innovative research agendas for our intellectual views. The Douglas Fir Group 21 We also make explicit four fundamental when new languages are being learned later in choices of wording and substance with regard to life (N. C. Ellis, 2015; Lee et al., 2009; MacWhin- the discipline of SLA, because they have conse- ney, 2012). Consequently, we defne the object quences for positions taken in this document. of inquiry of SLA as additional language learn- First, in negotiating our successive drafts, we ing at any point in the life span after the learn- felt uneasy about certain labels. All labels come ing of one or more languages has