|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE field of second language acquisition (SLA) is relatively new. Tracing its roots back to an influential 1967 publication by S. Pit Corder, "The Significance of Learners' Errors," scholarship in SLA has only been around for about three decades. Compared with the long-standing tradition in, say, letters and humanities as well as the physical sciences, SLA is a newcomer on the academic block.
The relative newness of SLA has led to a few misconceptions. Some believe that SLA is a contemporary term for language pedagogy, having also replaced the terms applied linguistics and methodology. Others equate it with language classroom research. Many do not know that it is a theory-driven research field. And while these misconceptions and individual interpretations exist, we are seeing an ever-increasing number of job advertisements in the MLA Job Information List that include items like specialist in SLA or SLA methodologist.
This article describes and delineates the field of SLA and compares it with the areas of language teaching, pedagogy, and applied linguistics. In so doing, it also situates the field of SLA within contemporary research-oriented institutions and reveals its interdisciplinary nature within traditional colleges of letters and sciences.
SLA is concerned with how people learn a language other than their first. This can be any language in any context (e.g., English as a second language in the United States, Spanish as a foreign language in Illinois, German as a second language by immigrant guest workers in Germany, or French by monolingual English speakers in Canada). SLA focuses on both the processes and products of this learning and draws on the disciplines of linguistics (including syntactic theory, pragmatic theory, sociolinguistics, and discourse analysis), cognitive psychology and psycholinguistics (including first language acquisition), educational psychology (especially reading research and the methodologies used to investigate comprehension), and others in an attempt to elucidate some of the problems and questions that confront researchers. Among these questions are the following (for an overview of SLA, see Larsen-Freeman and Long):
The plenaries and invited colloquia for the 1997 and 1998 Second Language Research Forum (an internationally renowned conference commonly referred to as SLRF--pronounced "slurf") suggest topics of current interest to second-language researchers:
SLA is not language specific; all the above questions, topics, and issues can be investigated with learners of English, French, Spanish, Italian, Arabic, and so on. In addition, many of the questions ignore any classroom-versus-nonclassroom distinction in that the internally driven development of a second language does not change with context. As a theory-building enterprise, then, SLA research is largely concerned with the psycholinguistic, cognitive, and sociolinguistic aspects of acquisition that shape a learner's developing linguistic system.
To summarize, SLA focuses on theory construction independent of the context of language learning and independent of the language being learned. Like child-language-acquisition researchers, those in SLA attempt to understand just how second-language learners wind up with the competence and abilities they do.
While SLA is concerned with learners and what governs, affects, or constrains their acquisition of a linguistic system, language teaching addresses the impact that a formal environment (e.g., classroom discourse or instruction in formal features of language) has on the development of the second language. Although not completely independent of SLA research, language teaching focuses on variables external to the learner to see if they have an effect on acquisition. Another point to consider is that language teaching is not equivalent to pedagogy. The types of questions that those in language teaching address include these:
The goals of linguistic-oriented second language research are not pedagogical. [. . .] This lack of focus on pedagogical concerns does not come from the belief that these concerns are uninteresting or without value; instead, it stems from the belief that sound pedagogical practice must be anchored in in-depth knowledge of the capabilities of second language learners and the processes and strategies that they need for language learning to take place. (3)
In a certain sense, then, language teaching can be considered applied second language acquisition.
The second point to consider is that the questions are all researchable; as instructional questions, they are subject to the same kind of empiricism that guides work in educational psychology and related disciplines. This is important in that research on language teaching contrasts with publications on pedagogy, the latter being textbooks and other materials, as well as articles and papers that focus more on the how-to of the classroom.
Language teaching can be an important enterprise for SLA theory construction as well. Since language teaching gathers data to answer a question and the question is framed within a theory or set of hypotheses from SLA, language-teaching research can support or disprove a given theory. For example, recent work on processing instruction, a psycholinguistic approach to grammar instruction in classrooms, has provided much-needed support for the input hypothesis of SLA (VanPatten). This hypothesis states that the development of an internal grammar depends on the availability of meaning-based or communicative input, language that the learner hears in context. A number of professionals in foreign language teaching have decried this hypothesis, saying that classroom learning is different from acquisition in so-called naturalistic contexts (cf. the position taken by SLA researchers described in the previous section). The results of the research on processing instruction demonstrate that its input-based approach to grammar instruction is superior to traditional output-based approaches. These results in turn provide data to support the original input hypothesis in SLA theory. In short, although we can distinguish SLA research from language-teaching research, the two do not actually contrast but, rather, complement each other when it comes to the ultimate goal of theory construction. As applied SLA research, language teaching is an important data-gathering endeavor. As we see more doctoral-level programs in SLA research emerge across the United States, language teaching is and will be an important component of the SLA specialist's background. A significant distinction must be made between language teaching and pedagogy; the latter is not a research or theory-building endeavor and does not require scholarship in SLA or language teaching. I make this point not because of any disdain for pedagogy itself; sound pedagogy is surely what any instructional enterprise should strive for, and I as well as other SLA specialists regularly work with teachers, run language programs, write about pedagogy, and produce language-teaching materials. Instead, the point is made for those in foreign language departments who need to assess the traditional criteria for tenure and promotion: scholarship, teaching, and service. SLA and language teaching fit into the first category; pedagogy fits into the second.
Teacher education concerns itself with the development of those whose principal task is the day-to-day instruction in languages, mainly secondary school foreign language teachers. It provides a broad background in issues in education, curriculum development, the psychology of the adolescent, and other matters. For whatever reason, the fields of SLA and language teaching are, in most academic environments, the least important part of teacher education for instructors entering the secondary school. In the MATESL (master's in the teaching of English as a second language) degree, however, SLA and language teaching become more important and may actually become the core of what students study. In Beyond Methods: Components of Language Teacher Education, Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig and Beverly Hartford bring together various experts in SLA and language teaching who discuss the importance for teacher education of psycholinguistics, SLA, pragmatics, syntax, and other areas. It is unlikely, however, that we will see a major change in teacher education (at least in the near future) along the lines suggested by Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford.
Second language acquisition can also be compared with the rather broad field of applied linguistics. Applied linguistics is in essence any use of linguistic theory (be it syntactic theory, phonological theory, discourse analysis, and so on) for any domain other than the development of linguistic theory. Some of the domains of applied linguistics are the following:
Because SLA is a relative newcomer to the academic profession, a number of questions have confronted department heads and other administrators. Is an SLA specialist tenurable? Where does SLA belong? Should it be a part of foreign languages? Is it part of education? What is the relation between SLA and language program direction?
The question of tenurability is, of course, particularly important for administrators at research-oriented institutions. The question arises largely because many confuse SLA (and language teaching) with pedagogy. A semifictitious case (an abstraction of several cases I am familiar with) helps illustrate the problem. An assistant professor, a budding scholar in SLA and language teaching, is being presented for tenure and promotion. He has published five articles in refereed journals and several invited chapters in books and has just had a completed manuscript accepted at a major press. Outside reviews for his work are very good. His teaching record is stellar, and his service within and outside the department is exemplary. Is this an open-and-shut tenure case? His departmental colleagues vote in favor of his tenure and promotion, but the case runs into problems at the next level. The department head is asked to get more outside letters of support and to explain why the department wants to tenure someone "on the basis of pedagogy."
Although the department head is doing her job as best she knows how, the "packaging" of the SLA specialist may not have focused on the strength of his scholarship as it should have. Because the head is a nonspecialist and does not understand the difference between SLA (and language teaching) and pedagogy, it is possible that the SLA specialist presented for tenure at the next level outside the department is not someone who is gaining national prominence in a research field but instead someone who is making great contributions to pedagogy. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that more often than not the SLA specialist is also the director or coordinator of a language program and thus inextricably tied to a nonresearch component of the department. Another possible problem is that seated on the next level of review are scholars from fields as traditional and diverse as English, philosophy, and biology. There is no voice for the newer field at that level, no one who can clarify issues and rectify misconceptions, who can discuss the outside letters and their writers. Just how do departmental and campus reviewers evaluate the credentials of outside reviewers? The work and reputation of scholars such as Michael Long, Patsy Lightbown, and Susan Gass are simply foreign, both within and outside the department.
Related to issues of tenure and promotion are those of salary increase and profile of the SLA position. In some research institutions, heads of department may be queried regarding the proposed salary increase for those in SLA. Since the work of SLA specialists may not be deemed scholarly by administrative levels outside the department, department heads may be asked to justify salary increases for SLA specialists when juxtaposed to the salary increases requested for their counterparts in literary or cultural studies. Indeed, heads of departments may on occasion be asked by their own departmental faculty members why someone in SLA merits a salary increase.
As the field of SLA grows, there will undoubtedly be a period of either confusion or adjustment as academia struggles with scholars whose work is not understood as scholarly. Incumbent upon SLA specialists, then, is gentle and consistent education of colleagues and administrators. Incumbent upon departmental heads is to actively learn about SLA and to become as informed as possible about this new research field so as to present it to others adequately.
Related to the question of tenurability are questions regarding the "home" of SLA and the nature of graduate programs with SLA as a focus. Some institutions might attempt to house SLA specialists in education, again based on the confusion between SLA and pedagogy. Although this is one option, even despite the confusion SLA and SLA specialists would be much more at home in liberal arts and sciences. As I noted earlier, SLA has its foundations in linguistics, psycholinguistics, and related areas--and as a theory-building enterprise, it abstracts away from the classroom-nonclassroom contextual difference. And to be competent scholars in SLA, graduate students need adequate training and education in linguistic theory, language comprehension, child language acquisition, discourse, pragmatics, and other areas.
The question of housing SLA in language departments comes from a preoccupation with the loss of traditional focus of language departments: literary (and sometimes cultural) studies. Literary scholars are humanists. SLA scholars are, largely, social scientists. Most humanists would not like to see their departments adopt a social science orientation--and they are right to think this way. Although there is little danger of most language departments being overrun by SLA specialists, there is a dilemma here. It is possible for SLA specialists and literary specialists to exist side by side and work together, but at some point goals must diverge. How many students do we admit to the graduate program, and are we going to have a graduate program in SLA? What scholars are we going to bring in for colloquiums and presentations? What conferences are we going to organize or co-organize with other departments? In short, which persons get which dollars to promote which areas of study? This last question already produces friction among literary scholars themselves, and adding the field of SLA only exacerbates the friction. The time may soon be near when departments and colleges or schools at research institutions will need to examine more closely the location of SLA specialists. No one knows what might be the outcome of such an examination, but as SLA gains in numbers (and interest in SLA increases every year), we may see different administrative structures emerge in the same way we have seen this happen with applied fields, area studies, gender studies, and minority studies.
The final issue to explore is the relation of SLA to language program direction. At medium-sized and large research and teaching institutions, the language program director has become more commonplace in the last ten to fifteen years. Typically the language program director holds a tenured or tenure-track position, and his or her principal duties are administrative. Duties include directing the teaching efforts of the graduate students and nonfaculty instructors, selecting teaching materials, and setting policies regarding the language program in addition to other duties. The teaching responsibilities of the director vary from institution to institution. The important point here is that departments hiring language program directors since the early to mid-1980s have often advertised for specialists in SLA. Equally important, however, is the suggested confusion about such a specialist, as revealed by the job advertisements themselves. Many of the advertisements use SLA and methodology interchangeably, as, for example, in an ad that reads "Assistant Professor, Tenure Track. Speciality in SLA/Methodology." The descriptions of these positions further reveal that an SLA specialist is not really what the department wants or, for that matter, needs. Such descriptions typically include "language program direction," "developing technology-enhanced instruction," and "training and supervision of teaching assistants." A reader can easily see the difference when reading descriptions for positions in literature in which terms such as "scholar," "research agenda," "ability to direct research," and "develop offerings at the graduate level" regularly appear. The descriptions for SLA specialists read more like ads for domestic help than they do for professorial academic positions.
What the descriptions for SLA specialists and language program directors suggest to me is that departments would like to have someone in charge of their language programs, but they do not need a person in SLA--at least not in the same way that they might need a person in Golden Age literature or postcolonial criticism to round out their graduate programs. As departments ponder such positions, they must ask what intellectual and research needs are served by an SLA specialist in their departments and what undergraduate and graduate programs this person will teach in and help to develop. James F. Lee and I addressed these and other questions and argued that "the contemporary view of the language program director is as a faculty colleague first and administrator second" (125).
It is not clear to me at this time how some of these problems will play out. Those versed in theories of transitional states and paradigmatic shifts are better equipped than I am to make predictions. What is clear is that second-language specialists have different interests from those of their literary and culturally oriented colleagues; these interests are both scholarly and professional. The extent to which second-language and literary specialists can resolve the differences will determine whether the current default marriage of the disciplines will survive or not. The question underlying this discussion may actually be, what should the nature and structure of current language departments be?
The author is Professor of Spanish and Second Language Acquisition and Associate Head of the Department of Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese at the University of Illinois, Urbana.
I would like to thank the following individuals for having read and commented on an earlier version of this paper: Paola E. Dussias, David Goldberg, James F. Lee, and Ronald W. Sousa. The ideas contained in this paper do not necessarily reflect theirs.
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, and Beverly S. Hartford, eds. Beyond Methods: Components of Language Teacher Education. New York: McGraw, 1997.
Corder, S. Pit. "The Significance of Learners' Errors." Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1981. 1-13.
Gass, Susan M., and Jacquelyn Schachter, eds. Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge UP, 1989.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane, and Michael H. Long. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London: Longman, 1991.
Lee, James F., and Bill VanPatten. "The Question of Language Program Direction Is Academic." Challenges in the 1990s for College Foreign Language Programs. Ed. Sally Sieloff Magnan. Boston: Heinle, 1990. 113-27.
VanPatten, Bill. Input Processing and Grammar Instruction: Theory and Research. Norwood: Ablex, 1996.
© 1999 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.
|
|---|
|
|
|
