Dr. Robert DeKeyser, University of Maryland
The theme of SLRF 2009 is ‘integrating the parts of a greater whole,’ and that means in the first place integrating the contributions of various disciplines and research traditions. The field of SLA has always been at the crossroads between linguistics, psychology and educational research, with occasional forays into other areas such as biology and sociology. In my contribution to this conference I plan to take a number of variables from these different areas such as grammatical structure (linguistics), aptitude (psychology), instruction (education) and age (biology, sociology) and look at their multiple interactions. Often research on the interaction of variables, from factorial experimental designs to multiple regression, is seen as a necessity brought about by the fact that the role of a variable cannot be generalized regardless of other variables, in other words, it is seen as a nuisance that needs to be addressed in order to avoid overgeneralization. I hope to show here, however, that the multiple interactions being documented in SLA research are often more interesting than the effects of the variables separately. Documenting the interactions does not just serve the purpose of generalization; it is essential to the process of understanding the role of the interacting variables themselves. I intend to show how various interactions between age, aptitude, linguistic structure, and instruction are essential for a more thorough understanding of the role that these variables play, not just the extent but more importantly the nature of their role, and hence for a more integrated understanding of second language acquisition processes. Such integrated understanding is indispensable if the field is to move from descriptive to explanatory and predictive adequacy.
Dr. Susan Gass, Michigan State University
Moving from simple to complex and finding a niche
This paper will look at the field of SLA from a broad perspective, focusing in particular at issues of quality. I will deal with this first part in two ways. First, I will trace SLA research from early years to the present looking at types of research conducted as well as tools of analysis. Second, I will report the results of a longitudinal assessment of quality in one area of SLA studies, that of interaction-based studies. The focus here will be on data reporting. In the final part of the paper, I will do some prognosticating about future directions and our further quest to establish our own “brand” of research which is not derivative, but sets internal standards of research methods, acceptability of datasets, and overall issues of quality.
Dr. James Lantolf, Penn State University
L2 researchers have increasingly recognized the relevance of social factors in the learning process. However, not everyone agrees on precisely how to bring “the social” into the picture in a theoretically coherent way. Mackey (2006: 375) suggests, for example, that interaction researchers might be able to gain greater insight into the acquisition process “if they began to take up the design challenges involved in incorporating the insights and questions of those who focus on social context.” As Gass (1998) explains, however, there remains a fundamental distinction between language learning and language use and so at the end of the day, the “object of inquiry is in large part an internal, mental process” (Long 1997: 319). Researchers with a more sociolinguistic slant, such as Tarone (2000) and Preston (1996) nevertheless continue to “wrestle” with social context and are strongly committed to finding a way to integrate it into the learning process. Firth and Wagner (1997), for their part, argue that the language use/language learning dualism makes no sense and propose, following Vygotsky, that social factors indeed play a role in psychological processes. I believe that this position has some merit and has the best chance of “putting social and psychological processes (back) together.” The presentation explores the implications of a dialectical approach to L2 learning—an approach that assumes an organic unity of social and psychological processes. A dialectic approach takes the collective as its point of departure and understands that the individual is already woven into the collective fabric from the outset and never leaves it. Instead of the MIND IS A CONTAINER metaphor that isolates individuals from each other and their world, the dialectical orientation proposes the MIND IS A TAPESTRY metaphor whereby individuals are always and everywhere interwoven with others and their world. To illustrate the significance of the latter metaphor, findings from several recent studies grounded in praxis-based pedagogy, including Systemic-Theoretical Instruction and Dynamic Assessment are presented and discussed.
Dr. Bonnie D. Schwartz, University of Hawai'i
What contributions can research on child L2 acquisition make to the field? Does grammatical development in the L2 child unfold like child L1 grammatical development? Or does it more closely resemble adult L2 development? The acquisition of English by a 5-year-old Korean-speaking child could look like that of the native English-acquiring child or like that of the 25-year-old Korean-speaking adult. Or perhaps child L2 acquisition is distinct from both L1 and adult L2 acquisition, because it does some things that occur in L1 acquisition and other things that occur in adult L2 acquisition. If in fact child L2 acquisition lies somewhere in the middle (so to speak), then in what ways is it like L1 acquisition, in what ways is it like adult L2 acquisition––and in what ways is it like neither? Such questions, alas, have few firm answers, simply because child L2 acquisition is such an understudied (but burgeoning!) area of developmental linguistics. Notice, nevertheless, that in seeking answers to such questions, the research methodology must necessarily be comparative: We have to look at the L2 child in comparison to the L1 child and the L2 adult.
After outlining conceptual and empirical tensions that motivate placing child L2 development at center stage, I review an assortment of child L2 studies, all adopting the comparative method, carried out at the University of Hawai‘i. Their findings, I argue, are theoretically revealing. My main aim, though, is not to convince you of the particulars of these studies, but rather to persuade you of something much more general: the import of child L2 acquisition to the field.
