English Language Teaching in its Social Context

THE SOCIAL CONTEXT FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING 1392 Paradoxically, the features of optimal input were initially derived from (1) the order ofemergence of certain linguistic features in the production of language learners and (2)the characteristics of simple codes used by people other than learners - e.g., motherese,foreigner talk, talk to foreigners, etc. Neither phenomenon has been shown to have anynecessary relationship with learning language. (On the relationship between mothereseand learning, for example, see Newport, Gleitman, and Gleitman 1977; Shantz 1982 .)Most work on learning strategies has tended to be individual case studies undertakenoutside classrooms or through simulated tasks. These points are not intended criticallybut suggest limitations in relating research findings on learning to the language classroom.3 To try to teach learning strategies seems to me an inappropriate interpretation of theinvestigations of, inter alia, Naiman, Frohlich, Stern, andTodesco (1978), Rubin (198 l),and Cohen and Hosenfeld (1981). Apart from the major problem of the researcherhaving to infer strategies from retrospections (Mann 1982) or from communicationstrategies (Fzrch and Kasper, 1983), we need to maintain clear distinctions between theact of learning and the influences of teaching. Language learning research currently lacksan approach to learning strategies and styles which accounts for key intervening variables- such as the context in which the learner works and how the learner strategically reactsto that context. Examples of a more comprehensive analysis can be found in Gibson andLevin (1979, Mann (1983) and Marton, Hounsell, and Entwistle (1984).4 Although SLA research evolved from work in L1 acquisition, it has persisted in a narrowfocus upon linguistic and mentalistic variables whilst the last decade of L1 research hasbeen characterised by its concern with social, contextual and interactive variables also(Waterson and Snow, 1978; Lock, 1978). The significant theoretical synthesis providedto SLA research by Krashen (1981, 1982) has encouraged this asocial perspective.However, a paradox thrives at present wherein it is fashionable in some quartcrs tobelittle Krashen’s invaluable contributions to the SLA paradigm whilst many researchersunquestioningly assume his hypotheses proven as the starting point of their owninvestigations. Both positions seem equally unjustifed.5 See Mueller’s (1979) historical analysis of the “science” of psychology. In this paper, I willargue for a socio-cognitive perspective on language learning. Current influential approachesto the social psychology of language learning seem to me too narrowly focused uponmotivational and attitudinal factors (Gardner, 1979) and, although social psychology grantssignificance to relationships between the individual and social context, its prevailingtradition is non-cognitive and somewhat deterministic in its evaluation of the effects ofsocial experience. A socio-cognitive perspective allows us to identify variables of learningboth within the social situation and within the active cognition of the lcarner (Forgas,1981 ). It also encourages seeking relationships between learner cognition and situationsand implies the need to understand, to see through languagc learning in ways cogentlyargued by Ochsner (1979).678Allwright (1983), Gaies (1983) and Long (1983) provide excellent reviews ofclassroom-oriented rcsearch.Sapir (1 949) and Hymes (1 972) are, of course, emphasising collective meanings andvalues. Other scholars, notably Goffman (1 959) and Cicourel (1 973), would also assertthe significance of personal intentions and interpretations within social events. I will arguethat we need to account for both and their interrelationships.The notion of “genuine culture” derives from Sapir’s discussion of “Culture, Genuine andSpurious” (1 949). In referring to Malinowski’s (1 935) study, I do not wish to imply thatwe adopt a narrow social anthropological approach to the classroom; rather one whichrelates social experience and psychological change in the tradition of Margaret Mead,Ruth Benedict, and Clyde Kluckhohn (see, for example, Beattie’s 1964 overview ofsocial anthropology). Perhaps the study of the classroom group might resemble Oscar