English Language Teaching in its Social Context
English Language Teaching in its Social Context
English Language Teaching in its Social Context
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
14 ROSAMOND MITCHELL AND FLORENCE MYLESlearn<strong>in</strong>g success more or less likely.These summarize the results of a great variety of empiricallanguage learn<strong>in</strong>g research, as Spolsky <strong>in</strong>terprets them.How would we beg<strong>in</strong> to ‘evaluate’ this or any other model, or even more modcstly, todecide that this was a view of the language learn<strong>in</strong>g process with which we felt comfortableand with<strong>in</strong> which we wanted to work?This would depend partly on broader philosophicalpositions: e.g. are we satisfied with an account of human learn<strong>in</strong>g which sees <strong>in</strong>dividualdifferences as both relatively fixed, and also highly <strong>in</strong>fluential for learn<strong>in</strong>g? It would alsodepend on the particular focus of our own <strong>in</strong>terests, with<strong>in</strong> second language learn<strong>in</strong>g; thisparticular model seems well adapted for the study of the <strong>in</strong>dividual learner, but has relativelylittle to say about the social relationships <strong>in</strong> which they engage, for example.But whatever the particular focus of a given theory, we would expect to f<strong>in</strong>d thefollow<strong>in</strong>g:1234clear and explicit statements of thc ground the theory is supposed to cover, and theclaims which it is mak<strong>in</strong>g;systematic procedures for confirm<strong>in</strong>g/disconfirm<strong>in</strong>g the theory, through datagather<strong>in</strong>g and <strong>in</strong>terpretation;not only descriptions of L2 phenomena, but attempts to expla<strong>in</strong> why they are so, andto propose mechanisms for change;last but not least, engagement with other theories <strong>in</strong> the field, and serious attempts toaccount for at least some of the phenomena which arc ‘common ground’ <strong>in</strong> ongo<strong>in</strong>gpublic discussion (Long 1990a). The rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g sections of this chapter offer aprelim<strong>in</strong>ary overview of numbers of these.Views on the nature of languageLevels of languageL<strong>in</strong>guists have traditionally viewed language as a complex communication system, whichmust be analysed on a number of levels: phonology, syntax, morphology, semantics and lexis,pragmatics, discourse.They have differed about the degree of separateness/<strong>in</strong>tegration of theselevels; e.g. while Chomsky argued at one time that ‘grammar is autonomous and <strong>in</strong>dependentof mean<strong>in</strong>g’ (1 957, p. 17), another tradition <strong>in</strong>itiated by the British l<strong>in</strong>guist Firth claims that‘there is no boundary between lcxis and grammar: lexis and grammar are <strong>in</strong>terdependent’(Stubbs 1996, p. 36). In exam<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g different perspectives on second language learn<strong>in</strong>g, wewill first of all be look<strong>in</strong>g at the levels of language which they attempt to take <strong>in</strong>to account,and the relative degree of priority they attribute to the different levels. (Does languagelearn<strong>in</strong>g start with words, or with discourse?)We will also exam<strong>in</strong>e the degree of <strong>in</strong>tegration/separation that they assume, across the various levels. We will f<strong>in</strong>d that the control of syntaxis commonly seen as somehow ‘central’ to language learn<strong>in</strong>g, and that most general SLLtheories try to account for development <strong>in</strong> this area. Other levels of language receive muchmore variable attention, and some areas are commonly treated <strong>in</strong> a semi-autonomous way,as specialist fields; this is often true for SLL-oriented studies of pragmatics and of lexicaldevelopment (see e.g. Kasper 1996 on pragmatics; Meara 1996a, 1996b on vocabulary).Competence and performanceThroughout the twentieth century, l<strong>in</strong>guists have also disagreed <strong>in</strong> other ways over theirma<strong>in</strong> focus of <strong>in</strong>terest and of study. Should this be the collection and analysis of actual attestedsamples of language <strong>in</strong> use, for example by record<strong>in</strong>g and analys<strong>in</strong>g people’s speech? Or