A Transdisciplinary Framework for SLA in a Multilingual World - NTNU
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
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 field
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 fields 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 profi-
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 field that has un-
The field 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 fields that are more20 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 subfields 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 benefit, 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 first position our- terdisciplinary expansion, our present collective selves as authors in relation to the field 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 briefly 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. Specifically, 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 configurations of haps not all of us would consider SLA as one of findings 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 find 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 affiliation 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 define 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 taken place in with a disciplinary history, but in SLA many are the context of primary socialization in the fam- encumbered by deficit ideologies that have come ily; in most societies this means prior to formal to be contested (Block, 2003; Cook, 2002; Firth schooling and sometimes in the absence of liter- & Wagner, 1997; Kubota, 2009; Larsen–Freeman, acy mediation. Thus, not only the timing but also 2014a; May, 2011; Norton & Toohey, 2011; Or- instruction and literacy development constitute tega, 2014b). For example, the language that is three sites of difference that distinguish the ob- learned is often referred to as a ‘second language’ ject of study in SLA from that in two neighboring (L2), at times an ‘additional language.’ The peo- fields which, like SLA, are primarily concerned ple who do the learning are called ‘L2 learners,’ with language development, namely monolingual but they can also be referred to as ‘L2 users’ or as first language acquisition (Ambridge & Lieven, ‘(late) bi/multilinguals.’ In the particular case of 2011) and bilingual first language acquisition (De learning English in the United States, they have Houwer, 2009). In both, the focus of interest is recently been designated as ‘long-term English primary socialization inside the family, in other learners’ and, even more pointedly, as ‘English words, the period from birth to right before for- learners at risk of becoming long-term mal schooling and literacy enter children’s lives. English learners’ (cf. Olsen, 2010). What is Third, through the prolonged and open inter- being learned is denoted with the nouns ‘acqui- actions that yielded this document all the authors sition,’ ‘learning,’ and ‘development,’ sometimes came to see our ontologies and with them our the- used synonymously as alternative options, some- ories of language and learning as broadly com- times in strong opposition to each other. Our patible in important ways, despite their different own attempt to navigate and resist facile yet optics. When explaining what language is, our var- consequential labels has been to choose less ious theoretical understandings emphasize three deficiency-oriented options where this was pos- attributes as central: meaning, embodiment, and sible, though some nonsignificant alternation self-adaptive local emergence of patterning. Fur- among terms occasionally seemed unavoidable. ther, when it comes to explaining what learn- Second, the timing of learning also posed un- ing is, at least conceptually and often empirically, comfortable challenges. On the one hand, it is our various theories stipulate the mutual entail- crucial in the definition of SLA’s object of in- ment of the cognitive, the social, and the emo- quiry (as the traditionally used adjective ‘second’ tional. This broad ontological agreement is not indicates). On the other hand, the disciplinary shared among all theories of SLA and, indeed, the understanding of what constitutes ‘a late(r) tim- group authoring this text did not include schol- ing’ is itself a matter of unresolved theoretical ars representing theories that define language debate. For SLA researchers who interpret the ex- as a bounded system of formal rules and con- tant empirical evidence to be in support of a crit- ceptualize learning as a solely or primarily cog- ical period for the learning of human language nitive phenomenon. These other theories have (e.g., Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson, 2003), the certainly shaped SLA as a field and contribute purview of SLA should be postpubescent learners. valuable knowledge about the research questions We distance ourselves from that position and in- they pursue. However, we believe that the alter- stead side with those who find the empirical evi- native ontologies we espouse are needed if re- dence about critical periods thus far inconclusive searchers are to be able to shed a stronger empir- and therefore remain agnostic about them (e.g., ical light on how multilingualism unfolds in the Birdsong, 2014; Muñoz & Singleton, 2011). More- lives of people across their private, public, mate- over, although we acknowledge competing theo- rial, and digital social contexts. ries that posit a marked difference in processes Fourth and finally, we embrace explicit edu- and mechanisms before and after a certain age cational goals for the field (e.g., Byrnes, Weger– (e.g., Bley–Vroman, 2009; Paradis, 2009; Ullman, Guntharp, & Sprang, 2006; Duff & Li, 2009; 2005), we favor a fundamental continuity hypoth- Johnson, 2009; Lantolf & Poehner, 2014; Larsen– esis: To us, there is good reason to consider the Freeman & Anderson, 2011; Norton & Toohey, processes involved in the learning of first lan- 2004; see Swain & Johnson, 1997, for bilingual guages to be largely the processes also at work and immersion education, particularly for
22 The Modern Language Journal, 100, Supplement 2016
younger learners). In this, we side with many (but Heller, 2012); efforts to differentiate and disem-
not all) SLA researchers. The National Federa- power social groups ethnically, culturally, and reli-
tion of Modern Language Teachers Associations giously; and the continued influence and reentex-
(NFMLTA), a major activity of which is the pub- tualization of the nation-state, a market economy,
lication of The Modern Language Journal, declares and social inequality (Appadurai, 1996). Global-
as its main mission “the expansion, promotion, ization, technologization, and mobility, however,
and improvement of the teaching of languages, are forces that exert especially profound and con-
literatures, and cultures” (NFMLTA, undated, tinuous pressure on what it means to learn and
see: http://nfmlta.org/). We share this aspira- use more than one language. As such, they com-
tion to impact language education and offer our pel the research community to train its eyes with
position here as one that is relevant not only to utmost scrutiny to how it investigates and comes
language theory and additional language learn- to know its object of study (Reyes, 2013, p. 374).
ing but also—and crucially—to the teaching of New mobile technologies that increasingly in-
languages. In our estimation, then, SLA, precisely tegrate in complex ways diverse data sources and
because of its unmistakable focus on language networks have reached even seemingly remote
development, ought to contribute useful knowl- corners of the globe and are changing L2 users’
edge for the improvement of education and worlds. We have come to understand that they are
instruction of any and all languages, including neither neutral nor innocent but, in oftentimes
English with its special status as a global language. subtle ways, reproduce social, economic, and cul-
As we assert and affirm this link (see also Bygate, tural inequalities (e.g., van Deursen & van Dijk,
2004; R. Ellis, 2010; Ortega, 2005), we readily 2014). At the same time, they have also trans-
acknowledge that in this document we draw little formed the ways in which language learners in-
on the extensive language teaching scholarship terpret and make meaning, and thus the ways in
that exists (Borg, 2015; Burns, 2010; Johnson, which they need and want to use language. For
2009; Kubanyiova, 2014; Kubanyiova & Feryok, example, although meaning and communication
2015) or say little about the teachers who do this were always multimodal, using the many technolo-
work. Instead, we focus on research into language gies of the body (Mauss, 1973), with new tech-
learning and language learners/users. We are nologies multimodality has reached a qualitatively
also aware that we run the risk of positioning SLA new level. Graphic, pictorial, audio, physical, and
researchers as ‘telling’ language teachers what to spatial patterns of meaning are integrated within,
do or how to think about who, what, and how they and even supplant, traditional spoken and written
are to teach, thereby potentially leaving out their texts (The New London Group, 1996). Notions of
voices, their worlds, or their work. Even so, we space and time collapse online, and boundaries
wish to affirm, both as a statement of belief and as between private and public, real and virtual be-
a statement of aspiration, a strong commitment come blurred (Thorne, 2013). New technologies
on the part of SLA to language teaching and ed- have also created new forms of leisure and new
ucation and express the hope that this document opportunities not only for exchanging and inter-
might, in time, foster more collaborative forms of preting information but also for authoring knowl-
engagement between teachers and researchers. edge and art and for building social networks “in
the digital wilds” (Thorne, Sauro, & Smith, 2015,
THE CHANGING NATURE OF LANGUAGE p. 215). As a result, the very scope and constitu-
LEARNING AND TEACHING IN A tion of communication practices between individ-
MULTILINGUAL WORLD uals and within and across social groups and com-
munities worldwide have also changed: They have
In today’s multilingual world, the rising tide created new needs for new language and new real
of globalization has penetrated all aspects of L2 and imagined discourse communities, and they
learners’ lifeworlds. Amidst globally felt changes have also created new desires for new products,
that seem to occur in breathtaking succession, two commodities, and processes, such as online learn-
closely related phenomena of particular durabil- ing. The future is a moving target, and in coming
ity have been technologization and mobility. We years the emerging new technologies that people
have chosen to emphasize globalization, technol- will want to use in their multiple languages in-
ogization, and mobility for their potential to fa- clude mobile devices, game-based learning, and
cilitate grass-roots agency and action. At the same (further on the horizon) gesture-based comput-
time, we do not wish to naïvely deny the contin- ing and learning analytics (e.g., Spector, 2013).
ued existence of traditional power dynamics, such In turn, educators will want to exploit them for
as the commodification of language (Duchêne & transforming and expanding opportunities forThe Douglas Fir Group 23 the learning and teaching of languages (Kern, plicity of languages, discourses, literacy practices, 2014; Thorne, 2013). and interlocutors. It is thus not surprising that The fabric of L2 learners’ social groups and in these superdiverse environments, transformed communities has also been altered by mobility, a as they are by digital means for communicating term which denotes global movements not only across geographical boundaries and by expand- of people, but also of objects, capital, and in- ing opportunities for learning and using addi- formation across the globe. The movement of tional languages, the once normative dichotomies people is of great consequence for understand- in SLA of the ‘second’ and the ‘foreign’ (more ing today’s multilingualism, especially the form recently applied as well to the ‘heritage’ and of human mobility related to migration known the ‘indigenous’) language context or the ‘real as transnationalism, or “the crossing of cultural, world’ and the ‘classroom’ setting become in- ideological, linguistic, and geopolitical borders creasingly questionable. Affordances for language and boundaries of all types but especially those learning and use arise in multilingual and mul- of nation-states” (Duff, 2015, p. 57; see also timodal encounters with different interlocutors Appadurai, 1996). The patterns of such crossing for diverse purposes, across space and time, and or movement, as Duff notes, are further com- in face-to-face and virtual contexts. Moreover, the plicated by virtual and multigenerational expe- diversity of contemporary life outside of class- riences as well as by temporary mobility pat- rooms is transforming language classrooms, mak- terns, for example, involving short-term sojourn- ing them into “complex communicative space[s] ers for tourism, study abroad, or work—and also criss-crossed with the traces of other communica- by the multiple boundary crossing experiences tive encounters and discourses both institutional of returnees (Kanno, 2003; Kubota, 2013a). The and everyday” (Baynham, 2006, p. 25). It is then large-scale movement (including migration) of not surprising that the expanded potential for individuals, families, and larger social groups meaning-making also harbors enormous poten- around the world, along with the movement of tial for miscommunication, as attested in major information and various forms of capital, creates social tensions at all levels of communication in communities that are linguistically, socially, and our world—among individuals and groups, within culturally extraordinarily diverse. To be sure, mul- countries, across countries and regions, and tilingual communities have long existed in tra- globally. ditional cultures around the globe. In parts of Africa, for example, it is common and, indeed, A BID FOR TRANSDISCIPLINARITY expected, for communities to function through multiple languages, so much so that the languages To make sense of the varying processes and themselves become ‘invisible’ in many commu- outcomes of additional language learning arising nities. One might say, then, that what globaliza- from contemporary conditions, SLA and other tion has accomplished is a heightened awareness applied linguistics researchers have looked to of the reality of multilingualism in Western soci- other disciplines for insights and research di- eties, which had accepted the monolingualism of rections. These explorations have resulted in a the nation-state as the ‘real norm.’ Indeed, diver- wealth of approaches to the study of L2 learning sity is now being felt on an unprecedented scale, and teaching that coexist nowadays in addition prompting anthropologists and, subsequently, so- to the historically dominant cognitive and linguis- ciolinguists and scholars in many other social tic approaches (Atkinson, 2011). Among others, science fields to use the term superdiversity these include non-mainstream approaches rep- (Vertovec, 2007, 2015). resented by the present authors. These newer Mobility and migration have triggered transna- approaches to SLA have had a marked impact tionalism and superdiversity and spawned an on- on the breadth and complexity of studies ex- going process of deterritorialization of meaning- amining second, foreign, indigenous, and her- making. As a result, communication now well- itage language learning. However, they “have led, nigh requires the expansion of creative strate- with a few exceptions, independent and even gies from language users as they negotiate so- isolated existences” (Atkinson, 2011, p. xi). Cit- cial and linguistic action in the face of mini- ing the dangers of such isolation for advanc- mal common ground and maximal semiotic de- ing knowledge, some scholars have argued for mands (Canagarajah, 2013; Kramsch, 2009): Het- engagement across perspectives and, where possi- erogeneous forms of social activity and options ble, the construction of bridges or broader frames for participating in them emerge from mobility of reference in which the complementarities (and and transnationalism, by way of involving a multi- differences) are visible (Hulstijn et al., 2014).
24 The Modern Language Journal, 100, Supplement 2016 Others have argued that such bridge building ing language, and moment-to-moment language may have limited usefulness in that “no matter use. how much traffic crosses the bridges, the abyss [to be bridged] is still there” (Lantolf, 2014, THE FRAMEWORK p. 370). As a group, we have come to appreciate sev- Our framework encompasses a growing body eral important strengths of transdisciplinarity of theories and research, although we can (Larsen–Freeman, 2012). Indeed, we see an in- do no more than refer to citations that are teresting parallel between the mobility of people representative, rather than inclusive or ex- and transnationalism and the multidirectional, haustive, of the relevant research. Inspired by rhizomatic information flows enabled by tech- Bronfenbrenner’s ecological framework for nology and transdisciplinarity. Epistemologically, human development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; transdisciplinarity aspires to transcend the bound- Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2007), our integrated aries of disciplines and generate knowledge that representation of the multilayered complex- is more than the sum of a discipline-specific col- ity of L2 learning distinguishes three levels of lection of findings (Halliday, 1990/2001). Rather mutually dependent influence (cf. Ricento & than privileging the disciplines “as the locus of in- Hornberger, 1996). As shown in Figure 1, we see tellectual activity, while building bridges between L2 learning as an ongoing process that begins them, or assembling them into a collection,” Hal- at the micro level of social activity (the smallest liday advocates creating “new forms of activity concentric circle), with individuals recruiting which are thematic rather than disciplinary in their neurological mechanisms and cognitive and their orientation” (1990/2001, p. 176). As Hult emotional capacities and engaging with others (2011) notes, a transdisciplinary approach “lends in specific multilingual contexts of action and itself to a certain intellectual freedom but also interaction, resulting in recurring contexts of use to practical and conceptual challenges to be con- that contribute to the development of multilin- sidered along all phases of the research process” gual repertoires (Rymes, 2010). The engagement (p. 19). Closer to the ground, in its methodolog- in these contexts uses all available semiotic ical orientation, transdisciplinarity seeks to help resources, including linguistic, prosodic, interac- solve problems in socially useful and participant- tional, nonverbal, graphic, pictorial, auditory, and relevant or emic ways with whatever theoretical- artifactual resources. These contexts are situated analytical tools are required (e.g., Bigelow, 2014). within and shaped at a meso level (the middle Mixed methods research that carefully considers concentric circle) by particular sociocultural the contexts of language teaching and learning institutions and particular sociocultural commu- seems to be particularly well suited to this task nities, such as those found in the family, school, (cf. J. D. Brown, 2014; Hashemi & Babaii, 2013; neighborhood, places of work, places of worship, Mackey & Gass, 2015). In both the sciences and social organizations like clubs, community sports the humanities, the movement to transdisciplinar- leagues, political parties, online forums of various ity can also aspire to become a transgressive cri- kinds, and so on. Importantly, the institutions tique of normal science and normative knowledge and communities at the meso level are power- (J. T. Klein, 2014), inviting individual researchers fully characterized by pervasive social conditions to turn critical moments of recognizing differ- (e.g., economic, cultural, religious, political), ence into opportunities for trusting communica- which affect the possibility and nature of persons tion and enrichment across epistemic boundaries creating social identities in terms of investment, (Holbrook, 2013). agency, and power. Together, these institutions, We thus offer a transdisciplinary framework communities, conditions, and possible identities that assumes the embedding, at all levels, of so- provide or restrict access to particular types of cial, sociocultural, sociocognitive, sociomaterial, social experiences. Finally, at the macro level (the ecosocial, ideological, and emotional dimensions. largest concentric circle) there are large-scale, Its goal is to meet the challenge of responding to society-wide ideological structures with particular the pressing needs of additional language users, orientations toward language use and language their education, their multilingual and multiliter- learning (including belief systems and cultural, ate development, social integration, and perfor- political, religious, and economic values) that mance across diverse globalized, technologized, both shape and are shaped by sociocultural and transnational contexts. It does so by pursu- institutions and communities (middle circle) ing an integrative consideration of learners’ men- as well as by the agency of individual members tal and neurobiological processing, remember- within their locally situated contexts of action
The Douglas Fir Group 25
FIGURE 1
The Multifaceted Nature of Language Learning and Teaching
MACRO LEVEL
Belief Systems
Cultural Values
OF
Political Values IDEOLOGICAL STRUCTURES
Religious Values
Economic Values
MESO LEVEL
OF Social Identities
SOCIOCULTURAL INSTITUTIONS
AND COMMUNITIES
Families
MICRO LEVEL Schools
Semiotic Resources OF Neighborhood
Linguistic SOCIAL ACTIVITY Places of Work
Prosodic Places of Worship
Interactional Social Organizations
Nonverbal
Graphic
Pictorial
Auditory
Artifactual
and interaction (smallest circle). While each of communication and learning in their multilin-
the three levels represented in Figure 1 has its gual lifeworlds. Another goal is to foster in learn-
distinctive characteristics, no level exists on its ers a profound awareness not only of the cultural,
own; each exists only through constant interac- historical, and institutional meanings that their
tion with the others, such that each gives shape to language-mediated social actions have, but also,
and is shaped by the next, and all are considered and just as importantly, of the dynamic and evolv-
essential to understanding SLA. They persist only ing role their actions play in shaping their own
through constant interaction with each other and others’ worlds. Learners as language users
and so exist in a state of continuous change (cf. have this power via the semiotic resources they
Fairclough, 1996; Larsen–Freeman & Cameron, choose to use and respond to in their interactions
2008). with others. In short, the framework is intended to
The framework is built on an understanding help multilingual users to thrive with and through
that, ideally, should foster two goals of additional their very multilinguality by the kind of research
language learning and teaching. One goal is to and practice it advocates.
expand the perspectives of researchers and teach- Pursuit of these goals crucially necessitates
ers of L2 learners with regard to learners’ diverse several constructs. One is the construct of commu-
multilingual repertoires of meaning-making re- nity, including speech communities (Gumperz,
sources and identities so as to enable their par- 1968), discourse communities (Swales, 1990,
ticipation in a wide range of social, cognitive, pp. 21–32), and communities of practice
and emotional activities, networks, and forms of (Lave & Wenger, 1991). These notions have26 The Modern Language Journal, 100, Supplement 2016
contributed substantially to capturing the social dynamic, and holistic (Larsen–Freeman, 1997;
nature of language learning. Most recently, the Tarone, 1983).
construct has become contested among other The totality of a speaker’s semiotic resources
reasons because of its inability to capture ade- must be considered her or his communicative
quately powerful social relationships outside the and interactional competence. It goes without say-
community, with individual networks of practice ing that our invoking the term ‘competence’ is
being suggested instead in order to describe markedly different from its use by Chomsky, per-
people’s engagement with other users and learn- haps even its use by Hymes. Multilingual speakers
ers of language (cf. Zappa–Hollman & Duff, will deploy their semiotic resources by choosing
2015). Norm and choice, identity and agency are across their languages and/or varieties and regis-
other important constructs. It is communities ters in response to local demands for social action.
or, as appropriate, social networks that give rise Multilinguals are well documented as handling
to always-changing but nevertheless operational this rich semiotic repertoire flexibly, sometimes
norms of language use, form, and function, keeping the languages separate, at other times al-
together with exploitable potentials for novel ternating them, mixing them, or meshing them.
meaning-making through language choice. Both The competence of multilingual speakers is the
language norms and language choice must be holistic sum of their multiple-language capacities
developed through experience and both must (Blackledge & Creese, 2010; Cook & Li Wei, 2016;
be recognizable as such by a given community of Grosjean, 1989; He, 2013). Their multilingualism
users and more locally by a given co-interlocutor, “is fluid, not fixed: difficult to measure, but real”
if learners are to participate in particular types (Gorter, 2015, p. 86).
of discourse as legitimate speakers with the right Learners’ developmental trajectories, medi-
to be interpreted favorably and to impose mean- ated by the opportunities and struggles of their
ing and position themselves in a desirable light multilingual lifeworlds, vary in and outside of
(Norton, 2013). In other words, flexible com- the classroom. Some people develop compre-
petencies over both norm and choice allow the hensive and elaborate repertoires of multilin-
speakers/writers to present themselves and their gual semiotic resources, while others develop
views in a particular way, not only accomplishing more specialized resources linked to particu-
successful referential communication goals but lar contexts (e.g., technical L2 vocabulary for
also reflecting the person’s fashioned identity in academic, specific, or vocational purposes). Yet
relation to the topic and audience members. others craft minimal, transitory competences
Thus, learning such discursive norms and choices based on snippets of additional languages (e.g.,
further enables new language users not only isolated greeting/leave-taking patterns like hola
to participate in discourse but also to exercise from Spanish or sayonara from Japanese; see
agency, that is, to negotiate some impact on their Blommaert & Backus, 2011), or bricolage and
local contexts and on the improvement of their mesh resources from multiple languages and va-
material and social worlds (Byrnes, 2014b; Miller, rieties (e.g., hip hop varieties; Alim, Ibrahim,
2014). & Pennycook, 2009). Still others appropriate
Ensuing from the framework are 10 funda- limited linguistic repertoires for purposes of
mental themes. They obtain from the characteris- identity performance, play, and styling (Broner
tics of the three levels, their interconnectedness, & Tarone, 2001; Li Wei & Zhu, 2013; Ramp-
and their potential as affordances (Gibson, 1979), ton, 2013). Other language users may imag-
that is, their potential to offer action possibili- ine themselves to remain steadfastly monolin-
ties that can be appropriated, negotiated, trans- gual, discounting their multilectal and multireg-
formed, and made into means or constraints for ister competencies. And despite increased and
L2 researching, learning, and teaching. In the re- varied social encounters marked by extensive
mainder of the article we present each theme in use of multilingual resources, some may insu-
turn. late themselves from other languages by choice
or circumstance. Further shaping what it means
1. Language Competencies Are Complex, Dynamic, to develop multilingual repertoires is the con-
and Holistic tested and ambivalent role of English as a global
lingua franca, which affects the worlds of L2
A new, reimagined SLA that addresses the re- learners and users in the realms of educa-
alities of L2 learning in a multilingual world tion, diplomacy, science, popular cultural me-
necessitates a reconceptualized understanding dia (e.g., movies, music, Twitter, dance), and
of linguistic competence: One that is complex, technology.The Douglas Fir Group 27
2. Language Learning Is Semiotic Learning which are reinstantiated with each new use in a
slightly different context.
Semiotic resources include a wide array of con- The greater the number and diversity of con-
ventionalized form–meaning constructions that texts of interaction within and across social in-
vary in degree of analytic specificity, ranging stitutions that L2 learners gain and are given
from minimal meaningful units, such as mor- access to and are motivated to participate in,
phemes and words, to collocations of units and the richer and more linguistically diverse their
other groupings comprising idioms and rou- evolving semiotic resources will be. Likewise, the
tines, as well as the more conventionally recog- more extended the learners’ opportunities are
nized linguistic units such as sentences (Boyd & for deriving form–meaning patterns from these
Goldberg, 2009; N. C. Ellis & Robinson, 2008; meaning-making resources (e.g., through trans-
Pawley & Syder, 1983). Semiotic resources also in- parency of connections in their use and guided
clude larger, more holistic types of meanings, for support from others to notice and remember the
example, at the level of discourse and rhetoric. connections), the more robust their multilingual
In the case of oral language use, they also in- repertoires are likely to be. Importantly, however,
clude patterns for taking turns, and paralinguis- access is neither easy nor assured and, in some
tic resources such as intonation, stress, tempo, cases, is in fact blocked, whether intentionally or
pausing, and other such features that accom- unintentionally.
pany talk as well as the full array of nonverbal
signs—gestures, facial expressions, body position-
ing, accompanying action, head movement, etc. 3. Language Learning Is Situated and Attentionally
In the case of written language, resources also in- and Socially Gated
clude orthographic and typographic representa-
tions. Semiotic resources further include visual, Language learning begins at the micro level of
graphic, and auditory modes of meaning-making social activity (see the inner concentric circle in
(Kress, 2009). Figure 1) through L2 learners’ repeated experi-
All semiotic resources, individually and in com- ences in regularly occurring and recurring con-
bination, have meaning potentials, that is, con- texts of use, often characterized by interpersonal
ventionalized form–meaning combinations that (oral, signed, or written) interaction with other
develop from their past uses in contexts of action social actors. From these situated, local iterative
in the world that, in turn, are shaped by larger so- contexts, language use and language learning can
cial institutions (e.g., the family, schools, places emerge—though they do not always do so. The
of work and worship, civic organizations, etc.). scope of these contexts can be wide-ranging and
These resources offer particular visions of the includes everyday, informal contexts of interac-
world, that is, they create “specific complexes of tion, such as ad hoc conversations, text messag-
values, definitions of the situation, and meanings ing, online game-playing, as well as more formal
of possible actions” (Morson & Emerson, 1990, contexts such as those comprising L2 classrooms
p. 22) that bind their users, to some degree, to par- where students instruct and are instructed, in-
ticular ways of construing the world (Hall, 2011). form, discuss, problem solve, and so on. These en-
This is where the macro level has a powerful influ- counters can be very brief or longer lasting; their
ence through the politico-economic system that purposes can be varied, and the means—the semi-
impacts schools, work, civic, and religious institu- otic resources—by which they are accomplished
tions, etc. The meaning potentials of all semiotic can vary as well (see, e.g., Tarone, 1979, 1985;
resources are considered affordances in that in Tarone & Liu, 1995).
their local, emergent contexts of use they enable In the field of usage-based developmental lin-
certain possible construals of experience by their guistics, a well-known principle is that regularly
users and certain possible interpretations by the occurring and recurring social interactions are
recipients (e.g., hearers, readers) (Byrnes, 2006; characterized by joint actions that are depen-
N. C. Ellis & Robinson, 2008). dent on intersubjective or shared cognition, that
Meaning potentials of semiotic resources, then, is, a human being’s recognition that she can
are not neutral, value-free, systems. Rather, each share beliefs and intentions with other humans
resource “tastes of the context and contexts (Clark, 1996). Shared attention develops in the
in which it has lived its socially charged life” first 2 years of life, when infants develop their
(Bakhtin, 1981, p. 293). In this way all semiotic re- capabilities of attention detection (gaze follow-
sources function as the “carriers of sociocultural ing), attention manipulation (directive pointing),
patterns and knowledge” (Wertsch, 1994, p. 204), intention understanding (“theory of mind” or28 The Modern Language Journal, 100, Supplement 2016 the realization that others are goal-directed), and support adaptive behavior” (Okon–Singer et al., social coordination with shared intentionality 2015, p. 6). For L2 learners this may mean that (engaging in joint activities with shared interest, the more they experience emotionally and moti- negotiating meanings) (Tomasello, 2003). Shared vationally positive evaluations of their anticipated attention, shared cooperative activity, and shared and real interactions, the more effort they will cognition are key to the emergence of language make to participate in them and affiliate with in infants through socially contingent, meaning- others. ful usage. Furthermore, this crucially important As Schumann (2010) and Lee and colleagues activity of joint attention is a process into which (2009) note, infants in normal situations acquire novices are socialized in their particular culture their primary languages through bonding rela- (e.g., P. Brown, 2011). In these usage events un- tionships with their caregivers that are almost un- folding at the micro level of social activity, the conditionally offered to them; by comparison, the semiotic resources that more mature communica- older the learner, the more complicated interper- tors tool and retool to accomplish social actions sonal and social relations become. This means are afforded for the infants, as novice commu- that older learners are likely to experience re- nicators, to appropriate, recycle, and expand in duced intensity of the brain reward system from contextually adaptive ways, as they co-construct such affiliations, although these can occur un- meaning. Such contextually adaptive ways ideally der certain circumstances. Consequently, their serve language development, and positive out- interest or motivation to seek out and sustain comes can be expected given average conditions affiliative interactions within L2 contexts of ac- of health and social and emotional well-being. In tion (i.e., their emotional investment) and, con- sum, infants’ language learning is gated by both comitantly, their opportunities for learning, are attention and sociality at the same time (N. C. likely to be also reduced. By the same token, Ellis, 2014, 2015). Within the fundamental con- extraordinarily high, and highly emotional, mo- tinuity hypothesis we espouse, these processes are tivation can occur with adult learners. For ex- equally relevant to infants learning their first lan- ample, Henry, Davydenko, and Dörnyei (2015) guage(s) and to youth or adults learning an addi- found what they call ‘directed motivational cur- tional language (N. C. Ellis, 2015; Lee et al., 2009; rents’ in their study of unusually successful immi- MacWhinney, 2012). The development of an ad- grants learning Swedish. Dewaele and MacIntyre ditional language is thus also attentionally and so- (2014) also found that many foreign language cially gated, as learners’ multilingual repertoires learners report intense feelings of enjoyment, as in their varied micro contexts likewise depend in well as anxiety, in L2 classrooms. Moreover, in an- part on neurobiological mechanisms with which other study Denies, Yashima, and Janssen (2015) all human beings are endowed. showed that the behavioral manifestation of the Socially meaningful interaction is partly de- interactional instinct that SLA research has re- pendent on an interactional instinct, that is, ferred to as ‘willingness to communicate,’ can be a biologically specified attentional and moti- realized differently in one and the same learner vational brain networked system that pushes group, depending on whether the interaction the infant to seek out emotionally rewarding, takes place in a classroom setting or in the larger affiliative relationships with others, and to bond society. It turns out that perceived competence emotionally and affectively (Lee et al., 2009; of self in both the classroom and larger society, Schumann, 2010). As with all learning, for young more so than motivation in and of itself, helped children, adolescents, and adults, too, L2 learn- predict users’ willingness to communicate. Such ing is an emotionally driven process, one that re- differences explain in part the great variability of quires minimally that they be motivated to par- outcomes that is observed in L2 learning. ticipate with others in particular contexts of ac- Also playing a significant role in additional tion, in classrooms and society at large. To deter- language learning and use is the set of general mine the reward potential that may be afforded by cognitive and emotional capabilities on which L2 contexts of action, humans evaluate them ac- learners draw to register and catalogue their en- cording to five dimensions: novelty, pleasantness, counters with the various semiotic resources com- goal or need significance, coping potential, and prising their contexts of interaction. These in- self- and social image (Lee et al., 2009). This is clude the abilities to select and attend to par- part of regular brain functioning: Human brains ticular meaning-making components and their “integrate ‘emotional’ (e.g., value, risk) and ‘cog- patterns of action, to form schemas based on nitive’ computations (e.g., prediction error, at- their recurrences, to create mappings across tention allocation, action selection) in ways that units based on functional similarities, and to
The Douglas Fir Group 29
hypothesize about and continually test their un- (Atkinson, 2014; Eskildsen & Wagner, 2015;
derstandings of their meanings. Learning first Goldin–Meadow & Alibali, 2013; Ibbotson,
and second languages, like learning about all Lieven, & Tomasello, 2013). Moreover, “humans
other aspects of the world, involves the full scope use the entire body to participate in socially orga-
of cognition and emotion: the remembering of ut- nized processes of understanding and learning,
terances and episodes; the categorization of expe- [a fact] which ultimately challenges a strict Carte-
rience; the determination of patterns among and sian division between mind and body. Instead,
between stimuli; the generalization of concep- the mind is the body” (Eskildsen & Wagner, 2015,
tual schema and prototypes from exemplars; and p. 442; cf. also Harris, 1998, and his advocacy of
the use of cognitive models, metaphors, analo- ‘integrationism’).
gies, and images in thinking (N. C. Ellis, 2008, Language learning happens by mediation,
2015). Conscious and unconscious learning pro- through cultural resources and tools that individ-
cesses similarly affect the dance of dialogue where uals use to move through, respond to, and make
conversation partners align perspectives and sense of their social worlds (cf. Scollon, 2001;
means of linguistic expression. Language is used Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1994). The role of me-
to focus the listener’s attention to the world, diation in L2 learning is seen as central in socio-
potentially relating many different perspectives cultural theories (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Swain,
about the same scene or referents. What is at- Kinnear, & Steinman, 2015) but cannot be ig-
tended to focuses learning, and so language is nored in any attempts at understanding language
both constitutive of and constituted by attention. learning, regardless of theoretical predilections.
The functions of language in use determine its us- The semiotic resource of language is itself consid-
age and learning (N. C. Ellis, 2014). The more ered to be a mediational tool (see earlier section);
routine, frequent, and stable the occurrences of in addition, across various modes of communi-
particular resources are in the interactions and cation, mediational semiotic tools can include a
the more L2 learners’ attention is drawn to their potentially infinite set of cultural artifacts, such
form–meaning pairings, the more entrenched the as diagrams, maps, books, computers, and even
resources become as cognitive–emotional repre- furniture, including tables, desks, and chairs
sentations of their experiences. All else being (Nishino & Atkinson, 2015).
equal, the more extensive, complex, and multi- In classrooms, in addition, mediation is typi-
lingual the contexts of interaction become over cally accomplished via a wide range of instruc-
time, and the more enduring learners’ participa- tional actions that direct learners to perceive or
tion is in them, the more complex and enduring notice the relevant resources and their form–
their multilingual repertoires will be. meaning connections and to make connections
between them and their contexts of use. For ex-
4. Language Learning Is Multimodal, Embodied, ample, the type of materials used in formal learn-
and Mediated ing contexts such as L2 classrooms have been
shown to play a significant role in shaping stu-
Supporting learners’ neurobiological and cog- dents’ contexts of interaction and participation
nitive processes are cues used by others, typi- structures, demonstrating that they are not only
cally more experienced participants, which index a primary source of the design of curriculum,
and at times make transparent the form–meaning but also highly influential to the scope and types
patterns and can assist L2 learners in noticing of instructional interactions that occur within
and remembering them. Such assistance can take that learning community (Guerrettaz & Johnston,
many forms, such as the use of verbal and non- 2013; Toohey, 2000).
verbal actions that explicitly direct learners’ atten-
tion to the semiotic resources and their meaning- 5. Variability and Change Are at the Heart of
making potentials, and other less explicit actions Language Learning
including repetitions, recycling, and recasts of
one another’s words; tone, intonation, and pitch Language learning is characterized by variabil-
changes; eye gaze and gesture; and so on. ity and change. It is a ceaseless moving target,
Nonlinguistic, multimodal semiotic resources with periods of stability but never stasis, and de-
are used to make the coupling of a form and scribable via probabilistic predictions but never
a meaning socially available during unfold- via deterministic laws. These qualities must be ac-
ing interactions. They are not peripheral or counted for within and across units of observa-
complementary to language learning. Instead, tion, be it constructions, stretches of discourse,
they provide crucial social cues to grammar learners, classrooms, or communities.30 The Modern Language Journal, 100, Supplement 2016
First, no two people, even those in the same [f]or the child, the construction of the grammar
classroom, will experience exactly the same social and the construction of semantic/pragmatic con-
contexts of language use or resolve them in ex- cepts go hand-in-hand. For the adult, construction
actly the same way. Thus, differences at the micro of the grammar often requires a revision of seman-
tic/pragmatic concepts [available through the L1],
level of social activity and in L2 learners’ history
along with what may well be a more difficult task of
of usage across situated, local, iterative contexts
perceptual identification of the relevant morpholog-
will create differences in the learning trajecto- ical elements. (p. 242)
ries at the individual level of observation (de Bot,
Lowie, & Verspoor, 2007; Eskildsen & Wagner, In other words, knowledge of the L1 results in a
2015; Larsen–Freeman, 2006; Larsen–Freeman & ‘learned attention’ to language whereby the pro-
Cameron, 2008). This is true even when it is cessing of the L2 proceeds in L1-tuned ways (N. C.
also possible to observe regular, more general Ellis, 2008). The languages and cultural schemata
patterns of development at larger grain sizes of a multilingual interact, both facilitating and
(N. C. Ellis, 2008, 2015). There is no learn- complicating the learning of new language at the
ing without change, and thus, when a learner level of forms, concepts, and form–meaning map-
exhibits high variability in the deployment of pings (Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008). The more sim-
semiotic resources, this is theoretically important ilar, broadly speaking, these L1 forms, concepts,
and can be studied in its own right (de Bot and form–meaning pairings are to those in the
et al., 2007; Geeslin, 2014; Larsen–Freeman & L2, the easier it may be for L2 learners to learn
Cameron, 2008; Preston, 1989; Tarone, 1988). them, while at the same time even slight varia-
Variability is not measurement error begging tions and subtle differences across languages can
for better control. Acknowledging inter- as complicate the development of apparently simi-
well as intra-individual variation helps counter lar L2 forms, concepts, and form–meaning map-
deficit orientations in the description of lin- pings. These cross-linguistic influences are perva-
guistic development in an L2 (W. Klein, 1998) sive, but they are also bidirectional; and they are
and focus on what learners can do rather dynamic and variable, rather than deterministic
than what they cannot do (Donato & Tucker, or constant (Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008).
2010).
Second, cognitive abilities involved in pattern 6. Literacy and Instruction Mediate Language
detection appear to be more variable among Learning
adults than among children. Differences in them
create variation in L2 development across individ- When language is learned during primary so-
uals. The sources of such differences appear to cialization in the family, this usually means not
be located in phonological short-term memory, only from birth or soon after, but also without
associative memory, and implicit learning (Linck the involvement of formal schooling or literacy
et al., 2013) as well as perhaps in pattern-detecting mediation. In many—though certainly not all—
ability for general statistical learning of artifi- societies and for many individuals, on the other
cial language (nonmeaningful) stimuli (Misyak & hand, additional language learning tends to be
Christiansen, 2012). All else being equal, L2 learn- characterized by the mediation of instruction and
ers with higher capacities for detecting patterns literacy. Therefore, both instruction and literacy
are likely to do better than those whose capacities need to be understood as sources of influence
are lower (MacWhinney, 2012). However, rather on L2 learning, and disciplinary knowledge about
than accepting meager learning outcomes as bio- them has particular potential to improve the
logically given once learners have passed a certain learning experiences of the millions of children,
age and finding ways of theorizing them as insur- adolescents, and adults worldwide who, by choice
mountable, our stance is that responsible educa- or circumstance, embark on the journey of addi-
tional approaches can go a long way toward fos- tional language learning in educational settings.
tering other learner abilities that are also known A wealth of psycholinguistically oriented SLA re-
to affect learning success, particularly in adult search into the development of L2 literacies has il-
learners. luminated the complexities of learning to become
Third, in learning multiple languages an- biliterate (Grabe & Stoller, 2011), and particularly
other factor that mediates processes and out- in languages with different writing systems (Koda,
comes and creates variability is knowledge 2005). We now know that alphabetic print liter-
of a previous language or languages, includ- acy shapes the way oral second languages are pro-
ing a first language (L1). As Slobin (1993) cessed and learned (Tarone, Bigelow, & Hanson,
describes, 2009), so the fact that almost all SLA research onYou can also read
