The social turn in second language acquisition (review)

Mainstream second language acquisition (SLA) research has at its core several seemingly basic tenets: the ‘second’ language is any language acquired after the mother tongue, the ‘language’ typically examined is concerned with syntax and morphology, and ‘acquisition’ refers to linguistic knowledge resulting from contact with the language in either a classroom or naturalistic setting. Block, drawing from work in sociolinguistics, argues for a more interdisciplinary approach to SLA, responding to the challenge of Michael Long (SLA: Breaking the siege. University of Hawai’i Working Papers in ESL 17.79–129, 1998) that researchers ‘who would like to see a more interdisciplinary SLA’ should ‘offer … some evidence that a broader view of social context makes a difference, and a difference not just to the way this or that tiny stretch of discourse is interpretable, but to our understanding of [second language] acquisition’ (Long 1998:92). The current monograph is B’s response to this challenge.

A brief introduction is followed by a comprehensive review of the development of SLA. B then takes the component parts of the acronym SLA and problematizes the traditional understandings of each. He concludes with some cautiously optimistic directions for future research.

S: Second language, in the literature, typically refers to any language acquired after the first language has been fully acquired. B argues that this is an oversimplification since it does not account for learner variation in terms of multilingualism. The increase in research being done in Europe on third language acquisition (TLA) provides further evidence for his point, as TLA is seen as a distinct field in its own right. B argues for the replacement of ‘second’ with the word ‘additional’, although he doubts the discipline will adopt this change.

L: in problematizing the use of language, B focuses on the wide discrepancy in the literature about the kind of language acquired. Researchers in SLA, from those conducting cognitively based studies to those in pragmatics, all speak of ‘language’ gains, using the same term to refer to very different phenomena: for the former, gains in syntax and morphology, and for the latter, gains in the use of language in context.

A: the question of what researchers mean by acquisition is complex. Researchers focus on different aspects of language. For some, acquisition is an accumulation of grammar rules, for others increased pragmatic abilities, for some enhanced participation, and for others still the processing of information. B, who sees the input-interaction-output hypothesis (IIO) in its standard form as too simplistic, advocates for more research like that of Merrill Swain, who synthesizes in her work the frameworks of input-interaction-output with sociocultural/activity theory.

B’s work is an admirable answer to Long’s challenge. His writing is clear and precise, and his conclusions are optimistic yet realistic. Future strands of research that he sees as particularly conducive to a more social look at SLA are projects like Swain and Sharon Lapkin’s that merge IIO and sociocultural/activity theories, and interlanguage pragmatics.