On Universal Trends in Spanish as a Second Language

In this important and provocative essay, Avizia Yim Long and Kimberly Geeslin suggest that we cannot accept the findings of research on Spanish as an L2 until we have evidence from learners of typologically diverse L1s. That is, "the search for universal trends of acquisition is undermined by an inability to distinguish between challenges that are specific to English-speaking learners and those that apply across learner populations" (205). Long and Geeslin's data from Korean L1 learners of Spanish L2 (in addition to some data from Chinese and Portuguese L1 learners) is a point of departure.

Long and Geeslin's position is well taken. Research is always welcome that attempts to verify extant findings. However, several caveats are in order. The first concerns the research on English as L2. The extensive body of literature on English as L2 is informed by research using learners from a variety of typologically different L1s. And yet, while some L1 influences are noted, the universality of various aspects of acquisition is well known. This universality includes such things as developmental sequences, morpheme orders, processing heuristics and constraints (from UG and other sources), among others. What this literature suggests is that powerful underlying forces are at work in acquisition independent of any L1 influence. So, the first question for the present essay is this: why would Spanish L2 be any different? Is there something about Spanish that makes it "special" compared to English such that the L1 should exert an influence against the universals? To be sure, my claim is not that there is no L1 influence in acquisition. Some of the findings reported by Long and Geeslin on Spanish L2 are to be expected and have been shown in the acquisition of English as L2, for example.

Assuming that comparing research studies poses no problem where designs are different, data collection is different, and procedures may be different, if we look closely at the research presented by Long and Geeslin, we do not really find any actual dispute regarding the extant research findings on the acquisition of Spanish as L2. As one instance, Long and Geeslin note that the sequence established back in the 1980s for the acquisition of copular verbs (ser/estar) basically holds regardless of the L1; that is, L1 influence does not appear to affect the sequence but rather the rates of use of certain kinds of adjectives. The same is true for the research on null and explicit subjects. Long and Geeslin report, not on the universal aspects of the acquisition of subject pronouns (e.g., operation of the OPC, how pro operates in the grammar, referentiality) that should hold regardless of L1, but, instead, on rates of pronoun suppliance. Again, we would expect such differences for a variety of reasons. To be sure, Long and Geeslin clearly state that such research "does not derail our existing work, but rather, allows an additional level of detail" (209). I agree and although such detail is interesting and of merit, I return to my original point: what are we trying to find out in L2 acquisition that we don't already know from research on English and other languages, including Spanish?

For me, then, taking a visionary perspective on the future of Spanish L2, I would suggest the following questions:

• • How can the acquisition of Spanish as L2, if at all, be used to inform theories of second language acquisition or test particular hypotheses derived from those theories? And why would we want to do this?

• • To what extent can the research on Spanish L2 be used in education to inform teachers about the nature of language acquisition?

After thirty-plus years in the profession, I find the second question particularly important for the future of Spanish. In my experience, knowledge about both language and language acquisition is woefully underrepresented in teacher preparation and in continuing teacher education. Because of this underrepresentation, we have failed to create true and...