Wider Context in Research and Second Language Teaching

Human beings, and with them their languages and cultures, have been coming into contact with each other for as long as recorded history, and so, presumably, have issues of language learning. Languages of wider communication - lingua francas - have been documented at least since the Achaemenid Empire (550-330 BCE), where Imperial Aramaic (a Semitic language) was used in an empire dominated by the Persian-speaking ruling class (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaeme-nid_Empire#Languages). English is thus merely the most recent in the history of changing languages of wider communication. The difference is that how to teach modern languages to speakers of other languages is now the focus of significant academic study in its own right.

The modern discipline of second language studies itself now consists of many subfields. Some of these subfields are more theoretically related to representation and cognitive science; some are more applied in terms of how instruction can be delivered in real time either in classrooms or increasingly via computer-assisted instruction. Other research looks into the social underpinnings of language teaching in a wider social context. The body of research of relevance to second language acquisition (SLA) spans time and space from uninstructed language learning via language contact (Thomason & Kaufman, 1988) to attrition in heritage speakers (e.g., Montrul, 2008; Nagy, 2018) to the cultural, political, and economic forces that drive language maintenance and shift and language policy

(Paulston, 1994, 1997; Paulston et al., 2007). Instruction and learning in lEPs fits into this wider context of research on second language acquisition and teaching that is by now well documented but can be considered divided into two main areas, which are theory and application.

Second Language Acquisition as Theoretical Research

Instruction in lEPs relies on a solid foundation of research in second language learning and teaching, which is itself founded on linguistic theory. Indeed, the relationship between language learning and linguistic theory has a long history (Lightbown & White, 1987). At times, this relationship has been very close, as during the early period of audiolingualism (Bloomfield, 1942; Castagnaro, 2006). At other times, the study of second language acquisition and classroom instruction have drifted apart because abstract theoretical concerns were seen as less relevant to classroom practice and the development of knowledge of academic literacy that students need to succeed in their programs.

Thus, some researchers hold the view that SLA can be purely theoretical, without any classroom applications as a goal of the research in mind (Juffs, 2017; White, 1990). Indeed, it is important to understand what the cognitive (mental) state of knowing another language is and how that state comes into being like any other natural phenomenon. It is clear that theoretical second language acquisition has now emerged as an independent discipline outside the practical concerns of foreign and second language classroom teaching. In fact, since the late 1960s (Corder, 1967), the study of second language development has become an important part of linguistics and psychology and not necessarily directly related to classroom language instruction at all. The precise extent to which SLA can be considered an independent discipline remains a complex issue in the field (Long, 2007), but many researchers would argue that second language acquisition must in fact be studied as discipline that is independent of education, albeit part of the wider field of cognitive science. This position does not mean that the results of pure SLA research are not useful or in fact vital in improving educational practice. Indeed, this book will consider the implications of SLA research in classroom contexts, but a direct application of research findings is not always obvious or desirable even if the research is classroom based. This caution is especially needed if results are based only on a single study (Pionsky & Oswald, 2014). In this book, the focus will be on the specific context of language development in intensive English programs as evidenced by corpus data and experimental data in one specific IEP and how observed developmental patterns could be informed by a wide range of theoretical approaches, which I discuss briefly in the following paragraph. The point is that research in applied linguistics

IEPs and Second Language Teaching Research 9 can and should be relevant to language centers and IEPs (Gass, Juffs, Starfield & Hyland, 2018).

It is important to emphasize that this book concerns aspects of language development, and in no sense is it intended to be comprehensive. The focus will be mainly on lexical development, the development of morpho-syntactic accuracy, writing for academic purposes, and to some extent fluency. We will not address in detail reading comprehension of extended texts, even though this is a very important skill for students to master.

The current approaches to second language acquisition that this book will draw on reflect the developments in the fields of linguistics, psychology, anthropology, and education. These perspectives vary quite widely, as the summary articles in different handbooks of SLA demonstrate (e.g., Hinkel, 2005; Doughty & Long, 2003; Ritchie & Bhatia, 2009). The first approach to research is that carried out in the tradition of formal linguistics. This approach seeks to understand how abstract knowledge constrains the hypothesis space in acquisition and processing (White, 2003), but it also provides a detailed theory to describe learner development. In contrast, approaches that are grounded in connectionist psychology put much more emphasis on input and frequency than abstract structures (e.g., Robinson & Ellis, 2008). Sociocultural theory focuses on understanding how learners interact and co-construct knowledge and may be more directly relevant to how learners actually behave in classrooms and with technology that we introduce (e.g., Lantolf Sc Thorne, 2006; Juffs Sc Friedline, 2014).

The IEP that is the subject of this volume provides focused instruction, not only on linguistic forms but also literacy in the broadest sense in terms of reading skills (bottom-up and top-down) and written output that would be appropriate in an academic context in US higher education. SLA research has not always considered ‘literacy’ part of its core focus because the subfield of English for academic purposes (EAP) has occupied that niche to some extent. It is worth re-emphasizing Larsen-Freeman Sc Long’s (1991, pp. 169-170) call for more nuanced approaches to SLA. Researchers and teachers need to bear in mind the concerns of basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) and cognitive and academic language skills (CALP) proposed by Cummins (1979, 2003). Such differences must be taken seriously when preparing students for academic work and following their progress toward those goals. In other words, some (but certainly not all) differences of opinion in SLA stem from researchers trying to account for language acquisition at the level of basic sentence structure and pronunciation versus high-level skills in academic settings. However, as recent discussion in the literature has shown (c.f., De Bot, Lowie Sc Verspoor, 2007; Ionin, 2007), scholars are engaging more with each other and clearly delineating areas where each can excel (see also Shirai Sc Juffs, 2017).

Second Language Acquisition and Language Teaching Research

Naturally, the divisions of labor that have been created between ‘theoretical’ SLA, with its different theoretical paradigms, and classroom-based research sometimes result in a view of language, proficiency, and identity that is ‘reified’ (e.g., Brumfit, 1997). ‘Reification’ means that definitions are created and artificial boundaries set up between users of language, formal descriptions of language systems, language researchers, and educators. Consequently, competition among approaches is promoted that is not helpful in establishing evidence for learning that directly assists teachers as they help learners to achieve their goals. Thus, in this book, I draw on multiple perspectives, reflecting what has become one guiding principle in the University of Pittsburgh’s ELI, which is ‘principled eclecticism’ (Larsen-Freeman, 2000). This means that we take the best insights from theories of grammar, pedagogical grammar, corpus research, classroom-based research, sociocultural theory, curriculum design, and methodology and apply them to what we perceive our learners’ needs to be in the best way we are able.

The Role of Instruction in Language Development

It seems odd to address this issue in a volume that is about lEPs, where teaching is paramount, but the influence of some researchers who claim that explicit instruction is of reduced value persists. In brief, some confusion remains regarding such topics as the ‘natural approach’ propounded by Krashen (1987), who has denied a direct link between instruction and what he called ‘acquisition’ in contrast to ‘learning’. I assume here that by ‘acquisition’ Krashen meant the acquisition of the abstract structures of language that formal linguists assume is the basis of knowledge of language and vocabulary learning. This issue remains one of debate among applied linguists. However, the approach taken in the Pitt IEP is that instruction is vital in speeding learners through developmental stages and avoiding ‘fossilization’ or reaching a plateau in learning (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991, pp. 321-322). However, aspects of language use other than abstract knowledge, such as the appropriate way to construct an academic research paper, must be taught through explicit example and instruction. Thus, this knowledge is clearly amenable to manipulation through instruction, as indicated in the following paragraphs.

The logical next question is what kind of instruction is most appropriate. As communicative language teaching evolved and was added to the drills of audiolingualism (Paulston, 1974, pp. 352-353), the influence of Krashen’s monitor model (Krashen, 1987), and subsequent research on interaction (e.g., Mackey [2008]), it is clear that syllabi devoted to instruction on a progression through a list of forms alone is untenable in basic

IEPs and Second Language Teaching Research 11 language instruction (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991, p. 322). We will address communicative language teaching and its relation to form-based instruction in more detail in Chapter 2. However, recent meta-analyses seem to suggest that no matter the form and regardless of the difficulty level of the structure, explicit instruction that is form-focused in communicative settings is superior to implicit instruction (Spada & Tomita, 2010). This finding relates pronunciation, morphology, and syntax.

In contrast to debates regarding grammar instruction, especially for beginning to intermediate language learners, instruction regarding cultural norms and conventions in academic writing has never been questioned (to my knowledge). Such skills will of necessity be explicitly instructed and practiced in classrooms. There is no reason to assume that structured progression of this type of content should not be organized and formal, building on skills one at a time. Thus, an approach to second language instruction and learning must be nuanced as regards language and content in ways that ‘basic language’ instruction might not be. This feature of the Pitt IEP program and how learners make progress will be taken up specifically in the chapter on writing, and we will consider how instruction affects the development of these skills.