35TESOL QUARTERLY Vol 40 No 1 March 2006

Cognitive and Sociocultural PerspectivesTwo Parallel SLA WorldsJANE ZUENGLERUniversity of WisconsinndashMadisonMadison Wisconsin United States

ELIZABETH R MILLERUniversity of WisconsinndashMadisonMadison Wisconsin United States

Looking back at the past 15 years in the field of second languageacquisition (SLA) the authors select and discuss several importantdevelopments One is the impact of various sociocultural perspectivessuch as Vygotskian sociocultural theory language socialization learningas changing participation in situated practices Bakhtin and the dialogicperspective and critical theory Related to the arrival of these perspec-tives the SLA field has also witnessed debates concerning understand-ings of learning and the construction of theory The debate discussed inthis article involves conflicting ontologies We argue that the traditionalpositivist paradigm is no longer the only prominent paradigm in thefield Relativism has become an alternative paradigm Tensions de-bates and a growing diversity of theories are healthy and stimulating fora field like SLA

In this article we characterize the several most important develop-ments in the SLA field over the past 15 years Although research and

findings in the early decades of SLA were major accomplishments webelieve that the developments of the past 15 years are better character-ized as ontological1 manifested in part as debates and issues Morespecifically we address the arrival of sociocultural perspectives in SLAand then discuss two debates one whose tensions involve cognitiveversus sociocultural understandings of learning and a second related

1 Ontology asks ldquobasic questions about the nature of realityrdquo (Denzin amp Lincoln 1998 p 185)We focus on ontological debates which we consider a development particularly prominentwithin the past 15 years These ontological debates have emerged with the arrival ofsociocultural perspectives in SLA In contrast since the beginning of the field of SLA therehave been debates and discussion regarding epistemology (or how we come to know the worldDenzin amp Lincoln 1998) Some recent discussions can be found in Jordan (2004) Lazaraton(2003) Ortega (2005) and Thorne (2005)

36 TESOL QUARTERLY

debate involving disagreements between positivists and relativists overhow to construct SLA theory

THE CONTINUATION OF COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVESAS TRADITIONAL SLA

In one of two special issues of TESOL Quarterly published in 1991 tocelebrate its twenty-fifth anniversary Diane Larsen-Freeman contributedan article that discussed the important topics that had emerged duringSLArsquos first 20 years from 1970 to 1990 Perhaps the most important SLAtopic as Larsen-Freeman (1991) saw it was research attempting todescribe and then explain the process of second language learningThough the research varied somewhat regarding the particular theoryinvoked (eg universal grammar [UG] interactionism connectionism)the phenomena that were researched (input transfer output etc) wereconceptualized as psycholinguistic entities That is the SLA process wasconsidered almost unanimously to be an internalized cognitive process(Though Larsen-Freemen did not mention this in her 1991 survey thetheories and research she surveyed were cognitively based)

Writing as we are 15 years later the cognitive continues to dominateSLA (However it is not without critique nor is it the only paradigm wediscuss this in more detail later) For many the metaphor that MichaelSharwood Smith used in his plenary at the 1991 Second LanguageResearch Forum in Los Angeles remains apt Defining SLA for theaudience Sharwood Smith (1991) said the ldquocakerdquo of SLA is cognitivewhile its ldquoicingrdquo is the social A perusal of four of the major refereedjournals publishing SLA research in the 15 years since Sharwood Smithrsquosremark bears testimony to the continuing domination of cognitivelyoriented SLA research Language Learning Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition Applied Linguistics and TESOL Quarterly each continue topublish SLA articles that are cognitively based and in the case of the firsttwo journals listed are devoted almost entirely to work within a cognitiveparadigm New volumes and articles providing surveys of SLA researcheither offer cognitively based research as virtually the only orientation(eg Doughty amp Long 2003 McGroarty 2005 Pica 2005) or at leastgive it a major role (though cf Sealey amp Carter 2004) After all asDeKeyser and Juffs (2005) write ldquoNobody would doubt that languagewhether first or second is an aspect of human cognitionrdquo (p 437)

Moreover if one considers predictions made by some prominent SLAresearchers one might envision a future SLA field in which the cognitivehas an even more expanded position than it currently has Writing onthe occasion of his stepping down as editor of Language LearningAlexander Guiora (2005) addresses the future in what he referred to as

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 37

ldquothe language sciencesrdquo Though he points to what he sees as a ldquonew andexciting chapterrdquo in the field with more developed technology andgreater ldquomultidisciplinarity of researchrdquo (pp 185ndash186) Guiora envisionsthese developments through a cognitive lens The greater disciplinarityof research involves for him the greater inclusion of cognitive scienceand neuroscience the new technologies that will bring a more complexunderstanding of language will offer the ldquoreal possibility of establishingdirect relationships between observed behaviors and their neurobiologi-cal substrates without mediating constructs that is a set of words thusallowing for first-order explanations of these phenomenardquo (p 186)

In the concluding chapter to their Handbook of Second LanguageAcquisition Long and Doughty (2003) view the SLA future quite similarlyWhile discussing how the fields of cognitive science and SLA are relatedLong and Doughty end their extensive volume with this vote of confi-dence for cognition

For SLA to achieve the stability stimulation and research funding to surviveas a viable field of inquiry it needs an intellectual and institutional home thatis to some degree autonomous and separate from the disciplines anddepartments that currently offer shelter Cognitive science is the logicalchoice (p 869)

We wish to make clear before going further that we see nothingproblematic or aberrant in continuing a certain perspective or theory ina given field In showing evidence that the cognitive orientation contin-ues to dominate SLA we intend to clarify the context within which ourdiscussion occurs In other words to understand the new kids on theblock and later some tensions and arguments in the neighborhood it isnecessary to understand what the neighborhood has been and who hasdominated it We turn now to the newer arrivals

THE ARRIVAL OF SOCIOCULTURALPERSPECTIVES ON SLA

These more recent arrivals to the field of SLAmdashsociocultural perspec-tives2 on language and learningmdashview language use in real-world situa-tions as fundamental not ancillary to learning These researchers focusnot on language as input but as a resource for participation in the kinds

2 We use the term sociocultural perspectives to refer to varied approaches to learning thatforeground the social and cultural contexts of learning (as discussed in Zuengler amp Cole 2004see also Thorne 2005) One such approach to learning is what we call Vygotskian socioculturaltheory However we recognize that for some the term sociocultural theory is equivalent toVygotskian theory

38 TESOL QUARTERLY

of activities our everyday lives comprise Participation in these activities isboth the product and the process of learning

We provide brief summaries of the sociocultural perspectives we findtypically invoked in recent SLA research mentioning relevant studiesWe do not however refer to all studies that draw on these perspectivesReaders are urged to see Lantolf (2000) for an overview of VygotskianSLA studies and Zuengler and Cole (2005) for a review of languagesocialization research in second language learning The order we havechosen is somewhat arbitrary We begin however with Vygotskiansociocultural theory and language socialization because one or the otheris often positioned as the primary theoretical framework These two alsoseem to be invoked more frequently than situated learning theoryBakhtinian approaches to language or critical theories of discourse andsocial relationsmdashthe remaining perspectives we discuss Segregatingthese sociocultural perspectives into their own sections allows us toaddress their unique disciplinary roots and contributions to SLA Thoughwe believe researchers must take care in how they bring together thesevarying approaches given their distinctiveness we suggest that theldquohybrid interdisciplinarityrdquo that many SLA scholars practice (RamptonRoberts Leung amp Harris 2002 p 373) has been productive and mirrorsthe increasing interdisciplinarity found in much of the current socialscience research

Vygotskian Sociocultural Theory

SLA research using Vygotskian sociocultural theory first began toappear in the mid-1980s (Frawley amp Lantolf 1984 1985) but quicklygained momentum in the mid-1990s with a special issue of the ModernLanguage Journal (Lantolf 1994) devoted to sociocultural theory andsecond language learning That same year an edited volume appeared(Lantolf amp Appel 1994) and the first of a series of annual meetingsdedicated to sociocultural research in SLA convened in Pittsburgh Sincethen conference presentations and publications taking this approach toSLA have only increased

Like traditional cognitive approaches to learning Vygotskian sociocul-tural theory is fundamentally concerned with understanding the devel-opment of cognitive processes However its distinctiveness from tradi-tional cognitive approaches can best be highlighted by citing VygotskyldquoThe social dimension of consciousness [ie all mental processes] isprimary in time and fact The individual dimension of consciousness isderivative and secondaryrdquo (1979 p 30) Lantolf and Pavlenko (1995)clarify that even though Vygotskian sociocultural theory does not deny arole for biological constraints ldquodevelopment does not proceed as the

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 39

unfolding of inborn capacities but as the transformation of innatecapacities once they intertwine with socioculturally constructed media-tional meansrdquo (p 109) These means are the socioculturally meaningfulartifacts and symbolic systems of a society the most important of which islanguage Of significance for SLA research is the understanding thatwhen learners appropriate mediational means such as language madeavailable as they interact in socioculturally meaningful activities theselearners gain control over their own mental activity and can begin tofunction independently And as Lantolf (2000) notes ldquoaccording toVygotsky this is what development is aboutrdquo (p 80)

SLA researchers have focused on learnersrsquo linguistic development inthe zone of proximal development (ZPD) Vygotskyrsquos conception of what anindividual can accomplish when working in collaboration with others(more) versus what he or she could have accomplished without collabo-ration with others (less) The ZPD points to that individualrsquos learningpotential that is what he or she may be able to do independently in thefuture (Adair-Hauck amp Donato 1994 Aljaafreh amp Lantolf 1994 Anton1999 2000 DiCamilla amp Anton 1997 Nassaji amp Cumming 2000 Ohta2000 Swain amp Lapkin 1998) Others have focused on the use of privatespeech or speech directed to oneself that mediates mental behaviorPrivate speech manifests the process in which external social forms ofinteraction come to be appropriated for inner speech or mental develop-ment (Anton amp DiCamilla 1998 McCafferty 1994 2004b see alsoMcCafferty 2004a) Still others have focused on activity theory and task-based approaches to second language teaching and learning (Coughlanamp Duff 1994 McCafferty Roebuck amp Wayland 2001 Parks 2000Storch 2004 Thorne 2003)

Language Socialization

Language socialization researchers including those in SLA closelyidentify with Vygotskian sociocultural approaches to learning (see Ochs1988 Schiefflin amp Ochs 1986 Watson-Gegeo 2004 Watson-Gegeo ampNielson 2003) But in contrast to a disciplinary history in psychology anda focus on cognitive development this theory emerged from anthropol-ogy with an interest in understanding the development of socially andculturally competent members of society In her introduction to anedited volume comprising language socialization studies among childrenin a variety of cultures Ochs comments that she and her co-editorSchieffelin (1986) ldquotake for granted that the development of intel-ligence and knowledge is facilitated (to an extent) by childrenrsquos commu-nication with othersrdquo and instead emphasize the ldquosociocultural informa-tion [that] is generally encoded in the organization of conversational

40 TESOL QUARTERLY

discourserdquo (pp 2ndash3) As such language socialization research hasinvestigated the interconnected processes of linguistic and culturallearning in discourse practices interactional routines and participationstructures and roles3

Although language socialization research in the 1980s largely investi-gated ways in which children are socialized into the social practices of acommunity by the mid-1990s the language socialization approach wasbeing applied to adult second language learners (see eg Duff 1995Harklau 1994 Poole 1992) Whether at home in the classroom atwork or in any number of other environments language learners areembedded in and learn to become competent participants in culturallysocially and politically shaped communicative contexts The linguisticforms used in these contexts and their social significance affect howlearners come to understand and use language

In a recent review of language socialization research in SLA Zuenglerand Cole (2005) observed that even though some studies portraysocialization as a smooth and successful process (eg Kanagy 1999Ohta 1999) many other studies mostly classroom based demonstrateldquolanguage socialization as potentially problematic tension producingand unsuccessfulrdquo (p 306) For example some researchers have foundthat school socialization processes can have negative effects on secondlanguage learning (Atkinson 2003 Duff amp Early 1999 Rymes 1997Willet 1995) and others have observed contradictory home and schoolsocialization processes which often result in studentsrsquo relatively unsuc-cessful socialization to school norms (Crago 1992 Moore 1999 Watson-Gegeo 1992) These findings among others point to the shiftingemphasis in language socialization research to the sociopolitical dimen-sions of discourse and social organization and their implications forlanguage learning (Watson-Gegeo 2004) Like language socializationsituated learning theory to which we now turn underscores the role ofsocial identity and relationships as well as the historical and practicalconditions of language use in learning

LEARNING AS CHANGING PARTICIPATIONIN SITUATED PRACTICES

Typically situated learningmdashmost notably represented by Lave andWengerrsquos (1991) notion of community of practicemdashhas not been positionedas the primary learning theory in SLA research in the same way that

3 See however Watson-Gegeo (2004) and Watson-Gegeo and Nielsen (2003) who insist thatinvestigating and understanding cognitive development should not be abandoned in languagesocialization research

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 41

Vygotskian or language socialization theories have been For examplethough Tooheyrsquos ethnographic research (2000) and the related work byDay (2002) both draw heavily on Lave and Wengerrsquos community ofpractice they also invoke Vygotskian sociocultural theory and Bakhtinrsquosdialogic perspective (see next section) Lave and Wenger note that theycould have adopted a socialization model but they found that theapprenticeship model helped them conceptualize ldquolearning in situatedwaysmdashin the transformative possibilities of being and becoming com-plex full cultural-historical participants in the worldrdquo (p 32) As sug-gested in this comment situated learning foregrounds learnersrsquo participa-tion in particular social practices understood as habitual ways people(re)produce material and symbolic resources often attached to particu-lar times and places and comprising communities of practice in com-plex often overlapping ways

Lave and Wengerrsquos (1991) conception of legitimate peripheral participa-tion is meant to describe the changes of engagement in particular socialpractices that entail learning Thus we can consider second languagelearners who demonstrate a change from limited to fuller participationin social practices involving their second (or additional) language asgiving evidence of language development (much as language socializa-tion views children or novices being socialized into more appropriateparticipation in the social practices of their communities) ElsewhereWenger (1998) maintains that learning is ldquonot a separate activity [but] is something we can assumemdashwhether we see it or not Evenfailing to learn what is expected in a given situation usually involveslearning something else insteadrdquo (p 8) Toohey (1999) agrees suggest-ing that this approach can help us avoid consigning poor success insecond language learning merely to an individualrsquos failure to learnLegitimate peripheral participation allows us to see instead that somemembers learn to take a less empowered position in a community ofpractice because of the kinds of participation made available to them byldquoprocesses of exclusion and subordination [that] operate locallyrdquo (p135) Toohey adds that it might be less helpful to see learners asmarginalized than to view them as ldquovery much integratedrdquo into schools orother communities of practice but in positions that maintain theirperipheral participation (p 135) This shift in focus away from languageand learning as an individual achievement aligns with Bakhtinrsquos view oflanguage as constituted in particular sociohistorical contexts

Bakhtin and the Dialogic Perspective

Given Mikhail Bakhtinrsquos view of the fundamentally social nature oflanguage and his metaphor of appropriation to conceptualize how

42 TESOL QUARTERLY

people take othersrsquo utterances in coming to own a languagemdashwithin aspecific social space and historical moment Bakhtinian theory overlapsin important ways with situated learning Though Hall (1995 2002) andJohnson (2004) have extensively discussed Bakhtinrsquos ideas and theirapplicability for understanding second language learning most secondlanguage researchers have drawn on select concepts from Bakhtinrsquosphilosophical writings and as with situated learning have folded them inwith other sociocultural frameworks

Like the sociocultural theories already described we find that Bakhtin(1981) stresses the sociality of intellectual processes in claiming thatldquolanguage for the individual consciousness lies on the border betweenoneself and the otherrdquo (p 293) One of the key concepts in Bakhtinrsquoswritings frequently invoked in SLA research is dialogism the mutualparticipation of speakers and hearers in the construction of utterancesand the connectedness of all utterances to past and future expressionsThus the linguistic resources we use and learn can never be seen asmerely part of a ldquoneutral and impersonal languagerdquo rather Bakhtinviewed our use of language as an appropriation of words that at one timeldquoexist[ed] in other peoplersquos mouthsrdquo before we make them our own (pp293ndash294) Hall (2002) explains that in this view an utterance ldquocan onlybe understood fully by considering its history of use by other people inother places for other reasonsrdquo (p 13) Within this framework Toohey(2000) describes language learning as a process in which learners ldquotry onother peoplersquos utterances they take words from other peoplersquos mouthsthey appropriate these utterances and gradually (but not without conflict)these utterances come to serve their needs and relay their meaningsrdquo(p 13)

Packaged with dialogism is Bakhtinrsquos understanding of the inherentlyideological nature of language In agreeing that ldquoall language is politi-calrdquo Hall (1995) asserts that the ldquoauthority and privilege residing incertain interactive resources result from sociopolitical and historicalforces surrounding their userdquo (p 214) Every utterance we producereveals our stance toward the interlocutors involved signaling our socialpositioning within the local interaction and in response to largersociopolitical forces This ideological nature of language is foregroundedby critical theorists who see the role of power relations as primary forunderstanding the social world both in broader social worlds as well asin our very local social practices

Critical Theory

From the point of view of critical theory being socialized into thepractices of a community includes learning onersquos place in the sociopolitical

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 43

organization of those practices Researchers who incorporate criticaltheory into their exploration of second language learning argue that onemust account for relations of power in order to gain a fuller understand-ing of the practices and interactions in which learners participatemdashandthus of their learning processes But what is more important theseresearchers contend that this understanding should then lead to socialand educational change such that more equitable social relations can beeffected particularly in the interests of disenfranchised groups andindividuals It is interesting that in contrast to the theory of legitimateperipheral participation (Lave amp Wenger 1991) in which learners areviewed as learning their marginalized participation critical theoriststend to view marginalized members of a community as having theiraccess to learning blocked because they may be prevented from partici-pating meaningfully in target-language social practices The critical focusin second language learning has been strongly influenced by the work ofPennycook (1990 1999 2001) as well as Norton (1995 1997b 2000) andCanagarajah (1993 1999 2005)

Though the range of critical research is outside the scope of thisdiscussion we highlight one area of interest language and identity thathas gained footing in the field and become a research area in its ownright It has been addressed in a special issue of TESOL Quarterly(Norton 1997a) as well as in numerous other publications From asociocultural perspective our identities are shaped by and through ourlanguage use (Norton 1995 1997b 2000 Pavlenko amp Blackledge 2003)Although issues of identity and learning have been treated in all of thesociocultural approaches to learning that we have discussed so far wethink it is appropriate to mention them here because they often exploreand critique the ways in which the patterning of power relationships canlegitimate some identities and forms of participation but devalue othersAs such language learners have much more at stake than merelydeveloping competence in an additional linguistic code As Morgan(1998) notes ldquolanguage lsquoconditionsrsquo our expectations and desires andcommunicates what might be possible in terms of ourselvesmdashour iden-titymdashand the lsquorealitiesrsquo we might developrdquo (p 12)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURALTENSIONS AND DEBATES

As we have seen the SLA field in the past 15 years has expandedfrom a largely cognitive orientation to include sociocultural approachessuch as those just documented This expansion we believe is one ofthe main reasons the SLA field has during the past 15 years witnesseddebates and tensions that in their cross-paradigm criticisms and

44 TESOL QUARTERLY

ontological disagreements are more fundamental than the (largely)intraparadigm issues surrounding for example the relative validity ofoptions for eliciting speech that received attention in the earlierdecades of SLA This said we would not however go as far as Larsen-Freeman (2002) in describing the current SLA field as being ldquoin a stateof turmoilrdquo (p 33) We prefer Lantolfrsquos (1996) more positive acceptingportrayal of the SLA field as ldquoincredibly and happily diverse creativeoften contentious and always full of controversyrdquo (p 738)

In this section we discuss two debates that originated within the past15 years and still continue These debates are arguably the mostimportant given their ontological differences the great amount ofattention the SLA field has paid them at conferences in the literatureand on a more cynical note the wrestling for academic territory thatsome have seen in them Each debate shakes out as the cognitivists andsocioculturalists arguing with each other for reasons we hope to makeclear However we feel that such labels (cognitivists socioculturalists) ifused as the primary characterizations of the debates would obscure themore basic ontological differences that underlie the arguments Thoughthe two debates are related each originated in and focused on differentconceptions conceptions that we feel are more important means offraming and understanding each of the debates Framing by conceptionthen we first discuss the debate around understandings of learning4 andafter that the debate about theory construction in SLA

The Debate Around the Understanding of Learning in SLA

At the 1996 annual conference of the International Association ofApplied Linguistics (AILA) in Jyvaumlskylauml Finland Alan Firth and JohannesWagner (1996) organized a symposium in which they delivered a paperarguing that SLA had long been dominated by cognitive views of thelearner and learning as individualistic mentalistic and as functioningindependent of the context and use of the language Following theirpaper several presenters took a variety of positions vis-agrave-vis Firth andWagnerrsquos critique (One of the authors attended that symposium andremembers that the atmosphere was quite electric) Although Firth andWagner were not necessarily the first to raise such criticism of the field(see eg Bremer Roberts Vasseur Simonot amp Broeder 1996 Hall1995 Rampton 1987) attention to Firth and Wagnerrsquos criticism inparticular with prominent respondents (eg Joan Kelly Hall Gabriele

4 Though earlier SLA work sometimes differentiated learning from acquisition following thedistinction made by Krashen (eg 1982 1985) we understand the two terms as synonymousOur understanding reflects the fieldrsquos current position given that Krashenrsquos theory has fallenout of favor

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 45

Kasper Nanda Poulisse Michael Long) from varying orientations offer-ing support or declaring opposition was guaranteed when in 1997 theirsymposium papers were published along with additional response papersin the Modern Language Journal (see Firth amp Wagner 1997) The debateintensified further after the Modern Language Journal published SusanGassrsquos (1998) response to Firth and Wagner and Firth and Wagnerrsquos(1998) response to Gass5

Firth and Wagner (1997) criticize the field of SLA for its overwhelm-ingly cognitive orientation in defining and researching the learner andlearning Such an approach too strongly emphasizes the individual theinternalization of mental processes and ldquothe development of grammati-cal competencerdquo (p 288) Meaning does not occur they argue inldquoprivate thoughts executed and then transferred from brain to brain but[as] a social and negotiable product of interaction transcending indi-vidual intentions and behavioursrdquo (p 290) Like other humans alanguage learner should be considered a ldquoparticipant-as-language-lsquouserrsquoin social interactionrdquo (p 286) It is time they say to question the fieldrsquosdivision of language use (as consigned to the social) from languagelearning (as the individualized decontextualized domain of the cogni-tive) An SLA field reformulated according to Firth and Wagnerrsquosargument would help us gain more comprehension of ldquohow language isused as it is being acquired through interaction and used resourcefullycontingently and contextuallyrdquo (p 296) Reiterating their view oflearning in their response to Gass (1998) they invoke Vygotsky inasserting that ldquocognitive structures are influenced and indeed devel-oped through engagement in social activity From this perspective itcan be said that language use forms cognitionrdquo (Firth amp Wagner 1998p 92)

Firth and Wagnerrsquos argument that learning (or acquisition) occursthrough use would find support not just in Vygotsky but also in the othersociocultural perspectives discussed in this article In fact Kramsch(2002) points out that the unifying thread running through her editedcollection ldquois a common dissatisfaction with the traditional separationbetween language acquisition and language socializationrdquo (p 4) lan-guage socialization being one of the sociocultural perspectives promi-nent in current SLA Some go further In her contribution to theKramsch collection Larsen-Freeman (2002) appears to be beyondldquodissatisfactionrdquo in declaring that ldquothe failure to consider language userdquois one of the ldquomost trenchant criticisms of mainstream SLA researchrdquo (p34) the other being the lack of balance between the social and thecognitive

5 For reprints of some of the papers as well as commentary see Seidlhofer (2003) Larsen-Freeman (2002) provides a very concise summary of the debate

46 TESOL QUARTERLY

Although some of the respondents (namely Hall 1997 and Liddicoat1997) support Firth and Wagnerrsquos argument it is the opposing respon-dents whose position we summarize particularly thosemdashLong (1997)Kasper (1997) and Gass (1998)mdashwho assert strong opposition to Firthand Wagnerrsquos claim that we should not separate acquisition and usebecause use is actually how learning takes place Perhaps because theyshare a cognitive orientation all three give basically the same responsemaintaining a strong split between acquisition and use To Kasper(1997) the ldquomost nagging problemrdquo with Firth and Wagnerrsquos paper isthat it ldquohas in fact very little to say about L2 acquisitionrdquo (p 310) becauseas she sees it although social context can influence SLA the SLA processitself is essentially cognitive Long (1997) completely agrees ending hisresponse by offering his ldquoskepticism as to whether greater insights intoSL use will necessarily have much to say about SL acquisitionrdquo (p 322) Andthough Gass (1998) concedes that perhaps ldquosome parts of language areconstructed sociallyrdquo that in itself does not imply that ldquowe cannotinvestigate language as an abstract entity that resides in the individualrdquo(p 88) maintaining in so doing her view of learning as largely anindividualized mental process Drawing a figure characterizing the fieldGass (1998) presents ldquoSLArdquo and ldquoSL Userdquo as together making upresearch on ldquoSecond Language Studiesrdquo but it is important that shedraws ldquoSLArdquo and ldquoSL Userdquo as branches that are separate and uncon-nected (p 88)

As Larsen-Freeman (2002) points out this debate is irresolvablebecause it involves two different ontological positions that reflect ldquofunda-mental differences in the way they frame their understanding of learn-ingrdquo (p 37) What one might hope for though is that ldquowe agree todisagreerdquo as the expression goes and accept that contrasting views oflearning can stimulate rather than befuddle the field

The Debate on Theory Construction in SLAPositivism Versus Relativism

During the past 15 years the SLA field has devoted more attention tometatheoretical and metamethodological concerns than it had in earlierdecades The most prominent debate has concerned theory constructionin SLA Though others have written (and continue to write) on theoryconstruction6 we have selected a set of authors and articles rangingfrom 1991 to 2000 that comprise a coherent debate for discussion Thediscussion we profile of theory constructionmdashin fact any discussion oftheory constructionmdashaddresses a complex subject that raises a number

6 See for example Atkinson (2002) McGroarty (1998) and van Lier (1991 1994)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 47

of questions We have distilled from the discussion the authorsrsquo debateon positivism versus relativism in theory construction The tensions anddifferences it raises reflect a new dynamic entering the field one thatcontinues and that results from we believe the arrival on the SLA sceneof the sociocultural perspectives we discussed earlier7

Beretta (1991) framed a discussion of theory construction by address-ing issues such as whether or not (what he saw as) a diversity of theoriesand criteria in SLA represents a problem that is should this diversity bereduced to one or a few theories Considering different approaches totheory building Beretta arrives at a clear conclusion in favor of fewrather than many theories viewing the former as the result of ldquorational-ityrdquo and the latter the outcome of ldquorelativismrdquo (p 495) Comparing SLAto the ldquoalready-successful sciencesrdquo (p 497 ie the so-called hardsciences) Beretta says that because these fields do not unlike SLA haveldquomultiple rival theoriesrdquo (p 497) it is not beneficial for SLA to havemany theories either He goes on to state that the ldquomost anarchiccriterion of allrdquo is that of ldquono criterionrdquo (p 501) Referring to what hecalls ldquoextreme relativismrdquo Berettarsquos nightmare scenario is one in whichphenomena are not independent of but ldquoalways relative to the values ofindividuals and communitiesrdquo (p 501) This ldquowhateverrdquo position (to usea current slang term) implies that ldquopoetry voodoo religion and non-sense are no less valid bases for belief than lsquosciencersquordquo (p 501) Clearlythen Beretta supports theory building only from a rationalistpositivist8

paradigm and certainly not from a relativist one He is not aloneAlthough Crookes (1992) does not address relativism his agreementwith Berretta is implicit in his adherence to a positivistic notion ofscience as the gold standard in considering theory construction9

The debate continued with the publication of a special issue of AppliedLinguistics in 1993 titled ldquoTheory Construction in SLArdquo which containspapers from a 1991 conference at Michigan State University titledldquoTheory Construction and Methodology in Second Language ResearchrdquoAlmost all of the contributors (ie Beretta Long Crookes Gregg)10 take

7 To follow the debate the reader should consult in this order Beretta (1991) Crookes(1992) Beretta (1993) Block (1996) Gregg Long Jordan amp Beretta (1997) Lantolf (1996)and Gregg (2000)

8 Though Beretta states that positivism is not a viable paradigm any longer he appears to bekeeping to positivism nevertheless taking perhaps a postpositivistic stance instead Forinformation on the two positions (which are within the same paradigm) see for example Gubaand Lincoln (1998) Because we see positivism and postpositivism as matters of degree ratherthan substance and because positivism is the better known term in the field we will use positivismto describe Berettarsquos and othersrsquo positions

9 Such a characterization of science (as equivalent to positivism) may be simplistic We thankone of the anonymous reviewers for pointing this out

10 The exception is Schumann (1993) who argues to oversimplify it that art and science arenot that different Because Schumannrsquos position is similar to that of the other relativists that wediscuss we will not focus on him here

48 TESOL QUARTERLY

a similar position that although it does not necessarily mention relativ-ism explicitly nevertheless implicitly opposes it by supporting positivismas the (sole) paradigm for cognitive research on SLA Beretta andCrookes (1993) dismiss the argument that the social can cause thecontent of theories they argue that social conditions are not only notsufficient but are not necessary ldquofor scientific discoveryrdquo(p 253) Gregg(1993) like Beretta and Crookes (1993) does not attack relativismdirectly Nevertheless it is clear that Gregg (1993) opposes relativism ldquoInSLA the overall explanandum is the acquisition (or non-acquisition)of L2 competence in the Chomskyan sense of the termrdquo (p 278) Andthe criteria that Gregg chooses for discussing theory constructiontransition theories and property theories come from psychology (ieCummins 1983) Thus in what becomes an ongoing metaphor in thedebate Greggrsquos ldquoLet a Couple of Flowers Bloomrdquo does not advocate arelativistrsquos acceptance of a multiplicity of theories but advocates ldquoacouplerdquo as opposed to many and within a cognitive and positivisticframework

Adapting Greggrsquos metaphor Lantolfrsquos (1996) article subtitled ldquoLet-ting All the Flowers Bloomrdquo not surprisingly supports relativism andopposes positivism Though Blockrsquos (1996) article is more wide-ranginghe too argues for relativism ldquoReality is a social and therefore multipleconstruction there is no tangible fragmentable reality on to whichscience can convergerdquo (p 69 citing Lincoln 1990) However that doesnot mean that everything is acceptable Block asserts Though heacknowledges that relativism and positivism are two fundamentallydifferent ontologies he argues again citing Lincoln (1990) that ratherthan throwing their hands up at the situation relativists attempt to findpatterns ldquoworking hypotheses or temporary time-and-place-bound knowl-edgerdquo (Block 1996 p 69) Coming from a similar position Lantolf(1996) provides a ldquopostmodernist critical analysisrdquo of the theory-buildingliterature of Gregg Long Crookes and others pointing out that theyare all clearly dedicated to the rationalistpositivist paradigm in the SLAfield and adding ironically that they ldquoshare a common fear of thedreaded lsquorelativismrsquordquo (p 715) In fact Lantolf coins a term for thiscondition relativaphobia (p 731) In a detailed set of points Lantolfargues against what he sees as the hegemony of the positivistic echoingBlockrsquos (1996) accusation of ldquoscience envyrdquo (p 64) in accusing Greggand the others of having ldquophysics envyrdquo (p 717) Where Gregg and theothers consider the existence within SLA of multiple and incommensu-rable theories an obstacle to the development and maturation of thefield Lantolf (1996) encourages ldquoLetting All the Flowers Bloomrdquowarning that otherwise ldquoonce theoretical hegemony is achieved alterna-tive metaphors are cut off or suffocated by the single official metaphor

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 49

subsequently those who espouse different world views cease to havea voicerdquo (p 739)

Both Block (1996) and Lantolf (1996) generated response articlesGregg Long Jordan and Beretta (1997) critiqued the Block articlewhile Gregg (2000) responded to Lantolf (1996) by presenting anegative summary of postmodernism Writing from within their positivistparadigm Gregg Long Jordan and Beretta (1997) accept Blockrsquoscriticism that they have ldquoscience envyrdquo

Let us grant that many or even all of us in the field have the occasional twingeof envy for the accomplishments of other sciences given the fairly feebleprogress made so far in SLA and the magnificent intellectual achievementsof the more successful sciences such envy would certainly be unsurprising(p 543)

Unfortunately their stance becomes both smug and naiumlve For exampleGregg and his colleagues (1997) declare a state of ldquodisbeliefrdquo in Blockrsquospoint that controlling for extraneous variables in SLA research isldquoprobably not even desirablerdquo (p 544 quoting Block 1996 p 74)Continuing they declare ldquoDo we actually need to point out thedisastrous consequences of Blockrsquos lsquostancersquo for SLA or indeed for anyintellectual inquiryrdquo (p 544) No one invoking a positivist paradigmwould disagree with their critique because one of the paradigmrsquosprinciples is indeed the manipulation of variables which includescontrolling wherever possible for extraneous variables However whatGregg and colleagues (1997) fail to recognize is that Blockrsquos statementcomes from a different (relativist) paradigm rendering their responseirrelevant

In his critique of Lantolf (1996) Gregg (2000) does not directlyreiterate the anti-relativist pro-positivist argument that he and hiscolleagues had already published elsewhere Instead he begins bysummarizing (negatively) postmodernism the approach that Lantolf(1996) takes in his article Describing postmodernism Gregg discussesits stance that among other things instead of written texts havingobjective meaningmdashthat of the textrsquos authormdashmeaning is generated asthe reader interacts with the text Greggrsquos response to this stance revealshis reluctance (or inability) to think outside of his paradigm ldquoSuch aperspective strikes me as nonsenserdquo (p 386) On the other hand hetakes ldquothe common-sense position that the meaning of sentences canusually be agreed upon and that there generally are correct andincorrect interpretations of (meaningful) sentencesrdquo (pp 386ndash387)

Concluding his discussion of postmodernism Gregg (2000) assertsagain from within his paradigm

50 TESOL QUARTERLY

It is no accident that postmodernism originated as a movement amongliterary critics and cultural philosophers It flourishes that is precisely inthose areas of intellectual activity where decisive evidence is extremely hard tofind Faced with a range of disciplines that are actually making progress the postmodernists tried to turn the tables on the sciences Ratherthan claiming that the grapes of science are sour the postmodernist assuresus that there are no grapes To put it a bit differently one can seepostmodernism as a sophisticated way for academics in the humanities toovercome their own ldquophysics envyrdquo (pp 389ndash390)

With that memorable point of view we will end our discussion of thetheory construction debate On the positive side we agree that debateslike this stimulate a field And debates being debates it is not necessaryor relevant to try to come to agreement After all (as we indicated indiscussing the debate about learning) the debate on theory constructionis occurring across very different paradigms with contradictory views ofreality Although the debate can be framed as occurring betweencognitivists and socioculturalists we have emphasized a more fundamen-tal difference Like Lantolf (1996) we view as positive a field in whichpossibly incommensurable theories proliferate and are debated ratherthan allowing one theory to dominate without being problematized Weare only sorry that so much energy has gone into some participantsrsquorefusal to admit (or understand) that these positions on theory areincommensurable because they stem from contradictory ontologies Andthe smug tone that some of the debate takes is therefore not only naiumlvebut unfair

Though we have discussed a debate whose outcome is incommensura-bility some argue for cognitive-sociocultural integration Authors takevarying approaches in making their argument For example Larsen-Freeman (2002) proposes chaoscomplexity theory as a means ofaccommodating both sociocultural and cognitive perspectives withinSLA Block (2003) cites several pieces of research that argue for thecomplementarity of cognitive and sociocultural views namely Ellis(2000) Swain and Lapkin (1998) Tarone and Liu (1995) and Teutsch-Dwyer (2001) However Block himself does not take a clear positionsupporting integration Instead he advocates a ldquomore multidisciplinaryand socially informed futurerdquo for those following the input-interactiontradition (p 139) Making a somewhat different argument Watson-Gegeo (2004) sees a possible new ldquosynthesisrdquo of the cognitive with thesociocultural because of developments in the field that view cognition asa phenomenon which ldquooriginates in social interaction and is shaped bycultural and sociopolitical processesrdquo (p 331) Thorne (2005) andLantolf (2000) envision Vygotskyan theory in particular as providing alens for viewing social context as central to the development of cognition(see also Johnson 2004)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 51

IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVESFOR CLASSROOM PRACTICE

Hall (2002) observes that traditional SLA approaches seek to identifygood pedagogical interventions that will most effectively ldquofacilitatelearnersrsquo assimilation of new systemic knowledge into known knowledgestructuresrdquo (p 48) However given their different understandings oflanguage learning socioculturally informed studies offer much differentrecommendations for improving classroom practice For example inseeing learning as participation as relational and interactive and asconstrained by unequal power relations Lave and Wengerrsquos perspectiveasks educators to consider how the practices of school relate to thoseoutside of school how schools and classrooms themselves are organizedinto communities of practice and what kinds of participation are madeaccessible to students

Other studies taking sociocultural perspectives have examined class-room interactions or discourse patterns with an eye toward identifyingthose that best facilitate student participation (Gutierrez Rymes ampLarsen 1995 Nassaji amp Wells 2000 Nystrand Gamoran Zeiser amp Long2003 Tharp amp Gallimore 1991) Still others have examined such topicsas the kinds of guided or scaffolded assistance from teachers (or otherexperts) that can move students along within their ZPD (Aljaafreh ampLantolf 1994 Anton 1999 McCormick amp Donato 2000 Nassaji ampCumming 2000) the effectiveness of goal-oriented dialogue betweenpeers to mediate learning (Donato 1994 Ohta 2000 Swain amp Lapkin1998) and the need for dialogic and contextually sensitive approachesto language assessment ( Johnson 2001 2004) These studies are only afew among many but they share the sociocultural awareness that highlysituated classroom participation promotes language learning

We acknowledge that we do not specify general recommendations fortransforming classroom practices primarily because we are aware of thelimits of what can be generalized across classroom contexts Hall (2000)speaks to the situatedness of learning processes in saying that ldquoeffectingchange in our classrooms will not result from imposing solutions fromoutside but from nurturing effectual practices that are indigenous to ourparticular contextsrdquo (p 295) Clearly this is no easy task for educators Itrequires ongoing and intense work with every group of students andreflective awareness of how the affective and political dimensions ofclassroom life affect individual studentsrsquo participation However with theincreased awareness and sensitivity to local contexts that socioculturalperspectives bring us we have reason to hope that we are closer tounderstanding and creating the kinds of classroom communities thatlearners need

52 TESOL QUARTERLY

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

Although it is difficult to make predictions about the next 15 years insuch a dynamic field we end our article by looking forward to somedevelopments we consider exciting and worth watching Among them iswork in conversation analysis investigating language learning as it occursin the turn-by-turn development of conversational processes (see egMarkee 2004) developments in discursive psychology (not yet emergentin SLA but relevant for researchers interested in learner positioningwithin social practices see eg Davies amp Harreacute 1990) a growth in workfocusing on postcolonial transnational and World Englishes (egCanagarajah 2000 Jenkins 2003 also this issue Kachru 2001 Pennycook1998 Rampton 1995) and explorations in the new kinds of discursivepractices that language learners engage when using new technologies(see especially Gee 2003 Kern this issue Lam 2000 Thorne 2003 andWarschauer 1997) We are eager to see what unfolds

THE AUTHORS

Jane Zuengler is a professor in the English Department at the University ofWisconsinndashMadison Her research and teaching interests include second languageacquisition and use classroom discourse analysis critical perspectives on languageand the global spread of English

Elizabeth R Miller is a doctoral candidate in the English Department at theUniversity of WisconsinndashMadison Her research interests include second languageacquisition and use microanalytic discourse analysis and critical and poststructuralperspectives on language pedagogy and ideology

REFERENCES

Adair-Hauck B amp Donato R (1994) Foreign language explanations within thezone of proximal development The Canadian Modern Language Review 50 532ndash555

Aljaafreh A amp Lantolf J P (1994) Negative feedback as regulation and secondlanguage learning in the zone of proximal development The Modern LanguageJournal 78 465ndash483

Anton M (1999) The discourse of a learner-centered classroom Socioculturalperspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second language classroom TheModern Language Journal 83 303ndash318

Anton M amp DiCamilla F (1998) Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborativeinteraction in the L2 classroom The Canadian Modern Language Review 54 314ndash342

Atkinson D (2002) Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisi-tion The Modern Language Journal 86 525ndash545

Atkinson D (2003) Language socialization and dys-socialization in a South Indiancollege In R Bayley amp S R Schechter (Eds) Language socialization in bilingualand multilingual societies (pp 147ndash168) Clevedon England Multilingual Matters

36 TESOL QUARTERLY

debate involving disagreements between positivists and relativists overhow to construct SLA theory

THE CONTINUATION OF COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVESAS TRADITIONAL SLA

In one of two special issues of TESOL Quarterly published in 1991 tocelebrate its twenty-fifth anniversary Diane Larsen-Freeman contributedan article that discussed the important topics that had emerged duringSLArsquos first 20 years from 1970 to 1990 Perhaps the most important SLAtopic as Larsen-Freeman (1991) saw it was research attempting todescribe and then explain the process of second language learningThough the research varied somewhat regarding the particular theoryinvoked (eg universal grammar [UG] interactionism connectionism)the phenomena that were researched (input transfer output etc) wereconceptualized as psycholinguistic entities That is the SLA process wasconsidered almost unanimously to be an internalized cognitive process(Though Larsen-Freemen did not mention this in her 1991 survey thetheories and research she surveyed were cognitively based)

Writing as we are 15 years later the cognitive continues to dominateSLA (However it is not without critique nor is it the only paradigm wediscuss this in more detail later) For many the metaphor that MichaelSharwood Smith used in his plenary at the 1991 Second LanguageResearch Forum in Los Angeles remains apt Defining SLA for theaudience Sharwood Smith (1991) said the ldquocakerdquo of SLA is cognitivewhile its ldquoicingrdquo is the social A perusal of four of the major refereedjournals publishing SLA research in the 15 years since Sharwood Smithrsquosremark bears testimony to the continuing domination of cognitivelyoriented SLA research Language Learning Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition Applied Linguistics and TESOL Quarterly each continue topublish SLA articles that are cognitively based and in the case of the firsttwo journals listed are devoted almost entirely to work within a cognitiveparadigm New volumes and articles providing surveys of SLA researcheither offer cognitively based research as virtually the only orientation(eg Doughty amp Long 2003 McGroarty 2005 Pica 2005) or at leastgive it a major role (though cf Sealey amp Carter 2004) After all asDeKeyser and Juffs (2005) write ldquoNobody would doubt that languagewhether first or second is an aspect of human cognitionrdquo (p 437)

Moreover if one considers predictions made by some prominent SLAresearchers one might envision a future SLA field in which the cognitivehas an even more expanded position than it currently has Writing onthe occasion of his stepping down as editor of Language LearningAlexander Guiora (2005) addresses the future in what he referred to as

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 37

ldquothe language sciencesrdquo Though he points to what he sees as a ldquonew andexciting chapterrdquo in the field with more developed technology andgreater ldquomultidisciplinarity of researchrdquo (pp 185ndash186) Guiora envisionsthese developments through a cognitive lens The greater disciplinarityof research involves for him the greater inclusion of cognitive scienceand neuroscience the new technologies that will bring a more complexunderstanding of language will offer the ldquoreal possibility of establishingdirect relationships between observed behaviors and their neurobiologi-cal substrates without mediating constructs that is a set of words thusallowing for first-order explanations of these phenomenardquo (p 186)

In the concluding chapter to their Handbook of Second LanguageAcquisition Long and Doughty (2003) view the SLA future quite similarlyWhile discussing how the fields of cognitive science and SLA are relatedLong and Doughty end their extensive volume with this vote of confi-dence for cognition

For SLA to achieve the stability stimulation and research funding to surviveas a viable field of inquiry it needs an intellectual and institutional home thatis to some degree autonomous and separate from the disciplines anddepartments that currently offer shelter Cognitive science is the logicalchoice (p 869)

We wish to make clear before going further that we see nothingproblematic or aberrant in continuing a certain perspective or theory ina given field In showing evidence that the cognitive orientation contin-ues to dominate SLA we intend to clarify the context within which ourdiscussion occurs In other words to understand the new kids on theblock and later some tensions and arguments in the neighborhood it isnecessary to understand what the neighborhood has been and who hasdominated it We turn now to the newer arrivals

THE ARRIVAL OF SOCIOCULTURALPERSPECTIVES ON SLA

These more recent arrivals to the field of SLAmdashsociocultural perspec-tives2 on language and learningmdashview language use in real-world situa-tions as fundamental not ancillary to learning These researchers focusnot on language as input but as a resource for participation in the kinds

2 We use the term sociocultural perspectives to refer to varied approaches to learning thatforeground the social and cultural contexts of learning (as discussed in Zuengler amp Cole 2004see also Thorne 2005) One such approach to learning is what we call Vygotskian socioculturaltheory However we recognize that for some the term sociocultural theory is equivalent toVygotskian theory

38 TESOL QUARTERLY

of activities our everyday lives comprise Participation in these activities isboth the product and the process of learning

We provide brief summaries of the sociocultural perspectives we findtypically invoked in recent SLA research mentioning relevant studiesWe do not however refer to all studies that draw on these perspectivesReaders are urged to see Lantolf (2000) for an overview of VygotskianSLA studies and Zuengler and Cole (2005) for a review of languagesocialization research in second language learning The order we havechosen is somewhat arbitrary We begin however with Vygotskiansociocultural theory and language socialization because one or the otheris often positioned as the primary theoretical framework These two alsoseem to be invoked more frequently than situated learning theoryBakhtinian approaches to language or critical theories of discourse andsocial relationsmdashthe remaining perspectives we discuss Segregatingthese sociocultural perspectives into their own sections allows us toaddress their unique disciplinary roots and contributions to SLA Thoughwe believe researchers must take care in how they bring together thesevarying approaches given their distinctiveness we suggest that theldquohybrid interdisciplinarityrdquo that many SLA scholars practice (RamptonRoberts Leung amp Harris 2002 p 373) has been productive and mirrorsthe increasing interdisciplinarity found in much of the current socialscience research

Vygotskian Sociocultural Theory

SLA research using Vygotskian sociocultural theory first began toappear in the mid-1980s (Frawley amp Lantolf 1984 1985) but quicklygained momentum in the mid-1990s with a special issue of the ModernLanguage Journal (Lantolf 1994) devoted to sociocultural theory andsecond language learning That same year an edited volume appeared(Lantolf amp Appel 1994) and the first of a series of annual meetingsdedicated to sociocultural research in SLA convened in Pittsburgh Sincethen conference presentations and publications taking this approach toSLA have only increased

Like traditional cognitive approaches to learning Vygotskian sociocul-tural theory is fundamentally concerned with understanding the devel-opment of cognitive processes However its distinctiveness from tradi-tional cognitive approaches can best be highlighted by citing VygotskyldquoThe social dimension of consciousness [ie all mental processes] isprimary in time and fact The individual dimension of consciousness isderivative and secondaryrdquo (1979 p 30) Lantolf and Pavlenko (1995)clarify that even though Vygotskian sociocultural theory does not deny arole for biological constraints ldquodevelopment does not proceed as the

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 39

unfolding of inborn capacities but as the transformation of innatecapacities once they intertwine with socioculturally constructed media-tional meansrdquo (p 109) These means are the socioculturally meaningfulartifacts and symbolic systems of a society the most important of which islanguage Of significance for SLA research is the understanding thatwhen learners appropriate mediational means such as language madeavailable as they interact in socioculturally meaningful activities theselearners gain control over their own mental activity and can begin tofunction independently And as Lantolf (2000) notes ldquoaccording toVygotsky this is what development is aboutrdquo (p 80)

SLA researchers have focused on learnersrsquo linguistic development inthe zone of proximal development (ZPD) Vygotskyrsquos conception of what anindividual can accomplish when working in collaboration with others(more) versus what he or she could have accomplished without collabo-ration with others (less) The ZPD points to that individualrsquos learningpotential that is what he or she may be able to do independently in thefuture (Adair-Hauck amp Donato 1994 Aljaafreh amp Lantolf 1994 Anton1999 2000 DiCamilla amp Anton 1997 Nassaji amp Cumming 2000 Ohta2000 Swain amp Lapkin 1998) Others have focused on the use of privatespeech or speech directed to oneself that mediates mental behaviorPrivate speech manifests the process in which external social forms ofinteraction come to be appropriated for inner speech or mental develop-ment (Anton amp DiCamilla 1998 McCafferty 1994 2004b see alsoMcCafferty 2004a) Still others have focused on activity theory and task-based approaches to second language teaching and learning (Coughlanamp Duff 1994 McCafferty Roebuck amp Wayland 2001 Parks 2000Storch 2004 Thorne 2003)

Language Socialization

Language socialization researchers including those in SLA closelyidentify with Vygotskian sociocultural approaches to learning (see Ochs1988 Schiefflin amp Ochs 1986 Watson-Gegeo 2004 Watson-Gegeo ampNielson 2003) But in contrast to a disciplinary history in psychology anda focus on cognitive development this theory emerged from anthropol-ogy with an interest in understanding the development of socially andculturally competent members of society In her introduction to anedited volume comprising language socialization studies among childrenin a variety of cultures Ochs comments that she and her co-editorSchieffelin (1986) ldquotake for granted that the development of intel-ligence and knowledge is facilitated (to an extent) by childrenrsquos commu-nication with othersrdquo and instead emphasize the ldquosociocultural informa-tion [that] is generally encoded in the organization of conversational

40 TESOL QUARTERLY

discourserdquo (pp 2ndash3) As such language socialization research hasinvestigated the interconnected processes of linguistic and culturallearning in discourse practices interactional routines and participationstructures and roles3

Although language socialization research in the 1980s largely investi-gated ways in which children are socialized into the social practices of acommunity by the mid-1990s the language socialization approach wasbeing applied to adult second language learners (see eg Duff 1995Harklau 1994 Poole 1992) Whether at home in the classroom atwork or in any number of other environments language learners areembedded in and learn to become competent participants in culturallysocially and politically shaped communicative contexts The linguisticforms used in these contexts and their social significance affect howlearners come to understand and use language

In a recent review of language socialization research in SLA Zuenglerand Cole (2005) observed that even though some studies portraysocialization as a smooth and successful process (eg Kanagy 1999Ohta 1999) many other studies mostly classroom based demonstrateldquolanguage socialization as potentially problematic tension producingand unsuccessfulrdquo (p 306) For example some researchers have foundthat school socialization processes can have negative effects on secondlanguage learning (Atkinson 2003 Duff amp Early 1999 Rymes 1997Willet 1995) and others have observed contradictory home and schoolsocialization processes which often result in studentsrsquo relatively unsuc-cessful socialization to school norms (Crago 1992 Moore 1999 Watson-Gegeo 1992) These findings among others point to the shiftingemphasis in language socialization research to the sociopolitical dimen-sions of discourse and social organization and their implications forlanguage learning (Watson-Gegeo 2004) Like language socializationsituated learning theory to which we now turn underscores the role ofsocial identity and relationships as well as the historical and practicalconditions of language use in learning

LEARNING AS CHANGING PARTICIPATIONIN SITUATED PRACTICES

Typically situated learningmdashmost notably represented by Lave andWengerrsquos (1991) notion of community of practicemdashhas not been positionedas the primary learning theory in SLA research in the same way that

3 See however Watson-Gegeo (2004) and Watson-Gegeo and Nielsen (2003) who insist thatinvestigating and understanding cognitive development should not be abandoned in languagesocialization research

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 41

Vygotskian or language socialization theories have been For examplethough Tooheyrsquos ethnographic research (2000) and the related work byDay (2002) both draw heavily on Lave and Wengerrsquos community ofpractice they also invoke Vygotskian sociocultural theory and Bakhtinrsquosdialogic perspective (see next section) Lave and Wenger note that theycould have adopted a socialization model but they found that theapprenticeship model helped them conceptualize ldquolearning in situatedwaysmdashin the transformative possibilities of being and becoming com-plex full cultural-historical participants in the worldrdquo (p 32) As sug-gested in this comment situated learning foregrounds learnersrsquo participa-tion in particular social practices understood as habitual ways people(re)produce material and symbolic resources often attached to particu-lar times and places and comprising communities of practice in com-plex often overlapping ways

Lave and Wengerrsquos (1991) conception of legitimate peripheral participa-tion is meant to describe the changes of engagement in particular socialpractices that entail learning Thus we can consider second languagelearners who demonstrate a change from limited to fuller participationin social practices involving their second (or additional) language asgiving evidence of language development (much as language socializa-tion views children or novices being socialized into more appropriateparticipation in the social practices of their communities) ElsewhereWenger (1998) maintains that learning is ldquonot a separate activity [but] is something we can assumemdashwhether we see it or not Evenfailing to learn what is expected in a given situation usually involveslearning something else insteadrdquo (p 8) Toohey (1999) agrees suggest-ing that this approach can help us avoid consigning poor success insecond language learning merely to an individualrsquos failure to learnLegitimate peripheral participation allows us to see instead that somemembers learn to take a less empowered position in a community ofpractice because of the kinds of participation made available to them byldquoprocesses of exclusion and subordination [that] operate locallyrdquo (p135) Toohey adds that it might be less helpful to see learners asmarginalized than to view them as ldquovery much integratedrdquo into schools orother communities of practice but in positions that maintain theirperipheral participation (p 135) This shift in focus away from languageand learning as an individual achievement aligns with Bakhtinrsquos view oflanguage as constituted in particular sociohistorical contexts

Bakhtin and the Dialogic Perspective

Given Mikhail Bakhtinrsquos view of the fundamentally social nature oflanguage and his metaphor of appropriation to conceptualize how

42 TESOL QUARTERLY

people take othersrsquo utterances in coming to own a languagemdashwithin aspecific social space and historical moment Bakhtinian theory overlapsin important ways with situated learning Though Hall (1995 2002) andJohnson (2004) have extensively discussed Bakhtinrsquos ideas and theirapplicability for understanding second language learning most secondlanguage researchers have drawn on select concepts from Bakhtinrsquosphilosophical writings and as with situated learning have folded them inwith other sociocultural frameworks

Like the sociocultural theories already described we find that Bakhtin(1981) stresses the sociality of intellectual processes in claiming thatldquolanguage for the individual consciousness lies on the border betweenoneself and the otherrdquo (p 293) One of the key concepts in Bakhtinrsquoswritings frequently invoked in SLA research is dialogism the mutualparticipation of speakers and hearers in the construction of utterancesand the connectedness of all utterances to past and future expressionsThus the linguistic resources we use and learn can never be seen asmerely part of a ldquoneutral and impersonal languagerdquo rather Bakhtinviewed our use of language as an appropriation of words that at one timeldquoexist[ed] in other peoplersquos mouthsrdquo before we make them our own (pp293ndash294) Hall (2002) explains that in this view an utterance ldquocan onlybe understood fully by considering its history of use by other people inother places for other reasonsrdquo (p 13) Within this framework Toohey(2000) describes language learning as a process in which learners ldquotry onother peoplersquos utterances they take words from other peoplersquos mouthsthey appropriate these utterances and gradually (but not without conflict)these utterances come to serve their needs and relay their meaningsrdquo(p 13)

Packaged with dialogism is Bakhtinrsquos understanding of the inherentlyideological nature of language In agreeing that ldquoall language is politi-calrdquo Hall (1995) asserts that the ldquoauthority and privilege residing incertain interactive resources result from sociopolitical and historicalforces surrounding their userdquo (p 214) Every utterance we producereveals our stance toward the interlocutors involved signaling our socialpositioning within the local interaction and in response to largersociopolitical forces This ideological nature of language is foregroundedby critical theorists who see the role of power relations as primary forunderstanding the social world both in broader social worlds as well asin our very local social practices

Critical Theory

From the point of view of critical theory being socialized into thepractices of a community includes learning onersquos place in the sociopolitical

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 43

organization of those practices Researchers who incorporate criticaltheory into their exploration of second language learning argue that onemust account for relations of power in order to gain a fuller understand-ing of the practices and interactions in which learners participatemdashandthus of their learning processes But what is more important theseresearchers contend that this understanding should then lead to socialand educational change such that more equitable social relations can beeffected particularly in the interests of disenfranchised groups andindividuals It is interesting that in contrast to the theory of legitimateperipheral participation (Lave amp Wenger 1991) in which learners areviewed as learning their marginalized participation critical theoriststend to view marginalized members of a community as having theiraccess to learning blocked because they may be prevented from partici-pating meaningfully in target-language social practices The critical focusin second language learning has been strongly influenced by the work ofPennycook (1990 1999 2001) as well as Norton (1995 1997b 2000) andCanagarajah (1993 1999 2005)

Though the range of critical research is outside the scope of thisdiscussion we highlight one area of interest language and identity thathas gained footing in the field and become a research area in its ownright It has been addressed in a special issue of TESOL Quarterly(Norton 1997a) as well as in numerous other publications From asociocultural perspective our identities are shaped by and through ourlanguage use (Norton 1995 1997b 2000 Pavlenko amp Blackledge 2003)Although issues of identity and learning have been treated in all of thesociocultural approaches to learning that we have discussed so far wethink it is appropriate to mention them here because they often exploreand critique the ways in which the patterning of power relationships canlegitimate some identities and forms of participation but devalue othersAs such language learners have much more at stake than merelydeveloping competence in an additional linguistic code As Morgan(1998) notes ldquolanguage lsquoconditionsrsquo our expectations and desires andcommunicates what might be possible in terms of ourselvesmdashour iden-titymdashand the lsquorealitiesrsquo we might developrdquo (p 12)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURALTENSIONS AND DEBATES

As we have seen the SLA field in the past 15 years has expandedfrom a largely cognitive orientation to include sociocultural approachessuch as those just documented This expansion we believe is one ofthe main reasons the SLA field has during the past 15 years witnesseddebates and tensions that in their cross-paradigm criticisms and

44 TESOL QUARTERLY

ontological disagreements are more fundamental than the (largely)intraparadigm issues surrounding for example the relative validity ofoptions for eliciting speech that received attention in the earlierdecades of SLA This said we would not however go as far as Larsen-Freeman (2002) in describing the current SLA field as being ldquoin a stateof turmoilrdquo (p 33) We prefer Lantolfrsquos (1996) more positive acceptingportrayal of the SLA field as ldquoincredibly and happily diverse creativeoften contentious and always full of controversyrdquo (p 738)

In this section we discuss two debates that originated within the past15 years and still continue These debates are arguably the mostimportant given their ontological differences the great amount ofattention the SLA field has paid them at conferences in the literatureand on a more cynical note the wrestling for academic territory thatsome have seen in them Each debate shakes out as the cognitivists andsocioculturalists arguing with each other for reasons we hope to makeclear However we feel that such labels (cognitivists socioculturalists) ifused as the primary characterizations of the debates would obscure themore basic ontological differences that underlie the arguments Thoughthe two debates are related each originated in and focused on differentconceptions conceptions that we feel are more important means offraming and understanding each of the debates Framing by conceptionthen we first discuss the debate around understandings of learning4 andafter that the debate about theory construction in SLA

The Debate Around the Understanding of Learning in SLA

At the 1996 annual conference of the International Association ofApplied Linguistics (AILA) in Jyvaumlskylauml Finland Alan Firth and JohannesWagner (1996) organized a symposium in which they delivered a paperarguing that SLA had long been dominated by cognitive views of thelearner and learning as individualistic mentalistic and as functioningindependent of the context and use of the language Following theirpaper several presenters took a variety of positions vis-agrave-vis Firth andWagnerrsquos critique (One of the authors attended that symposium andremembers that the atmosphere was quite electric) Although Firth andWagner were not necessarily the first to raise such criticism of the field(see eg Bremer Roberts Vasseur Simonot amp Broeder 1996 Hall1995 Rampton 1987) attention to Firth and Wagnerrsquos criticism inparticular with prominent respondents (eg Joan Kelly Hall Gabriele

4 Though earlier SLA work sometimes differentiated learning from acquisition following thedistinction made by Krashen (eg 1982 1985) we understand the two terms as synonymousOur understanding reflects the fieldrsquos current position given that Krashenrsquos theory has fallenout of favor

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 45

Kasper Nanda Poulisse Michael Long) from varying orientations offer-ing support or declaring opposition was guaranteed when in 1997 theirsymposium papers were published along with additional response papersin the Modern Language Journal (see Firth amp Wagner 1997) The debateintensified further after the Modern Language Journal published SusanGassrsquos (1998) response to Firth and Wagner and Firth and Wagnerrsquos(1998) response to Gass5

Firth and Wagner (1997) criticize the field of SLA for its overwhelm-ingly cognitive orientation in defining and researching the learner andlearning Such an approach too strongly emphasizes the individual theinternalization of mental processes and ldquothe development of grammati-cal competencerdquo (p 288) Meaning does not occur they argue inldquoprivate thoughts executed and then transferred from brain to brain but[as] a social and negotiable product of interaction transcending indi-vidual intentions and behavioursrdquo (p 290) Like other humans alanguage learner should be considered a ldquoparticipant-as-language-lsquouserrsquoin social interactionrdquo (p 286) It is time they say to question the fieldrsquosdivision of language use (as consigned to the social) from languagelearning (as the individualized decontextualized domain of the cogni-tive) An SLA field reformulated according to Firth and Wagnerrsquosargument would help us gain more comprehension of ldquohow language isused as it is being acquired through interaction and used resourcefullycontingently and contextuallyrdquo (p 296) Reiterating their view oflearning in their response to Gass (1998) they invoke Vygotsky inasserting that ldquocognitive structures are influenced and indeed devel-oped through engagement in social activity From this perspective itcan be said that language use forms cognitionrdquo (Firth amp Wagner 1998p 92)

Firth and Wagnerrsquos argument that learning (or acquisition) occursthrough use would find support not just in Vygotsky but also in the othersociocultural perspectives discussed in this article In fact Kramsch(2002) points out that the unifying thread running through her editedcollection ldquois a common dissatisfaction with the traditional separationbetween language acquisition and language socializationrdquo (p 4) lan-guage socialization being one of the sociocultural perspectives promi-nent in current SLA Some go further In her contribution to theKramsch collection Larsen-Freeman (2002) appears to be beyondldquodissatisfactionrdquo in declaring that ldquothe failure to consider language userdquois one of the ldquomost trenchant criticisms of mainstream SLA researchrdquo (p34) the other being the lack of balance between the social and thecognitive

5 For reprints of some of the papers as well as commentary see Seidlhofer (2003) Larsen-Freeman (2002) provides a very concise summary of the debate

46 TESOL QUARTERLY

Although some of the respondents (namely Hall 1997 and Liddicoat1997) support Firth and Wagnerrsquos argument it is the opposing respon-dents whose position we summarize particularly thosemdashLong (1997)Kasper (1997) and Gass (1998)mdashwho assert strong opposition to Firthand Wagnerrsquos claim that we should not separate acquisition and usebecause use is actually how learning takes place Perhaps because theyshare a cognitive orientation all three give basically the same responsemaintaining a strong split between acquisition and use To Kasper(1997) the ldquomost nagging problemrdquo with Firth and Wagnerrsquos paper isthat it ldquohas in fact very little to say about L2 acquisitionrdquo (p 310) becauseas she sees it although social context can influence SLA the SLA processitself is essentially cognitive Long (1997) completely agrees ending hisresponse by offering his ldquoskepticism as to whether greater insights intoSL use will necessarily have much to say about SL acquisitionrdquo (p 322) Andthough Gass (1998) concedes that perhaps ldquosome parts of language areconstructed sociallyrdquo that in itself does not imply that ldquowe cannotinvestigate language as an abstract entity that resides in the individualrdquo(p 88) maintaining in so doing her view of learning as largely anindividualized mental process Drawing a figure characterizing the fieldGass (1998) presents ldquoSLArdquo and ldquoSL Userdquo as together making upresearch on ldquoSecond Language Studiesrdquo but it is important that shedraws ldquoSLArdquo and ldquoSL Userdquo as branches that are separate and uncon-nected (p 88)

As Larsen-Freeman (2002) points out this debate is irresolvablebecause it involves two different ontological positions that reflect ldquofunda-mental differences in the way they frame their understanding of learn-ingrdquo (p 37) What one might hope for though is that ldquowe agree todisagreerdquo as the expression goes and accept that contrasting views oflearning can stimulate rather than befuddle the field

The Debate on Theory Construction in SLAPositivism Versus Relativism

During the past 15 years the SLA field has devoted more attention tometatheoretical and metamethodological concerns than it had in earlierdecades The most prominent debate has concerned theory constructionin SLA Though others have written (and continue to write) on theoryconstruction6 we have selected a set of authors and articles rangingfrom 1991 to 2000 that comprise a coherent debate for discussion Thediscussion we profile of theory constructionmdashin fact any discussion oftheory constructionmdashaddresses a complex subject that raises a number

6 See for example Atkinson (2002) McGroarty (1998) and van Lier (1991 1994)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 47

of questions We have distilled from the discussion the authorsrsquo debateon positivism versus relativism in theory construction The tensions anddifferences it raises reflect a new dynamic entering the field one thatcontinues and that results from we believe the arrival on the SLA sceneof the sociocultural perspectives we discussed earlier7

Beretta (1991) framed a discussion of theory construction by address-ing issues such as whether or not (what he saw as) a diversity of theoriesand criteria in SLA represents a problem that is should this diversity bereduced to one or a few theories Considering different approaches totheory building Beretta arrives at a clear conclusion in favor of fewrather than many theories viewing the former as the result of ldquorational-ityrdquo and the latter the outcome of ldquorelativismrdquo (p 495) Comparing SLAto the ldquoalready-successful sciencesrdquo (p 497 ie the so-called hardsciences) Beretta says that because these fields do not unlike SLA haveldquomultiple rival theoriesrdquo (p 497) it is not beneficial for SLA to havemany theories either He goes on to state that the ldquomost anarchiccriterion of allrdquo is that of ldquono criterionrdquo (p 501) Referring to what hecalls ldquoextreme relativismrdquo Berettarsquos nightmare scenario is one in whichphenomena are not independent of but ldquoalways relative to the values ofindividuals and communitiesrdquo (p 501) This ldquowhateverrdquo position (to usea current slang term) implies that ldquopoetry voodoo religion and non-sense are no less valid bases for belief than lsquosciencersquordquo (p 501) Clearlythen Beretta supports theory building only from a rationalistpositivist8

paradigm and certainly not from a relativist one He is not aloneAlthough Crookes (1992) does not address relativism his agreementwith Berretta is implicit in his adherence to a positivistic notion ofscience as the gold standard in considering theory construction9

The debate continued with the publication of a special issue of AppliedLinguistics in 1993 titled ldquoTheory Construction in SLArdquo which containspapers from a 1991 conference at Michigan State University titledldquoTheory Construction and Methodology in Second Language ResearchrdquoAlmost all of the contributors (ie Beretta Long Crookes Gregg)10 take

7 To follow the debate the reader should consult in this order Beretta (1991) Crookes(1992) Beretta (1993) Block (1996) Gregg Long Jordan amp Beretta (1997) Lantolf (1996)and Gregg (2000)

8 Though Beretta states that positivism is not a viable paradigm any longer he appears to bekeeping to positivism nevertheless taking perhaps a postpositivistic stance instead Forinformation on the two positions (which are within the same paradigm) see for example Gubaand Lincoln (1998) Because we see positivism and postpositivism as matters of degree ratherthan substance and because positivism is the better known term in the field we will use positivismto describe Berettarsquos and othersrsquo positions

9 Such a characterization of science (as equivalent to positivism) may be simplistic We thankone of the anonymous reviewers for pointing this out

10 The exception is Schumann (1993) who argues to oversimplify it that art and science arenot that different Because Schumannrsquos position is similar to that of the other relativists that wediscuss we will not focus on him here

48 TESOL QUARTERLY

a similar position that although it does not necessarily mention relativ-ism explicitly nevertheless implicitly opposes it by supporting positivismas the (sole) paradigm for cognitive research on SLA Beretta andCrookes (1993) dismiss the argument that the social can cause thecontent of theories they argue that social conditions are not only notsufficient but are not necessary ldquofor scientific discoveryrdquo(p 253) Gregg(1993) like Beretta and Crookes (1993) does not attack relativismdirectly Nevertheless it is clear that Gregg (1993) opposes relativism ldquoInSLA the overall explanandum is the acquisition (or non-acquisition)of L2 competence in the Chomskyan sense of the termrdquo (p 278) Andthe criteria that Gregg chooses for discussing theory constructiontransition theories and property theories come from psychology (ieCummins 1983) Thus in what becomes an ongoing metaphor in thedebate Greggrsquos ldquoLet a Couple of Flowers Bloomrdquo does not advocate arelativistrsquos acceptance of a multiplicity of theories but advocates ldquoacouplerdquo as opposed to many and within a cognitive and positivisticframework

Adapting Greggrsquos metaphor Lantolfrsquos (1996) article subtitled ldquoLet-ting All the Flowers Bloomrdquo not surprisingly supports relativism andopposes positivism Though Blockrsquos (1996) article is more wide-ranginghe too argues for relativism ldquoReality is a social and therefore multipleconstruction there is no tangible fragmentable reality on to whichscience can convergerdquo (p 69 citing Lincoln 1990) However that doesnot mean that everything is acceptable Block asserts Though heacknowledges that relativism and positivism are two fundamentallydifferent ontologies he argues again citing Lincoln (1990) that ratherthan throwing their hands up at the situation relativists attempt to findpatterns ldquoworking hypotheses or temporary time-and-place-bound knowl-edgerdquo (Block 1996 p 69) Coming from a similar position Lantolf(1996) provides a ldquopostmodernist critical analysisrdquo of the theory-buildingliterature of Gregg Long Crookes and others pointing out that theyare all clearly dedicated to the rationalistpositivist paradigm in the SLAfield and adding ironically that they ldquoshare a common fear of thedreaded lsquorelativismrsquordquo (p 715) In fact Lantolf coins a term for thiscondition relativaphobia (p 731) In a detailed set of points Lantolfargues against what he sees as the hegemony of the positivistic echoingBlockrsquos (1996) accusation of ldquoscience envyrdquo (p 64) in accusing Greggand the others of having ldquophysics envyrdquo (p 717) Where Gregg and theothers consider the existence within SLA of multiple and incommensu-rable theories an obstacle to the development and maturation of thefield Lantolf (1996) encourages ldquoLetting All the Flowers Bloomrdquowarning that otherwise ldquoonce theoretical hegemony is achieved alterna-tive metaphors are cut off or suffocated by the single official metaphor

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 49

subsequently those who espouse different world views cease to havea voicerdquo (p 739)

Both Block (1996) and Lantolf (1996) generated response articlesGregg Long Jordan and Beretta (1997) critiqued the Block articlewhile Gregg (2000) responded to Lantolf (1996) by presenting anegative summary of postmodernism Writing from within their positivistparadigm Gregg Long Jordan and Beretta (1997) accept Blockrsquoscriticism that they have ldquoscience envyrdquo

Let us grant that many or even all of us in the field have the occasional twingeof envy for the accomplishments of other sciences given the fairly feebleprogress made so far in SLA and the magnificent intellectual achievementsof the more successful sciences such envy would certainly be unsurprising(p 543)

Unfortunately their stance becomes both smug and naiumlve For exampleGregg and his colleagues (1997) declare a state of ldquodisbeliefrdquo in Blockrsquospoint that controlling for extraneous variables in SLA research isldquoprobably not even desirablerdquo (p 544 quoting Block 1996 p 74)Continuing they declare ldquoDo we actually need to point out thedisastrous consequences of Blockrsquos lsquostancersquo for SLA or indeed for anyintellectual inquiryrdquo (p 544) No one invoking a positivist paradigmwould disagree with their critique because one of the paradigmrsquosprinciples is indeed the manipulation of variables which includescontrolling wherever possible for extraneous variables However whatGregg and colleagues (1997) fail to recognize is that Blockrsquos statementcomes from a different (relativist) paradigm rendering their responseirrelevant

In his critique of Lantolf (1996) Gregg (2000) does not directlyreiterate the anti-relativist pro-positivist argument that he and hiscolleagues had already published elsewhere Instead he begins bysummarizing (negatively) postmodernism the approach that Lantolf(1996) takes in his article Describing postmodernism Gregg discussesits stance that among other things instead of written texts havingobjective meaningmdashthat of the textrsquos authormdashmeaning is generated asthe reader interacts with the text Greggrsquos response to this stance revealshis reluctance (or inability) to think outside of his paradigm ldquoSuch aperspective strikes me as nonsenserdquo (p 386) On the other hand hetakes ldquothe common-sense position that the meaning of sentences canusually be agreed upon and that there generally are correct andincorrect interpretations of (meaningful) sentencesrdquo (pp 386ndash387)

Concluding his discussion of postmodernism Gregg (2000) assertsagain from within his paradigm

50 TESOL QUARTERLY

It is no accident that postmodernism originated as a movement amongliterary critics and cultural philosophers It flourishes that is precisely inthose areas of intellectual activity where decisive evidence is extremely hard tofind Faced with a range of disciplines that are actually making progress the postmodernists tried to turn the tables on the sciences Ratherthan claiming that the grapes of science are sour the postmodernist assuresus that there are no grapes To put it a bit differently one can seepostmodernism as a sophisticated way for academics in the humanities toovercome their own ldquophysics envyrdquo (pp 389ndash390)

With that memorable point of view we will end our discussion of thetheory construction debate On the positive side we agree that debateslike this stimulate a field And debates being debates it is not necessaryor relevant to try to come to agreement After all (as we indicated indiscussing the debate about learning) the debate on theory constructionis occurring across very different paradigms with contradictory views ofreality Although the debate can be framed as occurring betweencognitivists and socioculturalists we have emphasized a more fundamen-tal difference Like Lantolf (1996) we view as positive a field in whichpossibly incommensurable theories proliferate and are debated ratherthan allowing one theory to dominate without being problematized Weare only sorry that so much energy has gone into some participantsrsquorefusal to admit (or understand) that these positions on theory areincommensurable because they stem from contradictory ontologies Andthe smug tone that some of the debate takes is therefore not only naiumlvebut unfair

Though we have discussed a debate whose outcome is incommensura-bility some argue for cognitive-sociocultural integration Authors takevarying approaches in making their argument For example Larsen-Freeman (2002) proposes chaoscomplexity theory as a means ofaccommodating both sociocultural and cognitive perspectives withinSLA Block (2003) cites several pieces of research that argue for thecomplementarity of cognitive and sociocultural views namely Ellis(2000) Swain and Lapkin (1998) Tarone and Liu (1995) and Teutsch-Dwyer (2001) However Block himself does not take a clear positionsupporting integration Instead he advocates a ldquomore multidisciplinaryand socially informed futurerdquo for those following the input-interactiontradition (p 139) Making a somewhat different argument Watson-Gegeo (2004) sees a possible new ldquosynthesisrdquo of the cognitive with thesociocultural because of developments in the field that view cognition asa phenomenon which ldquooriginates in social interaction and is shaped bycultural and sociopolitical processesrdquo (p 331) Thorne (2005) andLantolf (2000) envision Vygotskyan theory in particular as providing alens for viewing social context as central to the development of cognition(see also Johnson 2004)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 51

IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVESFOR CLASSROOM PRACTICE

Hall (2002) observes that traditional SLA approaches seek to identifygood pedagogical interventions that will most effectively ldquofacilitatelearnersrsquo assimilation of new systemic knowledge into known knowledgestructuresrdquo (p 48) However given their different understandings oflanguage learning socioculturally informed studies offer much differentrecommendations for improving classroom practice For example inseeing learning as participation as relational and interactive and asconstrained by unequal power relations Lave and Wengerrsquos perspectiveasks educators to consider how the practices of school relate to thoseoutside of school how schools and classrooms themselves are organizedinto communities of practice and what kinds of participation are madeaccessible to students

Other studies taking sociocultural perspectives have examined class-room interactions or discourse patterns with an eye toward identifyingthose that best facilitate student participation (Gutierrez Rymes ampLarsen 1995 Nassaji amp Wells 2000 Nystrand Gamoran Zeiser amp Long2003 Tharp amp Gallimore 1991) Still others have examined such topicsas the kinds of guided or scaffolded assistance from teachers (or otherexperts) that can move students along within their ZPD (Aljaafreh ampLantolf 1994 Anton 1999 McCormick amp Donato 2000 Nassaji ampCumming 2000) the effectiveness of goal-oriented dialogue betweenpeers to mediate learning (Donato 1994 Ohta 2000 Swain amp Lapkin1998) and the need for dialogic and contextually sensitive approachesto language assessment ( Johnson 2001 2004) These studies are only afew among many but they share the sociocultural awareness that highlysituated classroom participation promotes language learning

We acknowledge that we do not specify general recommendations fortransforming classroom practices primarily because we are aware of thelimits of what can be generalized across classroom contexts Hall (2000)speaks to the situatedness of learning processes in saying that ldquoeffectingchange in our classrooms will not result from imposing solutions fromoutside but from nurturing effectual practices that are indigenous to ourparticular contextsrdquo (p 295) Clearly this is no easy task for educators Itrequires ongoing and intense work with every group of students andreflective awareness of how the affective and political dimensions ofclassroom life affect individual studentsrsquo participation However with theincreased awareness and sensitivity to local contexts that socioculturalperspectives bring us we have reason to hope that we are closer tounderstanding and creating the kinds of classroom communities thatlearners need

52 TESOL QUARTERLY

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

Although it is difficult to make predictions about the next 15 years insuch a dynamic field we end our article by looking forward to somedevelopments we consider exciting and worth watching Among them iswork in conversation analysis investigating language learning as it occursin the turn-by-turn development of conversational processes (see egMarkee 2004) developments in discursive psychology (not yet emergentin SLA but relevant for researchers interested in learner positioningwithin social practices see eg Davies amp Harreacute 1990) a growth in workfocusing on postcolonial transnational and World Englishes (egCanagarajah 2000 Jenkins 2003 also this issue Kachru 2001 Pennycook1998 Rampton 1995) and explorations in the new kinds of discursivepractices that language learners engage when using new technologies(see especially Gee 2003 Kern this issue Lam 2000 Thorne 2003 andWarschauer 1997) We are eager to see what unfolds

THE AUTHORS

Jane Zuengler is a professor in the English Department at the University ofWisconsinndashMadison Her research and teaching interests include second languageacquisition and use classroom discourse analysis critical perspectives on languageand the global spread of English

Elizabeth R Miller is a doctoral candidate in the English Department at theUniversity of WisconsinndashMadison Her research interests include second languageacquisition and use microanalytic discourse analysis and critical and poststructuralperspectives on language pedagogy and ideology

REFERENCES

Adair-Hauck B amp Donato R (1994) Foreign language explanations within thezone of proximal development The Canadian Modern Language Review 50 532ndash555

Aljaafreh A amp Lantolf J P (1994) Negative feedback as regulation and secondlanguage learning in the zone of proximal development The Modern LanguageJournal 78 465ndash483

Anton M (1999) The discourse of a learner-centered classroom Socioculturalperspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second language classroom TheModern Language Journal 83 303ndash318

Anton M amp DiCamilla F (1998) Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborativeinteraction in the L2 classroom The Canadian Modern Language Review 54 314ndash342

Atkinson D (2002) Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisi-tion The Modern Language Journal 86 525ndash545

Atkinson D (2003) Language socialization and dys-socialization in a South Indiancollege In R Bayley amp S R Schechter (Eds) Language socialization in bilingualand multilingual societies (pp 147ndash168) Clevedon England Multilingual Matters

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 37

ldquothe language sciencesrdquo Though he points to what he sees as a ldquonew andexciting chapterrdquo in the field with more developed technology andgreater ldquomultidisciplinarity of researchrdquo (pp 185ndash186) Guiora envisionsthese developments through a cognitive lens The greater disciplinarityof research involves for him the greater inclusion of cognitive scienceand neuroscience the new technologies that will bring a more complexunderstanding of language will offer the ldquoreal possibility of establishingdirect relationships between observed behaviors and their neurobiologi-cal substrates without mediating constructs that is a set of words thusallowing for first-order explanations of these phenomenardquo (p 186)

In the concluding chapter to their Handbook of Second LanguageAcquisition Long and Doughty (2003) view the SLA future quite similarlyWhile discussing how the fields of cognitive science and SLA are relatedLong and Doughty end their extensive volume with this vote of confi-dence for cognition

For SLA to achieve the stability stimulation and research funding to surviveas a viable field of inquiry it needs an intellectual and institutional home thatis to some degree autonomous and separate from the disciplines anddepartments that currently offer shelter Cognitive science is the logicalchoice (p 869)

We wish to make clear before going further that we see nothingproblematic or aberrant in continuing a certain perspective or theory ina given field In showing evidence that the cognitive orientation contin-ues to dominate SLA we intend to clarify the context within which ourdiscussion occurs In other words to understand the new kids on theblock and later some tensions and arguments in the neighborhood it isnecessary to understand what the neighborhood has been and who hasdominated it We turn now to the newer arrivals

THE ARRIVAL OF SOCIOCULTURALPERSPECTIVES ON SLA

These more recent arrivals to the field of SLAmdashsociocultural perspec-tives2 on language and learningmdashview language use in real-world situa-tions as fundamental not ancillary to learning These researchers focusnot on language as input but as a resource for participation in the kinds

2 We use the term sociocultural perspectives to refer to varied approaches to learning thatforeground the social and cultural contexts of learning (as discussed in Zuengler amp Cole 2004see also Thorne 2005) One such approach to learning is what we call Vygotskian socioculturaltheory However we recognize that for some the term sociocultural theory is equivalent toVygotskian theory

38 TESOL QUARTERLY

of activities our everyday lives comprise Participation in these activities isboth the product and the process of learning

We provide brief summaries of the sociocultural perspectives we findtypically invoked in recent SLA research mentioning relevant studiesWe do not however refer to all studies that draw on these perspectivesReaders are urged to see Lantolf (2000) for an overview of VygotskianSLA studies and Zuengler and Cole (2005) for a review of languagesocialization research in second language learning The order we havechosen is somewhat arbitrary We begin however with Vygotskiansociocultural theory and language socialization because one or the otheris often positioned as the primary theoretical framework These two alsoseem to be invoked more frequently than situated learning theoryBakhtinian approaches to language or critical theories of discourse andsocial relationsmdashthe remaining perspectives we discuss Segregatingthese sociocultural perspectives into their own sections allows us toaddress their unique disciplinary roots and contributions to SLA Thoughwe believe researchers must take care in how they bring together thesevarying approaches given their distinctiveness we suggest that theldquohybrid interdisciplinarityrdquo that many SLA scholars practice (RamptonRoberts Leung amp Harris 2002 p 373) has been productive and mirrorsthe increasing interdisciplinarity found in much of the current socialscience research

Vygotskian Sociocultural Theory

SLA research using Vygotskian sociocultural theory first began toappear in the mid-1980s (Frawley amp Lantolf 1984 1985) but quicklygained momentum in the mid-1990s with a special issue of the ModernLanguage Journal (Lantolf 1994) devoted to sociocultural theory andsecond language learning That same year an edited volume appeared(Lantolf amp Appel 1994) and the first of a series of annual meetingsdedicated to sociocultural research in SLA convened in Pittsburgh Sincethen conference presentations and publications taking this approach toSLA have only increased

Like traditional cognitive approaches to learning Vygotskian sociocul-tural theory is fundamentally concerned with understanding the devel-opment of cognitive processes However its distinctiveness from tradi-tional cognitive approaches can best be highlighted by citing VygotskyldquoThe social dimension of consciousness [ie all mental processes] isprimary in time and fact The individual dimension of consciousness isderivative and secondaryrdquo (1979 p 30) Lantolf and Pavlenko (1995)clarify that even though Vygotskian sociocultural theory does not deny arole for biological constraints ldquodevelopment does not proceed as the

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 39

unfolding of inborn capacities but as the transformation of innatecapacities once they intertwine with socioculturally constructed media-tional meansrdquo (p 109) These means are the socioculturally meaningfulartifacts and symbolic systems of a society the most important of which islanguage Of significance for SLA research is the understanding thatwhen learners appropriate mediational means such as language madeavailable as they interact in socioculturally meaningful activities theselearners gain control over their own mental activity and can begin tofunction independently And as Lantolf (2000) notes ldquoaccording toVygotsky this is what development is aboutrdquo (p 80)

SLA researchers have focused on learnersrsquo linguistic development inthe zone of proximal development (ZPD) Vygotskyrsquos conception of what anindividual can accomplish when working in collaboration with others(more) versus what he or she could have accomplished without collabo-ration with others (less) The ZPD points to that individualrsquos learningpotential that is what he or she may be able to do independently in thefuture (Adair-Hauck amp Donato 1994 Aljaafreh amp Lantolf 1994 Anton1999 2000 DiCamilla amp Anton 1997 Nassaji amp Cumming 2000 Ohta2000 Swain amp Lapkin 1998) Others have focused on the use of privatespeech or speech directed to oneself that mediates mental behaviorPrivate speech manifests the process in which external social forms ofinteraction come to be appropriated for inner speech or mental develop-ment (Anton amp DiCamilla 1998 McCafferty 1994 2004b see alsoMcCafferty 2004a) Still others have focused on activity theory and task-based approaches to second language teaching and learning (Coughlanamp Duff 1994 McCafferty Roebuck amp Wayland 2001 Parks 2000Storch 2004 Thorne 2003)

Language Socialization

Language socialization researchers including those in SLA closelyidentify with Vygotskian sociocultural approaches to learning (see Ochs1988 Schiefflin amp Ochs 1986 Watson-Gegeo 2004 Watson-Gegeo ampNielson 2003) But in contrast to a disciplinary history in psychology anda focus on cognitive development this theory emerged from anthropol-ogy with an interest in understanding the development of socially andculturally competent members of society In her introduction to anedited volume comprising language socialization studies among childrenin a variety of cultures Ochs comments that she and her co-editorSchieffelin (1986) ldquotake for granted that the development of intel-ligence and knowledge is facilitated (to an extent) by childrenrsquos commu-nication with othersrdquo and instead emphasize the ldquosociocultural informa-tion [that] is generally encoded in the organization of conversational

40 TESOL QUARTERLY

discourserdquo (pp 2ndash3) As such language socialization research hasinvestigated the interconnected processes of linguistic and culturallearning in discourse practices interactional routines and participationstructures and roles3

Although language socialization research in the 1980s largely investi-gated ways in which children are socialized into the social practices of acommunity by the mid-1990s the language socialization approach wasbeing applied to adult second language learners (see eg Duff 1995Harklau 1994 Poole 1992) Whether at home in the classroom atwork or in any number of other environments language learners areembedded in and learn to become competent participants in culturallysocially and politically shaped communicative contexts The linguisticforms used in these contexts and their social significance affect howlearners come to understand and use language

In a recent review of language socialization research in SLA Zuenglerand Cole (2005) observed that even though some studies portraysocialization as a smooth and successful process (eg Kanagy 1999Ohta 1999) many other studies mostly classroom based demonstrateldquolanguage socialization as potentially problematic tension producingand unsuccessfulrdquo (p 306) For example some researchers have foundthat school socialization processes can have negative effects on secondlanguage learning (Atkinson 2003 Duff amp Early 1999 Rymes 1997Willet 1995) and others have observed contradictory home and schoolsocialization processes which often result in studentsrsquo relatively unsuc-cessful socialization to school norms (Crago 1992 Moore 1999 Watson-Gegeo 1992) These findings among others point to the shiftingemphasis in language socialization research to the sociopolitical dimen-sions of discourse and social organization and their implications forlanguage learning (Watson-Gegeo 2004) Like language socializationsituated learning theory to which we now turn underscores the role ofsocial identity and relationships as well as the historical and practicalconditions of language use in learning

LEARNING AS CHANGING PARTICIPATIONIN SITUATED PRACTICES

Typically situated learningmdashmost notably represented by Lave andWengerrsquos (1991) notion of community of practicemdashhas not been positionedas the primary learning theory in SLA research in the same way that

3 See however Watson-Gegeo (2004) and Watson-Gegeo and Nielsen (2003) who insist thatinvestigating and understanding cognitive development should not be abandoned in languagesocialization research

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 41

Vygotskian or language socialization theories have been For examplethough Tooheyrsquos ethnographic research (2000) and the related work byDay (2002) both draw heavily on Lave and Wengerrsquos community ofpractice they also invoke Vygotskian sociocultural theory and Bakhtinrsquosdialogic perspective (see next section) Lave and Wenger note that theycould have adopted a socialization model but they found that theapprenticeship model helped them conceptualize ldquolearning in situatedwaysmdashin the transformative possibilities of being and becoming com-plex full cultural-historical participants in the worldrdquo (p 32) As sug-gested in this comment situated learning foregrounds learnersrsquo participa-tion in particular social practices understood as habitual ways people(re)produce material and symbolic resources often attached to particu-lar times and places and comprising communities of practice in com-plex often overlapping ways

Lave and Wengerrsquos (1991) conception of legitimate peripheral participa-tion is meant to describe the changes of engagement in particular socialpractices that entail learning Thus we can consider second languagelearners who demonstrate a change from limited to fuller participationin social practices involving their second (or additional) language asgiving evidence of language development (much as language socializa-tion views children or novices being socialized into more appropriateparticipation in the social practices of their communities) ElsewhereWenger (1998) maintains that learning is ldquonot a separate activity [but] is something we can assumemdashwhether we see it or not Evenfailing to learn what is expected in a given situation usually involveslearning something else insteadrdquo (p 8) Toohey (1999) agrees suggest-ing that this approach can help us avoid consigning poor success insecond language learning merely to an individualrsquos failure to learnLegitimate peripheral participation allows us to see instead that somemembers learn to take a less empowered position in a community ofpractice because of the kinds of participation made available to them byldquoprocesses of exclusion and subordination [that] operate locallyrdquo (p135) Toohey adds that it might be less helpful to see learners asmarginalized than to view them as ldquovery much integratedrdquo into schools orother communities of practice but in positions that maintain theirperipheral participation (p 135) This shift in focus away from languageand learning as an individual achievement aligns with Bakhtinrsquos view oflanguage as constituted in particular sociohistorical contexts

Bakhtin and the Dialogic Perspective

Given Mikhail Bakhtinrsquos view of the fundamentally social nature oflanguage and his metaphor of appropriation to conceptualize how

42 TESOL QUARTERLY

people take othersrsquo utterances in coming to own a languagemdashwithin aspecific social space and historical moment Bakhtinian theory overlapsin important ways with situated learning Though Hall (1995 2002) andJohnson (2004) have extensively discussed Bakhtinrsquos ideas and theirapplicability for understanding second language learning most secondlanguage researchers have drawn on select concepts from Bakhtinrsquosphilosophical writings and as with situated learning have folded them inwith other sociocultural frameworks

Like the sociocultural theories already described we find that Bakhtin(1981) stresses the sociality of intellectual processes in claiming thatldquolanguage for the individual consciousness lies on the border betweenoneself and the otherrdquo (p 293) One of the key concepts in Bakhtinrsquoswritings frequently invoked in SLA research is dialogism the mutualparticipation of speakers and hearers in the construction of utterancesand the connectedness of all utterances to past and future expressionsThus the linguistic resources we use and learn can never be seen asmerely part of a ldquoneutral and impersonal languagerdquo rather Bakhtinviewed our use of language as an appropriation of words that at one timeldquoexist[ed] in other peoplersquos mouthsrdquo before we make them our own (pp293ndash294) Hall (2002) explains that in this view an utterance ldquocan onlybe understood fully by considering its history of use by other people inother places for other reasonsrdquo (p 13) Within this framework Toohey(2000) describes language learning as a process in which learners ldquotry onother peoplersquos utterances they take words from other peoplersquos mouthsthey appropriate these utterances and gradually (but not without conflict)these utterances come to serve their needs and relay their meaningsrdquo(p 13)

Packaged with dialogism is Bakhtinrsquos understanding of the inherentlyideological nature of language In agreeing that ldquoall language is politi-calrdquo Hall (1995) asserts that the ldquoauthority and privilege residing incertain interactive resources result from sociopolitical and historicalforces surrounding their userdquo (p 214) Every utterance we producereveals our stance toward the interlocutors involved signaling our socialpositioning within the local interaction and in response to largersociopolitical forces This ideological nature of language is foregroundedby critical theorists who see the role of power relations as primary forunderstanding the social world both in broader social worlds as well asin our very local social practices

Critical Theory

From the point of view of critical theory being socialized into thepractices of a community includes learning onersquos place in the sociopolitical

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 43

organization of those practices Researchers who incorporate criticaltheory into their exploration of second language learning argue that onemust account for relations of power in order to gain a fuller understand-ing of the practices and interactions in which learners participatemdashandthus of their learning processes But what is more important theseresearchers contend that this understanding should then lead to socialand educational change such that more equitable social relations can beeffected particularly in the interests of disenfranchised groups andindividuals It is interesting that in contrast to the theory of legitimateperipheral participation (Lave amp Wenger 1991) in which learners areviewed as learning their marginalized participation critical theoriststend to view marginalized members of a community as having theiraccess to learning blocked because they may be prevented from partici-pating meaningfully in target-language social practices The critical focusin second language learning has been strongly influenced by the work ofPennycook (1990 1999 2001) as well as Norton (1995 1997b 2000) andCanagarajah (1993 1999 2005)

Though the range of critical research is outside the scope of thisdiscussion we highlight one area of interest language and identity thathas gained footing in the field and become a research area in its ownright It has been addressed in a special issue of TESOL Quarterly(Norton 1997a) as well as in numerous other publications From asociocultural perspective our identities are shaped by and through ourlanguage use (Norton 1995 1997b 2000 Pavlenko amp Blackledge 2003)Although issues of identity and learning have been treated in all of thesociocultural approaches to learning that we have discussed so far wethink it is appropriate to mention them here because they often exploreand critique the ways in which the patterning of power relationships canlegitimate some identities and forms of participation but devalue othersAs such language learners have much more at stake than merelydeveloping competence in an additional linguistic code As Morgan(1998) notes ldquolanguage lsquoconditionsrsquo our expectations and desires andcommunicates what might be possible in terms of ourselvesmdashour iden-titymdashand the lsquorealitiesrsquo we might developrdquo (p 12)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURALTENSIONS AND DEBATES

As we have seen the SLA field in the past 15 years has expandedfrom a largely cognitive orientation to include sociocultural approachessuch as those just documented This expansion we believe is one ofthe main reasons the SLA field has during the past 15 years witnesseddebates and tensions that in their cross-paradigm criticisms and

44 TESOL QUARTERLY

ontological disagreements are more fundamental than the (largely)intraparadigm issues surrounding for example the relative validity ofoptions for eliciting speech that received attention in the earlierdecades of SLA This said we would not however go as far as Larsen-Freeman (2002) in describing the current SLA field as being ldquoin a stateof turmoilrdquo (p 33) We prefer Lantolfrsquos (1996) more positive acceptingportrayal of the SLA field as ldquoincredibly and happily diverse creativeoften contentious and always full of controversyrdquo (p 738)

In this section we discuss two debates that originated within the past15 years and still continue These debates are arguably the mostimportant given their ontological differences the great amount ofattention the SLA field has paid them at conferences in the literatureand on a more cynical note the wrestling for academic territory thatsome have seen in them Each debate shakes out as the cognitivists andsocioculturalists arguing with each other for reasons we hope to makeclear However we feel that such labels (cognitivists socioculturalists) ifused as the primary characterizations of the debates would obscure themore basic ontological differences that underlie the arguments Thoughthe two debates are related each originated in and focused on differentconceptions conceptions that we feel are more important means offraming and understanding each of the debates Framing by conceptionthen we first discuss the debate around understandings of learning4 andafter that the debate about theory construction in SLA

The Debate Around the Understanding of Learning in SLA

At the 1996 annual conference of the International Association ofApplied Linguistics (AILA) in Jyvaumlskylauml Finland Alan Firth and JohannesWagner (1996) organized a symposium in which they delivered a paperarguing that SLA had long been dominated by cognitive views of thelearner and learning as individualistic mentalistic and as functioningindependent of the context and use of the language Following theirpaper several presenters took a variety of positions vis-agrave-vis Firth andWagnerrsquos critique (One of the authors attended that symposium andremembers that the atmosphere was quite electric) Although Firth andWagner were not necessarily the first to raise such criticism of the field(see eg Bremer Roberts Vasseur Simonot amp Broeder 1996 Hall1995 Rampton 1987) attention to Firth and Wagnerrsquos criticism inparticular with prominent respondents (eg Joan Kelly Hall Gabriele

4 Though earlier SLA work sometimes differentiated learning from acquisition following thedistinction made by Krashen (eg 1982 1985) we understand the two terms as synonymousOur understanding reflects the fieldrsquos current position given that Krashenrsquos theory has fallenout of favor

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 45

Kasper Nanda Poulisse Michael Long) from varying orientations offer-ing support or declaring opposition was guaranteed when in 1997 theirsymposium papers were published along with additional response papersin the Modern Language Journal (see Firth amp Wagner 1997) The debateintensified further after the Modern Language Journal published SusanGassrsquos (1998) response to Firth and Wagner and Firth and Wagnerrsquos(1998) response to Gass5

Firth and Wagner (1997) criticize the field of SLA for its overwhelm-ingly cognitive orientation in defining and researching the learner andlearning Such an approach too strongly emphasizes the individual theinternalization of mental processes and ldquothe development of grammati-cal competencerdquo (p 288) Meaning does not occur they argue inldquoprivate thoughts executed and then transferred from brain to brain but[as] a social and negotiable product of interaction transcending indi-vidual intentions and behavioursrdquo (p 290) Like other humans alanguage learner should be considered a ldquoparticipant-as-language-lsquouserrsquoin social interactionrdquo (p 286) It is time they say to question the fieldrsquosdivision of language use (as consigned to the social) from languagelearning (as the individualized decontextualized domain of the cogni-tive) An SLA field reformulated according to Firth and Wagnerrsquosargument would help us gain more comprehension of ldquohow language isused as it is being acquired through interaction and used resourcefullycontingently and contextuallyrdquo (p 296) Reiterating their view oflearning in their response to Gass (1998) they invoke Vygotsky inasserting that ldquocognitive structures are influenced and indeed devel-oped through engagement in social activity From this perspective itcan be said that language use forms cognitionrdquo (Firth amp Wagner 1998p 92)

Firth and Wagnerrsquos argument that learning (or acquisition) occursthrough use would find support not just in Vygotsky but also in the othersociocultural perspectives discussed in this article In fact Kramsch(2002) points out that the unifying thread running through her editedcollection ldquois a common dissatisfaction with the traditional separationbetween language acquisition and language socializationrdquo (p 4) lan-guage socialization being one of the sociocultural perspectives promi-nent in current SLA Some go further In her contribution to theKramsch collection Larsen-Freeman (2002) appears to be beyondldquodissatisfactionrdquo in declaring that ldquothe failure to consider language userdquois one of the ldquomost trenchant criticisms of mainstream SLA researchrdquo (p34) the other being the lack of balance between the social and thecognitive

5 For reprints of some of the papers as well as commentary see Seidlhofer (2003) Larsen-Freeman (2002) provides a very concise summary of the debate

46 TESOL QUARTERLY

Although some of the respondents (namely Hall 1997 and Liddicoat1997) support Firth and Wagnerrsquos argument it is the opposing respon-dents whose position we summarize particularly thosemdashLong (1997)Kasper (1997) and Gass (1998)mdashwho assert strong opposition to Firthand Wagnerrsquos claim that we should not separate acquisition and usebecause use is actually how learning takes place Perhaps because theyshare a cognitive orientation all three give basically the same responsemaintaining a strong split between acquisition and use To Kasper(1997) the ldquomost nagging problemrdquo with Firth and Wagnerrsquos paper isthat it ldquohas in fact very little to say about L2 acquisitionrdquo (p 310) becauseas she sees it although social context can influence SLA the SLA processitself is essentially cognitive Long (1997) completely agrees ending hisresponse by offering his ldquoskepticism as to whether greater insights intoSL use will necessarily have much to say about SL acquisitionrdquo (p 322) Andthough Gass (1998) concedes that perhaps ldquosome parts of language areconstructed sociallyrdquo that in itself does not imply that ldquowe cannotinvestigate language as an abstract entity that resides in the individualrdquo(p 88) maintaining in so doing her view of learning as largely anindividualized mental process Drawing a figure characterizing the fieldGass (1998) presents ldquoSLArdquo and ldquoSL Userdquo as together making upresearch on ldquoSecond Language Studiesrdquo but it is important that shedraws ldquoSLArdquo and ldquoSL Userdquo as branches that are separate and uncon-nected (p 88)

As Larsen-Freeman (2002) points out this debate is irresolvablebecause it involves two different ontological positions that reflect ldquofunda-mental differences in the way they frame their understanding of learn-ingrdquo (p 37) What one might hope for though is that ldquowe agree todisagreerdquo as the expression goes and accept that contrasting views oflearning can stimulate rather than befuddle the field

The Debate on Theory Construction in SLAPositivism Versus Relativism

During the past 15 years the SLA field has devoted more attention tometatheoretical and metamethodological concerns than it had in earlierdecades The most prominent debate has concerned theory constructionin SLA Though others have written (and continue to write) on theoryconstruction6 we have selected a set of authors and articles rangingfrom 1991 to 2000 that comprise a coherent debate for discussion Thediscussion we profile of theory constructionmdashin fact any discussion oftheory constructionmdashaddresses a complex subject that raises a number

6 See for example Atkinson (2002) McGroarty (1998) and van Lier (1991 1994)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 47

of questions We have distilled from the discussion the authorsrsquo debateon positivism versus relativism in theory construction The tensions anddifferences it raises reflect a new dynamic entering the field one thatcontinues and that results from we believe the arrival on the SLA sceneof the sociocultural perspectives we discussed earlier7

Beretta (1991) framed a discussion of theory construction by address-ing issues such as whether or not (what he saw as) a diversity of theoriesand criteria in SLA represents a problem that is should this diversity bereduced to one or a few theories Considering different approaches totheory building Beretta arrives at a clear conclusion in favor of fewrather than many theories viewing the former as the result of ldquorational-ityrdquo and the latter the outcome of ldquorelativismrdquo (p 495) Comparing SLAto the ldquoalready-successful sciencesrdquo (p 497 ie the so-called hardsciences) Beretta says that because these fields do not unlike SLA haveldquomultiple rival theoriesrdquo (p 497) it is not beneficial for SLA to havemany theories either He goes on to state that the ldquomost anarchiccriterion of allrdquo is that of ldquono criterionrdquo (p 501) Referring to what hecalls ldquoextreme relativismrdquo Berettarsquos nightmare scenario is one in whichphenomena are not independent of but ldquoalways relative to the values ofindividuals and communitiesrdquo (p 501) This ldquowhateverrdquo position (to usea current slang term) implies that ldquopoetry voodoo religion and non-sense are no less valid bases for belief than lsquosciencersquordquo (p 501) Clearlythen Beretta supports theory building only from a rationalistpositivist8

paradigm and certainly not from a relativist one He is not aloneAlthough Crookes (1992) does not address relativism his agreementwith Berretta is implicit in his adherence to a positivistic notion ofscience as the gold standard in considering theory construction9

The debate continued with the publication of a special issue of AppliedLinguistics in 1993 titled ldquoTheory Construction in SLArdquo which containspapers from a 1991 conference at Michigan State University titledldquoTheory Construction and Methodology in Second Language ResearchrdquoAlmost all of the contributors (ie Beretta Long Crookes Gregg)10 take

7 To follow the debate the reader should consult in this order Beretta (1991) Crookes(1992) Beretta (1993) Block (1996) Gregg Long Jordan amp Beretta (1997) Lantolf (1996)and Gregg (2000)

8 Though Beretta states that positivism is not a viable paradigm any longer he appears to bekeeping to positivism nevertheless taking perhaps a postpositivistic stance instead Forinformation on the two positions (which are within the same paradigm) see for example Gubaand Lincoln (1998) Because we see positivism and postpositivism as matters of degree ratherthan substance and because positivism is the better known term in the field we will use positivismto describe Berettarsquos and othersrsquo positions

9 Such a characterization of science (as equivalent to positivism) may be simplistic We thankone of the anonymous reviewers for pointing this out

10 The exception is Schumann (1993) who argues to oversimplify it that art and science arenot that different Because Schumannrsquos position is similar to that of the other relativists that wediscuss we will not focus on him here

48 TESOL QUARTERLY

a similar position that although it does not necessarily mention relativ-ism explicitly nevertheless implicitly opposes it by supporting positivismas the (sole) paradigm for cognitive research on SLA Beretta andCrookes (1993) dismiss the argument that the social can cause thecontent of theories they argue that social conditions are not only notsufficient but are not necessary ldquofor scientific discoveryrdquo(p 253) Gregg(1993) like Beretta and Crookes (1993) does not attack relativismdirectly Nevertheless it is clear that Gregg (1993) opposes relativism ldquoInSLA the overall explanandum is the acquisition (or non-acquisition)of L2 competence in the Chomskyan sense of the termrdquo (p 278) Andthe criteria that Gregg chooses for discussing theory constructiontransition theories and property theories come from psychology (ieCummins 1983) Thus in what becomes an ongoing metaphor in thedebate Greggrsquos ldquoLet a Couple of Flowers Bloomrdquo does not advocate arelativistrsquos acceptance of a multiplicity of theories but advocates ldquoacouplerdquo as opposed to many and within a cognitive and positivisticframework

Adapting Greggrsquos metaphor Lantolfrsquos (1996) article subtitled ldquoLet-ting All the Flowers Bloomrdquo not surprisingly supports relativism andopposes positivism Though Blockrsquos (1996) article is more wide-ranginghe too argues for relativism ldquoReality is a social and therefore multipleconstruction there is no tangible fragmentable reality on to whichscience can convergerdquo (p 69 citing Lincoln 1990) However that doesnot mean that everything is acceptable Block asserts Though heacknowledges that relativism and positivism are two fundamentallydifferent ontologies he argues again citing Lincoln (1990) that ratherthan throwing their hands up at the situation relativists attempt to findpatterns ldquoworking hypotheses or temporary time-and-place-bound knowl-edgerdquo (Block 1996 p 69) Coming from a similar position Lantolf(1996) provides a ldquopostmodernist critical analysisrdquo of the theory-buildingliterature of Gregg Long Crookes and others pointing out that theyare all clearly dedicated to the rationalistpositivist paradigm in the SLAfield and adding ironically that they ldquoshare a common fear of thedreaded lsquorelativismrsquordquo (p 715) In fact Lantolf coins a term for thiscondition relativaphobia (p 731) In a detailed set of points Lantolfargues against what he sees as the hegemony of the positivistic echoingBlockrsquos (1996) accusation of ldquoscience envyrdquo (p 64) in accusing Greggand the others of having ldquophysics envyrdquo (p 717) Where Gregg and theothers consider the existence within SLA of multiple and incommensu-rable theories an obstacle to the development and maturation of thefield Lantolf (1996) encourages ldquoLetting All the Flowers Bloomrdquowarning that otherwise ldquoonce theoretical hegemony is achieved alterna-tive metaphors are cut off or suffocated by the single official metaphor

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 49

subsequently those who espouse different world views cease to havea voicerdquo (p 739)

Both Block (1996) and Lantolf (1996) generated response articlesGregg Long Jordan and Beretta (1997) critiqued the Block articlewhile Gregg (2000) responded to Lantolf (1996) by presenting anegative summary of postmodernism Writing from within their positivistparadigm Gregg Long Jordan and Beretta (1997) accept Blockrsquoscriticism that they have ldquoscience envyrdquo

Let us grant that many or even all of us in the field have the occasional twingeof envy for the accomplishments of other sciences given the fairly feebleprogress made so far in SLA and the magnificent intellectual achievementsof the more successful sciences such envy would certainly be unsurprising(p 543)

Unfortunately their stance becomes both smug and naiumlve For exampleGregg and his colleagues (1997) declare a state of ldquodisbeliefrdquo in Blockrsquospoint that controlling for extraneous variables in SLA research isldquoprobably not even desirablerdquo (p 544 quoting Block 1996 p 74)Continuing they declare ldquoDo we actually need to point out thedisastrous consequences of Blockrsquos lsquostancersquo for SLA or indeed for anyintellectual inquiryrdquo (p 544) No one invoking a positivist paradigmwould disagree with their critique because one of the paradigmrsquosprinciples is indeed the manipulation of variables which includescontrolling wherever possible for extraneous variables However whatGregg and colleagues (1997) fail to recognize is that Blockrsquos statementcomes from a different (relativist) paradigm rendering their responseirrelevant

In his critique of Lantolf (1996) Gregg (2000) does not directlyreiterate the anti-relativist pro-positivist argument that he and hiscolleagues had already published elsewhere Instead he begins bysummarizing (negatively) postmodernism the approach that Lantolf(1996) takes in his article Describing postmodernism Gregg discussesits stance that among other things instead of written texts havingobjective meaningmdashthat of the textrsquos authormdashmeaning is generated asthe reader interacts with the text Greggrsquos response to this stance revealshis reluctance (or inability) to think outside of his paradigm ldquoSuch aperspective strikes me as nonsenserdquo (p 386) On the other hand hetakes ldquothe common-sense position that the meaning of sentences canusually be agreed upon and that there generally are correct andincorrect interpretations of (meaningful) sentencesrdquo (pp 386ndash387)

Concluding his discussion of postmodernism Gregg (2000) assertsagain from within his paradigm

50 TESOL QUARTERLY

It is no accident that postmodernism originated as a movement amongliterary critics and cultural philosophers It flourishes that is precisely inthose areas of intellectual activity where decisive evidence is extremely hard tofind Faced with a range of disciplines that are actually making progress the postmodernists tried to turn the tables on the sciences Ratherthan claiming that the grapes of science are sour the postmodernist assuresus that there are no grapes To put it a bit differently one can seepostmodernism as a sophisticated way for academics in the humanities toovercome their own ldquophysics envyrdquo (pp 389ndash390)

With that memorable point of view we will end our discussion of thetheory construction debate On the positive side we agree that debateslike this stimulate a field And debates being debates it is not necessaryor relevant to try to come to agreement After all (as we indicated indiscussing the debate about learning) the debate on theory constructionis occurring across very different paradigms with contradictory views ofreality Although the debate can be framed as occurring betweencognitivists and socioculturalists we have emphasized a more fundamen-tal difference Like Lantolf (1996) we view as positive a field in whichpossibly incommensurable theories proliferate and are debated ratherthan allowing one theory to dominate without being problematized Weare only sorry that so much energy has gone into some participantsrsquorefusal to admit (or understand) that these positions on theory areincommensurable because they stem from contradictory ontologies Andthe smug tone that some of the debate takes is therefore not only naiumlvebut unfair

Though we have discussed a debate whose outcome is incommensura-bility some argue for cognitive-sociocultural integration Authors takevarying approaches in making their argument For example Larsen-Freeman (2002) proposes chaoscomplexity theory as a means ofaccommodating both sociocultural and cognitive perspectives withinSLA Block (2003) cites several pieces of research that argue for thecomplementarity of cognitive and sociocultural views namely Ellis(2000) Swain and Lapkin (1998) Tarone and Liu (1995) and Teutsch-Dwyer (2001) However Block himself does not take a clear positionsupporting integration Instead he advocates a ldquomore multidisciplinaryand socially informed futurerdquo for those following the input-interactiontradition (p 139) Making a somewhat different argument Watson-Gegeo (2004) sees a possible new ldquosynthesisrdquo of the cognitive with thesociocultural because of developments in the field that view cognition asa phenomenon which ldquooriginates in social interaction and is shaped bycultural and sociopolitical processesrdquo (p 331) Thorne (2005) andLantolf (2000) envision Vygotskyan theory in particular as providing alens for viewing social context as central to the development of cognition(see also Johnson 2004)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 51

IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVESFOR CLASSROOM PRACTICE

Hall (2002) observes that traditional SLA approaches seek to identifygood pedagogical interventions that will most effectively ldquofacilitatelearnersrsquo assimilation of new systemic knowledge into known knowledgestructuresrdquo (p 48) However given their different understandings oflanguage learning socioculturally informed studies offer much differentrecommendations for improving classroom practice For example inseeing learning as participation as relational and interactive and asconstrained by unequal power relations Lave and Wengerrsquos perspectiveasks educators to consider how the practices of school relate to thoseoutside of school how schools and classrooms themselves are organizedinto communities of practice and what kinds of participation are madeaccessible to students

Other studies taking sociocultural perspectives have examined class-room interactions or discourse patterns with an eye toward identifyingthose that best facilitate student participation (Gutierrez Rymes ampLarsen 1995 Nassaji amp Wells 2000 Nystrand Gamoran Zeiser amp Long2003 Tharp amp Gallimore 1991) Still others have examined such topicsas the kinds of guided or scaffolded assistance from teachers (or otherexperts) that can move students along within their ZPD (Aljaafreh ampLantolf 1994 Anton 1999 McCormick amp Donato 2000 Nassaji ampCumming 2000) the effectiveness of goal-oriented dialogue betweenpeers to mediate learning (Donato 1994 Ohta 2000 Swain amp Lapkin1998) and the need for dialogic and contextually sensitive approachesto language assessment ( Johnson 2001 2004) These studies are only afew among many but they share the sociocultural awareness that highlysituated classroom participation promotes language learning

We acknowledge that we do not specify general recommendations fortransforming classroom practices primarily because we are aware of thelimits of what can be generalized across classroom contexts Hall (2000)speaks to the situatedness of learning processes in saying that ldquoeffectingchange in our classrooms will not result from imposing solutions fromoutside but from nurturing effectual practices that are indigenous to ourparticular contextsrdquo (p 295) Clearly this is no easy task for educators Itrequires ongoing and intense work with every group of students andreflective awareness of how the affective and political dimensions ofclassroom life affect individual studentsrsquo participation However with theincreased awareness and sensitivity to local contexts that socioculturalperspectives bring us we have reason to hope that we are closer tounderstanding and creating the kinds of classroom communities thatlearners need

52 TESOL QUARTERLY

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

Although it is difficult to make predictions about the next 15 years insuch a dynamic field we end our article by looking forward to somedevelopments we consider exciting and worth watching Among them iswork in conversation analysis investigating language learning as it occursin the turn-by-turn development of conversational processes (see egMarkee 2004) developments in discursive psychology (not yet emergentin SLA but relevant for researchers interested in learner positioningwithin social practices see eg Davies amp Harreacute 1990) a growth in workfocusing on postcolonial transnational and World Englishes (egCanagarajah 2000 Jenkins 2003 also this issue Kachru 2001 Pennycook1998 Rampton 1995) and explorations in the new kinds of discursivepractices that language learners engage when using new technologies(see especially Gee 2003 Kern this issue Lam 2000 Thorne 2003 andWarschauer 1997) We are eager to see what unfolds

THE AUTHORS

Jane Zuengler is a professor in the English Department at the University ofWisconsinndashMadison Her research and teaching interests include second languageacquisition and use classroom discourse analysis critical perspectives on languageand the global spread of English

Elizabeth R Miller is a doctoral candidate in the English Department at theUniversity of WisconsinndashMadison Her research interests include second languageacquisition and use microanalytic discourse analysis and critical and poststructuralperspectives on language pedagogy and ideology

REFERENCES

Adair-Hauck B amp Donato R (1994) Foreign language explanations within thezone of proximal development The Canadian Modern Language Review 50 532ndash555

Aljaafreh A amp Lantolf J P (1994) Negative feedback as regulation and secondlanguage learning in the zone of proximal development The Modern LanguageJournal 78 465ndash483

Anton M (1999) The discourse of a learner-centered classroom Socioculturalperspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second language classroom TheModern Language Journal 83 303ndash318

Anton M amp DiCamilla F (1998) Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborativeinteraction in the L2 classroom The Canadian Modern Language Review 54 314ndash342

Atkinson D (2002) Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisi-tion The Modern Language Journal 86 525ndash545

Atkinson D (2003) Language socialization and dys-socialization in a South Indiancollege In R Bayley amp S R Schechter (Eds) Language socialization in bilingualand multilingual societies (pp 147ndash168) Clevedon England Multilingual Matters

38 TESOL QUARTERLY

of activities our everyday lives comprise Participation in these activities isboth the product and the process of learning

We provide brief summaries of the sociocultural perspectives we findtypically invoked in recent SLA research mentioning relevant studiesWe do not however refer to all studies that draw on these perspectivesReaders are urged to see Lantolf (2000) for an overview of VygotskianSLA studies and Zuengler and Cole (2005) for a review of languagesocialization research in second language learning The order we havechosen is somewhat arbitrary We begin however with Vygotskiansociocultural theory and language socialization because one or the otheris often positioned as the primary theoretical framework These two alsoseem to be invoked more frequently than situated learning theoryBakhtinian approaches to language or critical theories of discourse andsocial relationsmdashthe remaining perspectives we discuss Segregatingthese sociocultural perspectives into their own sections allows us toaddress their unique disciplinary roots and contributions to SLA Thoughwe believe researchers must take care in how they bring together thesevarying approaches given their distinctiveness we suggest that theldquohybrid interdisciplinarityrdquo that many SLA scholars practice (RamptonRoberts Leung amp Harris 2002 p 373) has been productive and mirrorsthe increasing interdisciplinarity found in much of the current socialscience research

Vygotskian Sociocultural Theory

SLA research using Vygotskian sociocultural theory first began toappear in the mid-1980s (Frawley amp Lantolf 1984 1985) but quicklygained momentum in the mid-1990s with a special issue of the ModernLanguage Journal (Lantolf 1994) devoted to sociocultural theory andsecond language learning That same year an edited volume appeared(Lantolf amp Appel 1994) and the first of a series of annual meetingsdedicated to sociocultural research in SLA convened in Pittsburgh Sincethen conference presentations and publications taking this approach toSLA have only increased

Like traditional cognitive approaches to learning Vygotskian sociocul-tural theory is fundamentally concerned with understanding the devel-opment of cognitive processes However its distinctiveness from tradi-tional cognitive approaches can best be highlighted by citing VygotskyldquoThe social dimension of consciousness [ie all mental processes] isprimary in time and fact The individual dimension of consciousness isderivative and secondaryrdquo (1979 p 30) Lantolf and Pavlenko (1995)clarify that even though Vygotskian sociocultural theory does not deny arole for biological constraints ldquodevelopment does not proceed as the

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 39

unfolding of inborn capacities but as the transformation of innatecapacities once they intertwine with socioculturally constructed media-tional meansrdquo (p 109) These means are the socioculturally meaningfulartifacts and symbolic systems of a society the most important of which islanguage Of significance for SLA research is the understanding thatwhen learners appropriate mediational means such as language madeavailable as they interact in socioculturally meaningful activities theselearners gain control over their own mental activity and can begin tofunction independently And as Lantolf (2000) notes ldquoaccording toVygotsky this is what development is aboutrdquo (p 80)

SLA researchers have focused on learnersrsquo linguistic development inthe zone of proximal development (ZPD) Vygotskyrsquos conception of what anindividual can accomplish when working in collaboration with others(more) versus what he or she could have accomplished without collabo-ration with others (less) The ZPD points to that individualrsquos learningpotential that is what he or she may be able to do independently in thefuture (Adair-Hauck amp Donato 1994 Aljaafreh amp Lantolf 1994 Anton1999 2000 DiCamilla amp Anton 1997 Nassaji amp Cumming 2000 Ohta2000 Swain amp Lapkin 1998) Others have focused on the use of privatespeech or speech directed to oneself that mediates mental behaviorPrivate speech manifests the process in which external social forms ofinteraction come to be appropriated for inner speech or mental develop-ment (Anton amp DiCamilla 1998 McCafferty 1994 2004b see alsoMcCafferty 2004a) Still others have focused on activity theory and task-based approaches to second language teaching and learning (Coughlanamp Duff 1994 McCafferty Roebuck amp Wayland 2001 Parks 2000Storch 2004 Thorne 2003)

Language Socialization

Language socialization researchers including those in SLA closelyidentify with Vygotskian sociocultural approaches to learning (see Ochs1988 Schiefflin amp Ochs 1986 Watson-Gegeo 2004 Watson-Gegeo ampNielson 2003) But in contrast to a disciplinary history in psychology anda focus on cognitive development this theory emerged from anthropol-ogy with an interest in understanding the development of socially andculturally competent members of society In her introduction to anedited volume comprising language socialization studies among childrenin a variety of cultures Ochs comments that she and her co-editorSchieffelin (1986) ldquotake for granted that the development of intel-ligence and knowledge is facilitated (to an extent) by childrenrsquos commu-nication with othersrdquo and instead emphasize the ldquosociocultural informa-tion [that] is generally encoded in the organization of conversational

40 TESOL QUARTERLY

discourserdquo (pp 2ndash3) As such language socialization research hasinvestigated the interconnected processes of linguistic and culturallearning in discourse practices interactional routines and participationstructures and roles3

Although language socialization research in the 1980s largely investi-gated ways in which children are socialized into the social practices of acommunity by the mid-1990s the language socialization approach wasbeing applied to adult second language learners (see eg Duff 1995Harklau 1994 Poole 1992) Whether at home in the classroom atwork or in any number of other environments language learners areembedded in and learn to become competent participants in culturallysocially and politically shaped communicative contexts The linguisticforms used in these contexts and their social significance affect howlearners come to understand and use language

In a recent review of language socialization research in SLA Zuenglerand Cole (2005) observed that even though some studies portraysocialization as a smooth and successful process (eg Kanagy 1999Ohta 1999) many other studies mostly classroom based demonstrateldquolanguage socialization as potentially problematic tension producingand unsuccessfulrdquo (p 306) For example some researchers have foundthat school socialization processes can have negative effects on secondlanguage learning (Atkinson 2003 Duff amp Early 1999 Rymes 1997Willet 1995) and others have observed contradictory home and schoolsocialization processes which often result in studentsrsquo relatively unsuc-cessful socialization to school norms (Crago 1992 Moore 1999 Watson-Gegeo 1992) These findings among others point to the shiftingemphasis in language socialization research to the sociopolitical dimen-sions of discourse and social organization and their implications forlanguage learning (Watson-Gegeo 2004) Like language socializationsituated learning theory to which we now turn underscores the role ofsocial identity and relationships as well as the historical and practicalconditions of language use in learning

LEARNING AS CHANGING PARTICIPATIONIN SITUATED PRACTICES

Typically situated learningmdashmost notably represented by Lave andWengerrsquos (1991) notion of community of practicemdashhas not been positionedas the primary learning theory in SLA research in the same way that

3 See however Watson-Gegeo (2004) and Watson-Gegeo and Nielsen (2003) who insist thatinvestigating and understanding cognitive development should not be abandoned in languagesocialization research

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 41

Vygotskian or language socialization theories have been For examplethough Tooheyrsquos ethnographic research (2000) and the related work byDay (2002) both draw heavily on Lave and Wengerrsquos community ofpractice they also invoke Vygotskian sociocultural theory and Bakhtinrsquosdialogic perspective (see next section) Lave and Wenger note that theycould have adopted a socialization model but they found that theapprenticeship model helped them conceptualize ldquolearning in situatedwaysmdashin the transformative possibilities of being and becoming com-plex full cultural-historical participants in the worldrdquo (p 32) As sug-gested in this comment situated learning foregrounds learnersrsquo participa-tion in particular social practices understood as habitual ways people(re)produce material and symbolic resources often attached to particu-lar times and places and comprising communities of practice in com-plex often overlapping ways

Lave and Wengerrsquos (1991) conception of legitimate peripheral participa-tion is meant to describe the changes of engagement in particular socialpractices that entail learning Thus we can consider second languagelearners who demonstrate a change from limited to fuller participationin social practices involving their second (or additional) language asgiving evidence of language development (much as language socializa-tion views children or novices being socialized into more appropriateparticipation in the social practices of their communities) ElsewhereWenger (1998) maintains that learning is ldquonot a separate activity [but] is something we can assumemdashwhether we see it or not Evenfailing to learn what is expected in a given situation usually involveslearning something else insteadrdquo (p 8) Toohey (1999) agrees suggest-ing that this approach can help us avoid consigning poor success insecond language learning merely to an individualrsquos failure to learnLegitimate peripheral participation allows us to see instead that somemembers learn to take a less empowered position in a community ofpractice because of the kinds of participation made available to them byldquoprocesses of exclusion and subordination [that] operate locallyrdquo (p135) Toohey adds that it might be less helpful to see learners asmarginalized than to view them as ldquovery much integratedrdquo into schools orother communities of practice but in positions that maintain theirperipheral participation (p 135) This shift in focus away from languageand learning as an individual achievement aligns with Bakhtinrsquos view oflanguage as constituted in particular sociohistorical contexts

Bakhtin and the Dialogic Perspective

Given Mikhail Bakhtinrsquos view of the fundamentally social nature oflanguage and his metaphor of appropriation to conceptualize how

42 TESOL QUARTERLY

people take othersrsquo utterances in coming to own a languagemdashwithin aspecific social space and historical moment Bakhtinian theory overlapsin important ways with situated learning Though Hall (1995 2002) andJohnson (2004) have extensively discussed Bakhtinrsquos ideas and theirapplicability for understanding second language learning most secondlanguage researchers have drawn on select concepts from Bakhtinrsquosphilosophical writings and as with situated learning have folded them inwith other sociocultural frameworks

Like the sociocultural theories already described we find that Bakhtin(1981) stresses the sociality of intellectual processes in claiming thatldquolanguage for the individual consciousness lies on the border betweenoneself and the otherrdquo (p 293) One of the key concepts in Bakhtinrsquoswritings frequently invoked in SLA research is dialogism the mutualparticipation of speakers and hearers in the construction of utterancesand the connectedness of all utterances to past and future expressionsThus the linguistic resources we use and learn can never be seen asmerely part of a ldquoneutral and impersonal languagerdquo rather Bakhtinviewed our use of language as an appropriation of words that at one timeldquoexist[ed] in other peoplersquos mouthsrdquo before we make them our own (pp293ndash294) Hall (2002) explains that in this view an utterance ldquocan onlybe understood fully by considering its history of use by other people inother places for other reasonsrdquo (p 13) Within this framework Toohey(2000) describes language learning as a process in which learners ldquotry onother peoplersquos utterances they take words from other peoplersquos mouthsthey appropriate these utterances and gradually (but not without conflict)these utterances come to serve their needs and relay their meaningsrdquo(p 13)

Packaged with dialogism is Bakhtinrsquos understanding of the inherentlyideological nature of language In agreeing that ldquoall language is politi-calrdquo Hall (1995) asserts that the ldquoauthority and privilege residing incertain interactive resources result from sociopolitical and historicalforces surrounding their userdquo (p 214) Every utterance we producereveals our stance toward the interlocutors involved signaling our socialpositioning within the local interaction and in response to largersociopolitical forces This ideological nature of language is foregroundedby critical theorists who see the role of power relations as primary forunderstanding the social world both in broader social worlds as well asin our very local social practices

Critical Theory

From the point of view of critical theory being socialized into thepractices of a community includes learning onersquos place in the sociopolitical

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 43

organization of those practices Researchers who incorporate criticaltheory into their exploration of second language learning argue that onemust account for relations of power in order to gain a fuller understand-ing of the practices and interactions in which learners participatemdashandthus of their learning processes But what is more important theseresearchers contend that this understanding should then lead to socialand educational change such that more equitable social relations can beeffected particularly in the interests of disenfranchised groups andindividuals It is interesting that in contrast to the theory of legitimateperipheral participation (Lave amp Wenger 1991) in which learners areviewed as learning their marginalized participation critical theoriststend to view marginalized members of a community as having theiraccess to learning blocked because they may be prevented from partici-pating meaningfully in target-language social practices The critical focusin second language learning has been strongly influenced by the work ofPennycook (1990 1999 2001) as well as Norton (1995 1997b 2000) andCanagarajah (1993 1999 2005)

Though the range of critical research is outside the scope of thisdiscussion we highlight one area of interest language and identity thathas gained footing in the field and become a research area in its ownright It has been addressed in a special issue of TESOL Quarterly(Norton 1997a) as well as in numerous other publications From asociocultural perspective our identities are shaped by and through ourlanguage use (Norton 1995 1997b 2000 Pavlenko amp Blackledge 2003)Although issues of identity and learning have been treated in all of thesociocultural approaches to learning that we have discussed so far wethink it is appropriate to mention them here because they often exploreand critique the ways in which the patterning of power relationships canlegitimate some identities and forms of participation but devalue othersAs such language learners have much more at stake than merelydeveloping competence in an additional linguistic code As Morgan(1998) notes ldquolanguage lsquoconditionsrsquo our expectations and desires andcommunicates what might be possible in terms of ourselvesmdashour iden-titymdashand the lsquorealitiesrsquo we might developrdquo (p 12)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURALTENSIONS AND DEBATES

As we have seen the SLA field in the past 15 years has expandedfrom a largely cognitive orientation to include sociocultural approachessuch as those just documented This expansion we believe is one ofthe main reasons the SLA field has during the past 15 years witnesseddebates and tensions that in their cross-paradigm criticisms and

44 TESOL QUARTERLY

ontological disagreements are more fundamental than the (largely)intraparadigm issues surrounding for example the relative validity ofoptions for eliciting speech that received attention in the earlierdecades of SLA This said we would not however go as far as Larsen-Freeman (2002) in describing the current SLA field as being ldquoin a stateof turmoilrdquo (p 33) We prefer Lantolfrsquos (1996) more positive acceptingportrayal of the SLA field as ldquoincredibly and happily diverse creativeoften contentious and always full of controversyrdquo (p 738)

In this section we discuss two debates that originated within the past15 years and still continue These debates are arguably the mostimportant given their ontological differences the great amount ofattention the SLA field has paid them at conferences in the literatureand on a more cynical note the wrestling for academic territory thatsome have seen in them Each debate shakes out as the cognitivists andsocioculturalists arguing with each other for reasons we hope to makeclear However we feel that such labels (cognitivists socioculturalists) ifused as the primary characterizations of the debates would obscure themore basic ontological differences that underlie the arguments Thoughthe two debates are related each originated in and focused on differentconceptions conceptions that we feel are more important means offraming and understanding each of the debates Framing by conceptionthen we first discuss the debate around understandings of learning4 andafter that the debate about theory construction in SLA

The Debate Around the Understanding of Learning in SLA

At the 1996 annual conference of the International Association ofApplied Linguistics (AILA) in Jyvaumlskylauml Finland Alan Firth and JohannesWagner (1996) organized a symposium in which they delivered a paperarguing that SLA had long been dominated by cognitive views of thelearner and learning as individualistic mentalistic and as functioningindependent of the context and use of the language Following theirpaper several presenters took a variety of positions vis-agrave-vis Firth andWagnerrsquos critique (One of the authors attended that symposium andremembers that the atmosphere was quite electric) Although Firth andWagner were not necessarily the first to raise such criticism of the field(see eg Bremer Roberts Vasseur Simonot amp Broeder 1996 Hall1995 Rampton 1987) attention to Firth and Wagnerrsquos criticism inparticular with prominent respondents (eg Joan Kelly Hall Gabriele

4 Though earlier SLA work sometimes differentiated learning from acquisition following thedistinction made by Krashen (eg 1982 1985) we understand the two terms as synonymousOur understanding reflects the fieldrsquos current position given that Krashenrsquos theory has fallenout of favor

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 45

Kasper Nanda Poulisse Michael Long) from varying orientations offer-ing support or declaring opposition was guaranteed when in 1997 theirsymposium papers were published along with additional response papersin the Modern Language Journal (see Firth amp Wagner 1997) The debateintensified further after the Modern Language Journal published SusanGassrsquos (1998) response to Firth and Wagner and Firth and Wagnerrsquos(1998) response to Gass5

Firth and Wagner (1997) criticize the field of SLA for its overwhelm-ingly cognitive orientation in defining and researching the learner andlearning Such an approach too strongly emphasizes the individual theinternalization of mental processes and ldquothe development of grammati-cal competencerdquo (p 288) Meaning does not occur they argue inldquoprivate thoughts executed and then transferred from brain to brain but[as] a social and negotiable product of interaction transcending indi-vidual intentions and behavioursrdquo (p 290) Like other humans alanguage learner should be considered a ldquoparticipant-as-language-lsquouserrsquoin social interactionrdquo (p 286) It is time they say to question the fieldrsquosdivision of language use (as consigned to the social) from languagelearning (as the individualized decontextualized domain of the cogni-tive) An SLA field reformulated according to Firth and Wagnerrsquosargument would help us gain more comprehension of ldquohow language isused as it is being acquired through interaction and used resourcefullycontingently and contextuallyrdquo (p 296) Reiterating their view oflearning in their response to Gass (1998) they invoke Vygotsky inasserting that ldquocognitive structures are influenced and indeed devel-oped through engagement in social activity From this perspective itcan be said that language use forms cognitionrdquo (Firth amp Wagner 1998p 92)

Firth and Wagnerrsquos argument that learning (or acquisition) occursthrough use would find support not just in Vygotsky but also in the othersociocultural perspectives discussed in this article In fact Kramsch(2002) points out that the unifying thread running through her editedcollection ldquois a common dissatisfaction with the traditional separationbetween language acquisition and language socializationrdquo (p 4) lan-guage socialization being one of the sociocultural perspectives promi-nent in current SLA Some go further In her contribution to theKramsch collection Larsen-Freeman (2002) appears to be beyondldquodissatisfactionrdquo in declaring that ldquothe failure to consider language userdquois one of the ldquomost trenchant criticisms of mainstream SLA researchrdquo (p34) the other being the lack of balance between the social and thecognitive

5 For reprints of some of the papers as well as commentary see Seidlhofer (2003) Larsen-Freeman (2002) provides a very concise summary of the debate

46 TESOL QUARTERLY

Although some of the respondents (namely Hall 1997 and Liddicoat1997) support Firth and Wagnerrsquos argument it is the opposing respon-dents whose position we summarize particularly thosemdashLong (1997)Kasper (1997) and Gass (1998)mdashwho assert strong opposition to Firthand Wagnerrsquos claim that we should not separate acquisition and usebecause use is actually how learning takes place Perhaps because theyshare a cognitive orientation all three give basically the same responsemaintaining a strong split between acquisition and use To Kasper(1997) the ldquomost nagging problemrdquo with Firth and Wagnerrsquos paper isthat it ldquohas in fact very little to say about L2 acquisitionrdquo (p 310) becauseas she sees it although social context can influence SLA the SLA processitself is essentially cognitive Long (1997) completely agrees ending hisresponse by offering his ldquoskepticism as to whether greater insights intoSL use will necessarily have much to say about SL acquisitionrdquo (p 322) Andthough Gass (1998) concedes that perhaps ldquosome parts of language areconstructed sociallyrdquo that in itself does not imply that ldquowe cannotinvestigate language as an abstract entity that resides in the individualrdquo(p 88) maintaining in so doing her view of learning as largely anindividualized mental process Drawing a figure characterizing the fieldGass (1998) presents ldquoSLArdquo and ldquoSL Userdquo as together making upresearch on ldquoSecond Language Studiesrdquo but it is important that shedraws ldquoSLArdquo and ldquoSL Userdquo as branches that are separate and uncon-nected (p 88)

As Larsen-Freeman (2002) points out this debate is irresolvablebecause it involves two different ontological positions that reflect ldquofunda-mental differences in the way they frame their understanding of learn-ingrdquo (p 37) What one might hope for though is that ldquowe agree todisagreerdquo as the expression goes and accept that contrasting views oflearning can stimulate rather than befuddle the field

The Debate on Theory Construction in SLAPositivism Versus Relativism

During the past 15 years the SLA field has devoted more attention tometatheoretical and metamethodological concerns than it had in earlierdecades The most prominent debate has concerned theory constructionin SLA Though others have written (and continue to write) on theoryconstruction6 we have selected a set of authors and articles rangingfrom 1991 to 2000 that comprise a coherent debate for discussion Thediscussion we profile of theory constructionmdashin fact any discussion oftheory constructionmdashaddresses a complex subject that raises a number

6 See for example Atkinson (2002) McGroarty (1998) and van Lier (1991 1994)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 47

of questions We have distilled from the discussion the authorsrsquo debateon positivism versus relativism in theory construction The tensions anddifferences it raises reflect a new dynamic entering the field one thatcontinues and that results from we believe the arrival on the SLA sceneof the sociocultural perspectives we discussed earlier7

Beretta (1991) framed a discussion of theory construction by address-ing issues such as whether or not (what he saw as) a diversity of theoriesand criteria in SLA represents a problem that is should this diversity bereduced to one or a few theories Considering different approaches totheory building Beretta arrives at a clear conclusion in favor of fewrather than many theories viewing the former as the result of ldquorational-ityrdquo and the latter the outcome of ldquorelativismrdquo (p 495) Comparing SLAto the ldquoalready-successful sciencesrdquo (p 497 ie the so-called hardsciences) Beretta says that because these fields do not unlike SLA haveldquomultiple rival theoriesrdquo (p 497) it is not beneficial for SLA to havemany theories either He goes on to state that the ldquomost anarchiccriterion of allrdquo is that of ldquono criterionrdquo (p 501) Referring to what hecalls ldquoextreme relativismrdquo Berettarsquos nightmare scenario is one in whichphenomena are not independent of but ldquoalways relative to the values ofindividuals and communitiesrdquo (p 501) This ldquowhateverrdquo position (to usea current slang term) implies that ldquopoetry voodoo religion and non-sense are no less valid bases for belief than lsquosciencersquordquo (p 501) Clearlythen Beretta supports theory building only from a rationalistpositivist8

paradigm and certainly not from a relativist one He is not aloneAlthough Crookes (1992) does not address relativism his agreementwith Berretta is implicit in his adherence to a positivistic notion ofscience as the gold standard in considering theory construction9

The debate continued with the publication of a special issue of AppliedLinguistics in 1993 titled ldquoTheory Construction in SLArdquo which containspapers from a 1991 conference at Michigan State University titledldquoTheory Construction and Methodology in Second Language ResearchrdquoAlmost all of the contributors (ie Beretta Long Crookes Gregg)10 take

7 To follow the debate the reader should consult in this order Beretta (1991) Crookes(1992) Beretta (1993) Block (1996) Gregg Long Jordan amp Beretta (1997) Lantolf (1996)and Gregg (2000)

8 Though Beretta states that positivism is not a viable paradigm any longer he appears to bekeeping to positivism nevertheless taking perhaps a postpositivistic stance instead Forinformation on the two positions (which are within the same paradigm) see for example Gubaand Lincoln (1998) Because we see positivism and postpositivism as matters of degree ratherthan substance and because positivism is the better known term in the field we will use positivismto describe Berettarsquos and othersrsquo positions

9 Such a characterization of science (as equivalent to positivism) may be simplistic We thankone of the anonymous reviewers for pointing this out

10 The exception is Schumann (1993) who argues to oversimplify it that art and science arenot that different Because Schumannrsquos position is similar to that of the other relativists that wediscuss we will not focus on him here

48 TESOL QUARTERLY

a similar position that although it does not necessarily mention relativ-ism explicitly nevertheless implicitly opposes it by supporting positivismas the (sole) paradigm for cognitive research on SLA Beretta andCrookes (1993) dismiss the argument that the social can cause thecontent of theories they argue that social conditions are not only notsufficient but are not necessary ldquofor scientific discoveryrdquo(p 253) Gregg(1993) like Beretta and Crookes (1993) does not attack relativismdirectly Nevertheless it is clear that Gregg (1993) opposes relativism ldquoInSLA the overall explanandum is the acquisition (or non-acquisition)of L2 competence in the Chomskyan sense of the termrdquo (p 278) Andthe criteria that Gregg chooses for discussing theory constructiontransition theories and property theories come from psychology (ieCummins 1983) Thus in what becomes an ongoing metaphor in thedebate Greggrsquos ldquoLet a Couple of Flowers Bloomrdquo does not advocate arelativistrsquos acceptance of a multiplicity of theories but advocates ldquoacouplerdquo as opposed to many and within a cognitive and positivisticframework

Adapting Greggrsquos metaphor Lantolfrsquos (1996) article subtitled ldquoLet-ting All the Flowers Bloomrdquo not surprisingly supports relativism andopposes positivism Though Blockrsquos (1996) article is more wide-ranginghe too argues for relativism ldquoReality is a social and therefore multipleconstruction there is no tangible fragmentable reality on to whichscience can convergerdquo (p 69 citing Lincoln 1990) However that doesnot mean that everything is acceptable Block asserts Though heacknowledges that relativism and positivism are two fundamentallydifferent ontologies he argues again citing Lincoln (1990) that ratherthan throwing their hands up at the situation relativists attempt to findpatterns ldquoworking hypotheses or temporary time-and-place-bound knowl-edgerdquo (Block 1996 p 69) Coming from a similar position Lantolf(1996) provides a ldquopostmodernist critical analysisrdquo of the theory-buildingliterature of Gregg Long Crookes and others pointing out that theyare all clearly dedicated to the rationalistpositivist paradigm in the SLAfield and adding ironically that they ldquoshare a common fear of thedreaded lsquorelativismrsquordquo (p 715) In fact Lantolf coins a term for thiscondition relativaphobia (p 731) In a detailed set of points Lantolfargues against what he sees as the hegemony of the positivistic echoingBlockrsquos (1996) accusation of ldquoscience envyrdquo (p 64) in accusing Greggand the others of having ldquophysics envyrdquo (p 717) Where Gregg and theothers consider the existence within SLA of multiple and incommensu-rable theories an obstacle to the development and maturation of thefield Lantolf (1996) encourages ldquoLetting All the Flowers Bloomrdquowarning that otherwise ldquoonce theoretical hegemony is achieved alterna-tive metaphors are cut off or suffocated by the single official metaphor

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 49

subsequently those who espouse different world views cease to havea voicerdquo (p 739)

Both Block (1996) and Lantolf (1996) generated response articlesGregg Long Jordan and Beretta (1997) critiqued the Block articlewhile Gregg (2000) responded to Lantolf (1996) by presenting anegative summary of postmodernism Writing from within their positivistparadigm Gregg Long Jordan and Beretta (1997) accept Blockrsquoscriticism that they have ldquoscience envyrdquo

Let us grant that many or even all of us in the field have the occasional twingeof envy for the accomplishments of other sciences given the fairly feebleprogress made so far in SLA and the magnificent intellectual achievementsof the more successful sciences such envy would certainly be unsurprising(p 543)

Unfortunately their stance becomes both smug and naiumlve For exampleGregg and his colleagues (1997) declare a state of ldquodisbeliefrdquo in Blockrsquospoint that controlling for extraneous variables in SLA research isldquoprobably not even desirablerdquo (p 544 quoting Block 1996 p 74)Continuing they declare ldquoDo we actually need to point out thedisastrous consequences of Blockrsquos lsquostancersquo for SLA or indeed for anyintellectual inquiryrdquo (p 544) No one invoking a positivist paradigmwould disagree with their critique because one of the paradigmrsquosprinciples is indeed the manipulation of variables which includescontrolling wherever possible for extraneous variables However whatGregg and colleagues (1997) fail to recognize is that Blockrsquos statementcomes from a different (relativist) paradigm rendering their responseirrelevant

In his critique of Lantolf (1996) Gregg (2000) does not directlyreiterate the anti-relativist pro-positivist argument that he and hiscolleagues had already published elsewhere Instead he begins bysummarizing (negatively) postmodernism the approach that Lantolf(1996) takes in his article Describing postmodernism Gregg discussesits stance that among other things instead of written texts havingobjective meaningmdashthat of the textrsquos authormdashmeaning is generated asthe reader interacts with the text Greggrsquos response to this stance revealshis reluctance (or inability) to think outside of his paradigm ldquoSuch aperspective strikes me as nonsenserdquo (p 386) On the other hand hetakes ldquothe common-sense position that the meaning of sentences canusually be agreed upon and that there generally are correct andincorrect interpretations of (meaningful) sentencesrdquo (pp 386ndash387)

Concluding his discussion of postmodernism Gregg (2000) assertsagain from within his paradigm

50 TESOL QUARTERLY

It is no accident that postmodernism originated as a movement amongliterary critics and cultural philosophers It flourishes that is precisely inthose areas of intellectual activity where decisive evidence is extremely hard tofind Faced with a range of disciplines that are actually making progress the postmodernists tried to turn the tables on the sciences Ratherthan claiming that the grapes of science are sour the postmodernist assuresus that there are no grapes To put it a bit differently one can seepostmodernism as a sophisticated way for academics in the humanities toovercome their own ldquophysics envyrdquo (pp 389ndash390)

With that memorable point of view we will end our discussion of thetheory construction debate On the positive side we agree that debateslike this stimulate a field And debates being debates it is not necessaryor relevant to try to come to agreement After all (as we indicated indiscussing the debate about learning) the debate on theory constructionis occurring across very different paradigms with contradictory views ofreality Although the debate can be framed as occurring betweencognitivists and socioculturalists we have emphasized a more fundamen-tal difference Like Lantolf (1996) we view as positive a field in whichpossibly incommensurable theories proliferate and are debated ratherthan allowing one theory to dominate without being problematized Weare only sorry that so much energy has gone into some participantsrsquorefusal to admit (or understand) that these positions on theory areincommensurable because they stem from contradictory ontologies Andthe smug tone that some of the debate takes is therefore not only naiumlvebut unfair

Though we have discussed a debate whose outcome is incommensura-bility some argue for cognitive-sociocultural integration Authors takevarying approaches in making their argument For example Larsen-Freeman (2002) proposes chaoscomplexity theory as a means ofaccommodating both sociocultural and cognitive perspectives withinSLA Block (2003) cites several pieces of research that argue for thecomplementarity of cognitive and sociocultural views namely Ellis(2000) Swain and Lapkin (1998) Tarone and Liu (1995) and Teutsch-Dwyer (2001) However Block himself does not take a clear positionsupporting integration Instead he advocates a ldquomore multidisciplinaryand socially informed futurerdquo for those following the input-interactiontradition (p 139) Making a somewhat different argument Watson-Gegeo (2004) sees a possible new ldquosynthesisrdquo of the cognitive with thesociocultural because of developments in the field that view cognition asa phenomenon which ldquooriginates in social interaction and is shaped bycultural and sociopolitical processesrdquo (p 331) Thorne (2005) andLantolf (2000) envision Vygotskyan theory in particular as providing alens for viewing social context as central to the development of cognition(see also Johnson 2004)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 51

IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVESFOR CLASSROOM PRACTICE

Hall (2002) observes that traditional SLA approaches seek to identifygood pedagogical interventions that will most effectively ldquofacilitatelearnersrsquo assimilation of new systemic knowledge into known knowledgestructuresrdquo (p 48) However given their different understandings oflanguage learning socioculturally informed studies offer much differentrecommendations for improving classroom practice For example inseeing learning as participation as relational and interactive and asconstrained by unequal power relations Lave and Wengerrsquos perspectiveasks educators to consider how the practices of school relate to thoseoutside of school how schools and classrooms themselves are organizedinto communities of practice and what kinds of participation are madeaccessible to students

Other studies taking sociocultural perspectives have examined class-room interactions or discourse patterns with an eye toward identifyingthose that best facilitate student participation (Gutierrez Rymes ampLarsen 1995 Nassaji amp Wells 2000 Nystrand Gamoran Zeiser amp Long2003 Tharp amp Gallimore 1991) Still others have examined such topicsas the kinds of guided or scaffolded assistance from teachers (or otherexperts) that can move students along within their ZPD (Aljaafreh ampLantolf 1994 Anton 1999 McCormick amp Donato 2000 Nassaji ampCumming 2000) the effectiveness of goal-oriented dialogue betweenpeers to mediate learning (Donato 1994 Ohta 2000 Swain amp Lapkin1998) and the need for dialogic and contextually sensitive approachesto language assessment ( Johnson 2001 2004) These studies are only afew among many but they share the sociocultural awareness that highlysituated classroom participation promotes language learning

We acknowledge that we do not specify general recommendations fortransforming classroom practices primarily because we are aware of thelimits of what can be generalized across classroom contexts Hall (2000)speaks to the situatedness of learning processes in saying that ldquoeffectingchange in our classrooms will not result from imposing solutions fromoutside but from nurturing effectual practices that are indigenous to ourparticular contextsrdquo (p 295) Clearly this is no easy task for educators Itrequires ongoing and intense work with every group of students andreflective awareness of how the affective and political dimensions ofclassroom life affect individual studentsrsquo participation However with theincreased awareness and sensitivity to local contexts that socioculturalperspectives bring us we have reason to hope that we are closer tounderstanding and creating the kinds of classroom communities thatlearners need

52 TESOL QUARTERLY

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

Although it is difficult to make predictions about the next 15 years insuch a dynamic field we end our article by looking forward to somedevelopments we consider exciting and worth watching Among them iswork in conversation analysis investigating language learning as it occursin the turn-by-turn development of conversational processes (see egMarkee 2004) developments in discursive psychology (not yet emergentin SLA but relevant for researchers interested in learner positioningwithin social practices see eg Davies amp Harreacute 1990) a growth in workfocusing on postcolonial transnational and World Englishes (egCanagarajah 2000 Jenkins 2003 also this issue Kachru 2001 Pennycook1998 Rampton 1995) and explorations in the new kinds of discursivepractices that language learners engage when using new technologies(see especially Gee 2003 Kern this issue Lam 2000 Thorne 2003 andWarschauer 1997) We are eager to see what unfolds

THE AUTHORS

Jane Zuengler is a professor in the English Department at the University ofWisconsinndashMadison Her research and teaching interests include second languageacquisition and use classroom discourse analysis critical perspectives on languageand the global spread of English

Elizabeth R Miller is a doctoral candidate in the English Department at theUniversity of WisconsinndashMadison Her research interests include second languageacquisition and use microanalytic discourse analysis and critical and poststructuralperspectives on language pedagogy and ideology

REFERENCES

Adair-Hauck B amp Donato R (1994) Foreign language explanations within thezone of proximal development The Canadian Modern Language Review 50 532ndash555

Aljaafreh A amp Lantolf J P (1994) Negative feedback as regulation and secondlanguage learning in the zone of proximal development The Modern LanguageJournal 78 465ndash483

Anton M (1999) The discourse of a learner-centered classroom Socioculturalperspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second language classroom TheModern Language Journal 83 303ndash318

Anton M amp DiCamilla F (1998) Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborativeinteraction in the L2 classroom The Canadian Modern Language Review 54 314ndash342

Atkinson D (2002) Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisi-tion The Modern Language Journal 86 525ndash545

Atkinson D (2003) Language socialization and dys-socialization in a South Indiancollege In R Bayley amp S R Schechter (Eds) Language socialization in bilingualand multilingual societies (pp 147ndash168) Clevedon England Multilingual Matters

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 39

unfolding of inborn capacities but as the transformation of innatecapacities once they intertwine with socioculturally constructed media-tional meansrdquo (p 109) These means are the socioculturally meaningfulartifacts and symbolic systems of a society the most important of which islanguage Of significance for SLA research is the understanding thatwhen learners appropriate mediational means such as language madeavailable as they interact in socioculturally meaningful activities theselearners gain control over their own mental activity and can begin tofunction independently And as Lantolf (2000) notes ldquoaccording toVygotsky this is what development is aboutrdquo (p 80)

SLA researchers have focused on learnersrsquo linguistic development inthe zone of proximal development (ZPD) Vygotskyrsquos conception of what anindividual can accomplish when working in collaboration with others(more) versus what he or she could have accomplished without collabo-ration with others (less) The ZPD points to that individualrsquos learningpotential that is what he or she may be able to do independently in thefuture (Adair-Hauck amp Donato 1994 Aljaafreh amp Lantolf 1994 Anton1999 2000 DiCamilla amp Anton 1997 Nassaji amp Cumming 2000 Ohta2000 Swain amp Lapkin 1998) Others have focused on the use of privatespeech or speech directed to oneself that mediates mental behaviorPrivate speech manifests the process in which external social forms ofinteraction come to be appropriated for inner speech or mental develop-ment (Anton amp DiCamilla 1998 McCafferty 1994 2004b see alsoMcCafferty 2004a) Still others have focused on activity theory and task-based approaches to second language teaching and learning (Coughlanamp Duff 1994 McCafferty Roebuck amp Wayland 2001 Parks 2000Storch 2004 Thorne 2003)

Language Socialization

Language socialization researchers including those in SLA closelyidentify with Vygotskian sociocultural approaches to learning (see Ochs1988 Schiefflin amp Ochs 1986 Watson-Gegeo 2004 Watson-Gegeo ampNielson 2003) But in contrast to a disciplinary history in psychology anda focus on cognitive development this theory emerged from anthropol-ogy with an interest in understanding the development of socially andculturally competent members of society In her introduction to anedited volume comprising language socialization studies among childrenin a variety of cultures Ochs comments that she and her co-editorSchieffelin (1986) ldquotake for granted that the development of intel-ligence and knowledge is facilitated (to an extent) by childrenrsquos commu-nication with othersrdquo and instead emphasize the ldquosociocultural informa-tion [that] is generally encoded in the organization of conversational

40 TESOL QUARTERLY

discourserdquo (pp 2ndash3) As such language socialization research hasinvestigated the interconnected processes of linguistic and culturallearning in discourse practices interactional routines and participationstructures and roles3

Although language socialization research in the 1980s largely investi-gated ways in which children are socialized into the social practices of acommunity by the mid-1990s the language socialization approach wasbeing applied to adult second language learners (see eg Duff 1995Harklau 1994 Poole 1992) Whether at home in the classroom atwork or in any number of other environments language learners areembedded in and learn to become competent participants in culturallysocially and politically shaped communicative contexts The linguisticforms used in these contexts and their social significance affect howlearners come to understand and use language

In a recent review of language socialization research in SLA Zuenglerand Cole (2005) observed that even though some studies portraysocialization as a smooth and successful process (eg Kanagy 1999Ohta 1999) many other studies mostly classroom based demonstrateldquolanguage socialization as potentially problematic tension producingand unsuccessfulrdquo (p 306) For example some researchers have foundthat school socialization processes can have negative effects on secondlanguage learning (Atkinson 2003 Duff amp Early 1999 Rymes 1997Willet 1995) and others have observed contradictory home and schoolsocialization processes which often result in studentsrsquo relatively unsuc-cessful socialization to school norms (Crago 1992 Moore 1999 Watson-Gegeo 1992) These findings among others point to the shiftingemphasis in language socialization research to the sociopolitical dimen-sions of discourse and social organization and their implications forlanguage learning (Watson-Gegeo 2004) Like language socializationsituated learning theory to which we now turn underscores the role ofsocial identity and relationships as well as the historical and practicalconditions of language use in learning

LEARNING AS CHANGING PARTICIPATIONIN SITUATED PRACTICES

Typically situated learningmdashmost notably represented by Lave andWengerrsquos (1991) notion of community of practicemdashhas not been positionedas the primary learning theory in SLA research in the same way that

3 See however Watson-Gegeo (2004) and Watson-Gegeo and Nielsen (2003) who insist thatinvestigating and understanding cognitive development should not be abandoned in languagesocialization research

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 41

Vygotskian or language socialization theories have been For examplethough Tooheyrsquos ethnographic research (2000) and the related work byDay (2002) both draw heavily on Lave and Wengerrsquos community ofpractice they also invoke Vygotskian sociocultural theory and Bakhtinrsquosdialogic perspective (see next section) Lave and Wenger note that theycould have adopted a socialization model but they found that theapprenticeship model helped them conceptualize ldquolearning in situatedwaysmdashin the transformative possibilities of being and becoming com-plex full cultural-historical participants in the worldrdquo (p 32) As sug-gested in this comment situated learning foregrounds learnersrsquo participa-tion in particular social practices understood as habitual ways people(re)produce material and symbolic resources often attached to particu-lar times and places and comprising communities of practice in com-plex often overlapping ways

Lave and Wengerrsquos (1991) conception of legitimate peripheral participa-tion is meant to describe the changes of engagement in particular socialpractices that entail learning Thus we can consider second languagelearners who demonstrate a change from limited to fuller participationin social practices involving their second (or additional) language asgiving evidence of language development (much as language socializa-tion views children or novices being socialized into more appropriateparticipation in the social practices of their communities) ElsewhereWenger (1998) maintains that learning is ldquonot a separate activity [but] is something we can assumemdashwhether we see it or not Evenfailing to learn what is expected in a given situation usually involveslearning something else insteadrdquo (p 8) Toohey (1999) agrees suggest-ing that this approach can help us avoid consigning poor success insecond language learning merely to an individualrsquos failure to learnLegitimate peripheral participation allows us to see instead that somemembers learn to take a less empowered position in a community ofpractice because of the kinds of participation made available to them byldquoprocesses of exclusion and subordination [that] operate locallyrdquo (p135) Toohey adds that it might be less helpful to see learners asmarginalized than to view them as ldquovery much integratedrdquo into schools orother communities of practice but in positions that maintain theirperipheral participation (p 135) This shift in focus away from languageand learning as an individual achievement aligns with Bakhtinrsquos view oflanguage as constituted in particular sociohistorical contexts

Bakhtin and the Dialogic Perspective

Given Mikhail Bakhtinrsquos view of the fundamentally social nature oflanguage and his metaphor of appropriation to conceptualize how

42 TESOL QUARTERLY

people take othersrsquo utterances in coming to own a languagemdashwithin aspecific social space and historical moment Bakhtinian theory overlapsin important ways with situated learning Though Hall (1995 2002) andJohnson (2004) have extensively discussed Bakhtinrsquos ideas and theirapplicability for understanding second language learning most secondlanguage researchers have drawn on select concepts from Bakhtinrsquosphilosophical writings and as with situated learning have folded them inwith other sociocultural frameworks

Like the sociocultural theories already described we find that Bakhtin(1981) stresses the sociality of intellectual processes in claiming thatldquolanguage for the individual consciousness lies on the border betweenoneself and the otherrdquo (p 293) One of the key concepts in Bakhtinrsquoswritings frequently invoked in SLA research is dialogism the mutualparticipation of speakers and hearers in the construction of utterancesand the connectedness of all utterances to past and future expressionsThus the linguistic resources we use and learn can never be seen asmerely part of a ldquoneutral and impersonal languagerdquo rather Bakhtinviewed our use of language as an appropriation of words that at one timeldquoexist[ed] in other peoplersquos mouthsrdquo before we make them our own (pp293ndash294) Hall (2002) explains that in this view an utterance ldquocan onlybe understood fully by considering its history of use by other people inother places for other reasonsrdquo (p 13) Within this framework Toohey(2000) describes language learning as a process in which learners ldquotry onother peoplersquos utterances they take words from other peoplersquos mouthsthey appropriate these utterances and gradually (but not without conflict)these utterances come to serve their needs and relay their meaningsrdquo(p 13)

Packaged with dialogism is Bakhtinrsquos understanding of the inherentlyideological nature of language In agreeing that ldquoall language is politi-calrdquo Hall (1995) asserts that the ldquoauthority and privilege residing incertain interactive resources result from sociopolitical and historicalforces surrounding their userdquo (p 214) Every utterance we producereveals our stance toward the interlocutors involved signaling our socialpositioning within the local interaction and in response to largersociopolitical forces This ideological nature of language is foregroundedby critical theorists who see the role of power relations as primary forunderstanding the social world both in broader social worlds as well asin our very local social practices

Critical Theory

From the point of view of critical theory being socialized into thepractices of a community includes learning onersquos place in the sociopolitical

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 43

organization of those practices Researchers who incorporate criticaltheory into their exploration of second language learning argue that onemust account for relations of power in order to gain a fuller understand-ing of the practices and interactions in which learners participatemdashandthus of their learning processes But what is more important theseresearchers contend that this understanding should then lead to socialand educational change such that more equitable social relations can beeffected particularly in the interests of disenfranchised groups andindividuals It is interesting that in contrast to the theory of legitimateperipheral participation (Lave amp Wenger 1991) in which learners areviewed as learning their marginalized participation critical theoriststend to view marginalized members of a community as having theiraccess to learning blocked because they may be prevented from partici-pating meaningfully in target-language social practices The critical focusin second language learning has been strongly influenced by the work ofPennycook (1990 1999 2001) as well as Norton (1995 1997b 2000) andCanagarajah (1993 1999 2005)

Though the range of critical research is outside the scope of thisdiscussion we highlight one area of interest language and identity thathas gained footing in the field and become a research area in its ownright It has been addressed in a special issue of TESOL Quarterly(Norton 1997a) as well as in numerous other publications From asociocultural perspective our identities are shaped by and through ourlanguage use (Norton 1995 1997b 2000 Pavlenko amp Blackledge 2003)Although issues of identity and learning have been treated in all of thesociocultural approaches to learning that we have discussed so far wethink it is appropriate to mention them here because they often exploreand critique the ways in which the patterning of power relationships canlegitimate some identities and forms of participation but devalue othersAs such language learners have much more at stake than merelydeveloping competence in an additional linguistic code As Morgan(1998) notes ldquolanguage lsquoconditionsrsquo our expectations and desires andcommunicates what might be possible in terms of ourselvesmdashour iden-titymdashand the lsquorealitiesrsquo we might developrdquo (p 12)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURALTENSIONS AND DEBATES

As we have seen the SLA field in the past 15 years has expandedfrom a largely cognitive orientation to include sociocultural approachessuch as those just documented This expansion we believe is one ofthe main reasons the SLA field has during the past 15 years witnesseddebates and tensions that in their cross-paradigm criticisms and

44 TESOL QUARTERLY

ontological disagreements are more fundamental than the (largely)intraparadigm issues surrounding for example the relative validity ofoptions for eliciting speech that received attention in the earlierdecades of SLA This said we would not however go as far as Larsen-Freeman (2002) in describing the current SLA field as being ldquoin a stateof turmoilrdquo (p 33) We prefer Lantolfrsquos (1996) more positive acceptingportrayal of the SLA field as ldquoincredibly and happily diverse creativeoften contentious and always full of controversyrdquo (p 738)

In this section we discuss two debates that originated within the past15 years and still continue These debates are arguably the mostimportant given their ontological differences the great amount ofattention the SLA field has paid them at conferences in the literatureand on a more cynical note the wrestling for academic territory thatsome have seen in them Each debate shakes out as the cognitivists andsocioculturalists arguing with each other for reasons we hope to makeclear However we feel that such labels (cognitivists socioculturalists) ifused as the primary characterizations of the debates would obscure themore basic ontological differences that underlie the arguments Thoughthe two debates are related each originated in and focused on differentconceptions conceptions that we feel are more important means offraming and understanding each of the debates Framing by conceptionthen we first discuss the debate around understandings of learning4 andafter that the debate about theory construction in SLA

The Debate Around the Understanding of Learning in SLA

At the 1996 annual conference of the International Association ofApplied Linguistics (AILA) in Jyvaumlskylauml Finland Alan Firth and JohannesWagner (1996) organized a symposium in which they delivered a paperarguing that SLA had long been dominated by cognitive views of thelearner and learning as individualistic mentalistic and as functioningindependent of the context and use of the language Following theirpaper several presenters took a variety of positions vis-agrave-vis Firth andWagnerrsquos critique (One of the authors attended that symposium andremembers that the atmosphere was quite electric) Although Firth andWagner were not necessarily the first to raise such criticism of the field(see eg Bremer Roberts Vasseur Simonot amp Broeder 1996 Hall1995 Rampton 1987) attention to Firth and Wagnerrsquos criticism inparticular with prominent respondents (eg Joan Kelly Hall Gabriele

4 Though earlier SLA work sometimes differentiated learning from acquisition following thedistinction made by Krashen (eg 1982 1985) we understand the two terms as synonymousOur understanding reflects the fieldrsquos current position given that Krashenrsquos theory has fallenout of favor

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 45

Kasper Nanda Poulisse Michael Long) from varying orientations offer-ing support or declaring opposition was guaranteed when in 1997 theirsymposium papers were published along with additional response papersin the Modern Language Journal (see Firth amp Wagner 1997) The debateintensified further after the Modern Language Journal published SusanGassrsquos (1998) response to Firth and Wagner and Firth and Wagnerrsquos(1998) response to Gass5

Firth and Wagner (1997) criticize the field of SLA for its overwhelm-ingly cognitive orientation in defining and researching the learner andlearning Such an approach too strongly emphasizes the individual theinternalization of mental processes and ldquothe development of grammati-cal competencerdquo (p 288) Meaning does not occur they argue inldquoprivate thoughts executed and then transferred from brain to brain but[as] a social and negotiable product of interaction transcending indi-vidual intentions and behavioursrdquo (p 290) Like other humans alanguage learner should be considered a ldquoparticipant-as-language-lsquouserrsquoin social interactionrdquo (p 286) It is time they say to question the fieldrsquosdivision of language use (as consigned to the social) from languagelearning (as the individualized decontextualized domain of the cogni-tive) An SLA field reformulated according to Firth and Wagnerrsquosargument would help us gain more comprehension of ldquohow language isused as it is being acquired through interaction and used resourcefullycontingently and contextuallyrdquo (p 296) Reiterating their view oflearning in their response to Gass (1998) they invoke Vygotsky inasserting that ldquocognitive structures are influenced and indeed devel-oped through engagement in social activity From this perspective itcan be said that language use forms cognitionrdquo (Firth amp Wagner 1998p 92)

Firth and Wagnerrsquos argument that learning (or acquisition) occursthrough use would find support not just in Vygotsky but also in the othersociocultural perspectives discussed in this article In fact Kramsch(2002) points out that the unifying thread running through her editedcollection ldquois a common dissatisfaction with the traditional separationbetween language acquisition and language socializationrdquo (p 4) lan-guage socialization being one of the sociocultural perspectives promi-nent in current SLA Some go further In her contribution to theKramsch collection Larsen-Freeman (2002) appears to be beyondldquodissatisfactionrdquo in declaring that ldquothe failure to consider language userdquois one of the ldquomost trenchant criticisms of mainstream SLA researchrdquo (p34) the other being the lack of balance between the social and thecognitive

5 For reprints of some of the papers as well as commentary see Seidlhofer (2003) Larsen-Freeman (2002) provides a very concise summary of the debate

46 TESOL QUARTERLY

Although some of the respondents (namely Hall 1997 and Liddicoat1997) support Firth and Wagnerrsquos argument it is the opposing respon-dents whose position we summarize particularly thosemdashLong (1997)Kasper (1997) and Gass (1998)mdashwho assert strong opposition to Firthand Wagnerrsquos claim that we should not separate acquisition and usebecause use is actually how learning takes place Perhaps because theyshare a cognitive orientation all three give basically the same responsemaintaining a strong split between acquisition and use To Kasper(1997) the ldquomost nagging problemrdquo with Firth and Wagnerrsquos paper isthat it ldquohas in fact very little to say about L2 acquisitionrdquo (p 310) becauseas she sees it although social context can influence SLA the SLA processitself is essentially cognitive Long (1997) completely agrees ending hisresponse by offering his ldquoskepticism as to whether greater insights intoSL use will necessarily have much to say about SL acquisitionrdquo (p 322) Andthough Gass (1998) concedes that perhaps ldquosome parts of language areconstructed sociallyrdquo that in itself does not imply that ldquowe cannotinvestigate language as an abstract entity that resides in the individualrdquo(p 88) maintaining in so doing her view of learning as largely anindividualized mental process Drawing a figure characterizing the fieldGass (1998) presents ldquoSLArdquo and ldquoSL Userdquo as together making upresearch on ldquoSecond Language Studiesrdquo but it is important that shedraws ldquoSLArdquo and ldquoSL Userdquo as branches that are separate and uncon-nected (p 88)

As Larsen-Freeman (2002) points out this debate is irresolvablebecause it involves two different ontological positions that reflect ldquofunda-mental differences in the way they frame their understanding of learn-ingrdquo (p 37) What one might hope for though is that ldquowe agree todisagreerdquo as the expression goes and accept that contrasting views oflearning can stimulate rather than befuddle the field

The Debate on Theory Construction in SLAPositivism Versus Relativism

During the past 15 years the SLA field has devoted more attention tometatheoretical and metamethodological concerns than it had in earlierdecades The most prominent debate has concerned theory constructionin SLA Though others have written (and continue to write) on theoryconstruction6 we have selected a set of authors and articles rangingfrom 1991 to 2000 that comprise a coherent debate for discussion Thediscussion we profile of theory constructionmdashin fact any discussion oftheory constructionmdashaddresses a complex subject that raises a number

6 See for example Atkinson (2002) McGroarty (1998) and van Lier (1991 1994)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 47

of questions We have distilled from the discussion the authorsrsquo debateon positivism versus relativism in theory construction The tensions anddifferences it raises reflect a new dynamic entering the field one thatcontinues and that results from we believe the arrival on the SLA sceneof the sociocultural perspectives we discussed earlier7

Beretta (1991) framed a discussion of theory construction by address-ing issues such as whether or not (what he saw as) a diversity of theoriesand criteria in SLA represents a problem that is should this diversity bereduced to one or a few theories Considering different approaches totheory building Beretta arrives at a clear conclusion in favor of fewrather than many theories viewing the former as the result of ldquorational-ityrdquo and the latter the outcome of ldquorelativismrdquo (p 495) Comparing SLAto the ldquoalready-successful sciencesrdquo (p 497 ie the so-called hardsciences) Beretta says that because these fields do not unlike SLA haveldquomultiple rival theoriesrdquo (p 497) it is not beneficial for SLA to havemany theories either He goes on to state that the ldquomost anarchiccriterion of allrdquo is that of ldquono criterionrdquo (p 501) Referring to what hecalls ldquoextreme relativismrdquo Berettarsquos nightmare scenario is one in whichphenomena are not independent of but ldquoalways relative to the values ofindividuals and communitiesrdquo (p 501) This ldquowhateverrdquo position (to usea current slang term) implies that ldquopoetry voodoo religion and non-sense are no less valid bases for belief than lsquosciencersquordquo (p 501) Clearlythen Beretta supports theory building only from a rationalistpositivist8

paradigm and certainly not from a relativist one He is not aloneAlthough Crookes (1992) does not address relativism his agreementwith Berretta is implicit in his adherence to a positivistic notion ofscience as the gold standard in considering theory construction9

The debate continued with the publication of a special issue of AppliedLinguistics in 1993 titled ldquoTheory Construction in SLArdquo which containspapers from a 1991 conference at Michigan State University titledldquoTheory Construction and Methodology in Second Language ResearchrdquoAlmost all of the contributors (ie Beretta Long Crookes Gregg)10 take

7 To follow the debate the reader should consult in this order Beretta (1991) Crookes(1992) Beretta (1993) Block (1996) Gregg Long Jordan amp Beretta (1997) Lantolf (1996)and Gregg (2000)

8 Though Beretta states that positivism is not a viable paradigm any longer he appears to bekeeping to positivism nevertheless taking perhaps a postpositivistic stance instead Forinformation on the two positions (which are within the same paradigm) see for example Gubaand Lincoln (1998) Because we see positivism and postpositivism as matters of degree ratherthan substance and because positivism is the better known term in the field we will use positivismto describe Berettarsquos and othersrsquo positions

9 Such a characterization of science (as equivalent to positivism) may be simplistic We thankone of the anonymous reviewers for pointing this out

10 The exception is Schumann (1993) who argues to oversimplify it that art and science arenot that different Because Schumannrsquos position is similar to that of the other relativists that wediscuss we will not focus on him here

48 TESOL QUARTERLY

a similar position that although it does not necessarily mention relativ-ism explicitly nevertheless implicitly opposes it by supporting positivismas the (sole) paradigm for cognitive research on SLA Beretta andCrookes (1993) dismiss the argument that the social can cause thecontent of theories they argue that social conditions are not only notsufficient but are not necessary ldquofor scientific discoveryrdquo(p 253) Gregg(1993) like Beretta and Crookes (1993) does not attack relativismdirectly Nevertheless it is clear that Gregg (1993) opposes relativism ldquoInSLA the overall explanandum is the acquisition (or non-acquisition)of L2 competence in the Chomskyan sense of the termrdquo (p 278) Andthe criteria that Gregg chooses for discussing theory constructiontransition theories and property theories come from psychology (ieCummins 1983) Thus in what becomes an ongoing metaphor in thedebate Greggrsquos ldquoLet a Couple of Flowers Bloomrdquo does not advocate arelativistrsquos acceptance of a multiplicity of theories but advocates ldquoacouplerdquo as opposed to many and within a cognitive and positivisticframework

Adapting Greggrsquos metaphor Lantolfrsquos (1996) article subtitled ldquoLet-ting All the Flowers Bloomrdquo not surprisingly supports relativism andopposes positivism Though Blockrsquos (1996) article is more wide-ranginghe too argues for relativism ldquoReality is a social and therefore multipleconstruction there is no tangible fragmentable reality on to whichscience can convergerdquo (p 69 citing Lincoln 1990) However that doesnot mean that everything is acceptable Block asserts Though heacknowledges that relativism and positivism are two fundamentallydifferent ontologies he argues again citing Lincoln (1990) that ratherthan throwing their hands up at the situation relativists attempt to findpatterns ldquoworking hypotheses or temporary time-and-place-bound knowl-edgerdquo (Block 1996 p 69) Coming from a similar position Lantolf(1996) provides a ldquopostmodernist critical analysisrdquo of the theory-buildingliterature of Gregg Long Crookes and others pointing out that theyare all clearly dedicated to the rationalistpositivist paradigm in the SLAfield and adding ironically that they ldquoshare a common fear of thedreaded lsquorelativismrsquordquo (p 715) In fact Lantolf coins a term for thiscondition relativaphobia (p 731) In a detailed set of points Lantolfargues against what he sees as the hegemony of the positivistic echoingBlockrsquos (1996) accusation of ldquoscience envyrdquo (p 64) in accusing Greggand the others of having ldquophysics envyrdquo (p 717) Where Gregg and theothers consider the existence within SLA of multiple and incommensu-rable theories an obstacle to the development and maturation of thefield Lantolf (1996) encourages ldquoLetting All the Flowers Bloomrdquowarning that otherwise ldquoonce theoretical hegemony is achieved alterna-tive metaphors are cut off or suffocated by the single official metaphor

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 49

subsequently those who espouse different world views cease to havea voicerdquo (p 739)

Both Block (1996) and Lantolf (1996) generated response articlesGregg Long Jordan and Beretta (1997) critiqued the Block articlewhile Gregg (2000) responded to Lantolf (1996) by presenting anegative summary of postmodernism Writing from within their positivistparadigm Gregg Long Jordan and Beretta (1997) accept Blockrsquoscriticism that they have ldquoscience envyrdquo

Let us grant that many or even all of us in the field have the occasional twingeof envy for the accomplishments of other sciences given the fairly feebleprogress made so far in SLA and the magnificent intellectual achievementsof the more successful sciences such envy would certainly be unsurprising(p 543)

Unfortunately their stance becomes both smug and naiumlve For exampleGregg and his colleagues (1997) declare a state of ldquodisbeliefrdquo in Blockrsquospoint that controlling for extraneous variables in SLA research isldquoprobably not even desirablerdquo (p 544 quoting Block 1996 p 74)Continuing they declare ldquoDo we actually need to point out thedisastrous consequences of Blockrsquos lsquostancersquo for SLA or indeed for anyintellectual inquiryrdquo (p 544) No one invoking a positivist paradigmwould disagree with their critique because one of the paradigmrsquosprinciples is indeed the manipulation of variables which includescontrolling wherever possible for extraneous variables However whatGregg and colleagues (1997) fail to recognize is that Blockrsquos statementcomes from a different (relativist) paradigm rendering their responseirrelevant

In his critique of Lantolf (1996) Gregg (2000) does not directlyreiterate the anti-relativist pro-positivist argument that he and hiscolleagues had already published elsewhere Instead he begins bysummarizing (negatively) postmodernism the approach that Lantolf(1996) takes in his article Describing postmodernism Gregg discussesits stance that among other things instead of written texts havingobjective meaningmdashthat of the textrsquos authormdashmeaning is generated asthe reader interacts with the text Greggrsquos response to this stance revealshis reluctance (or inability) to think outside of his paradigm ldquoSuch aperspective strikes me as nonsenserdquo (p 386) On the other hand hetakes ldquothe common-sense position that the meaning of sentences canusually be agreed upon and that there generally are correct andincorrect interpretations of (meaningful) sentencesrdquo (pp 386ndash387)

Concluding his discussion of postmodernism Gregg (2000) assertsagain from within his paradigm

50 TESOL QUARTERLY

It is no accident that postmodernism originated as a movement amongliterary critics and cultural philosophers It flourishes that is precisely inthose areas of intellectual activity where decisive evidence is extremely hard tofind Faced with a range of disciplines that are actually making progress the postmodernists tried to turn the tables on the sciences Ratherthan claiming that the grapes of science are sour the postmodernist assuresus that there are no grapes To put it a bit differently one can seepostmodernism as a sophisticated way for academics in the humanities toovercome their own ldquophysics envyrdquo (pp 389ndash390)

With that memorable point of view we will end our discussion of thetheory construction debate On the positive side we agree that debateslike this stimulate a field And debates being debates it is not necessaryor relevant to try to come to agreement After all (as we indicated indiscussing the debate about learning) the debate on theory constructionis occurring across very different paradigms with contradictory views ofreality Although the debate can be framed as occurring betweencognitivists and socioculturalists we have emphasized a more fundamen-tal difference Like Lantolf (1996) we view as positive a field in whichpossibly incommensurable theories proliferate and are debated ratherthan allowing one theory to dominate without being problematized Weare only sorry that so much energy has gone into some participantsrsquorefusal to admit (or understand) that these positions on theory areincommensurable because they stem from contradictory ontologies Andthe smug tone that some of the debate takes is therefore not only naiumlvebut unfair

Though we have discussed a debate whose outcome is incommensura-bility some argue for cognitive-sociocultural integration Authors takevarying approaches in making their argument For example Larsen-Freeman (2002) proposes chaoscomplexity theory as a means ofaccommodating both sociocultural and cognitive perspectives withinSLA Block (2003) cites several pieces of research that argue for thecomplementarity of cognitive and sociocultural views namely Ellis(2000) Swain and Lapkin (1998) Tarone and Liu (1995) and Teutsch-Dwyer (2001) However Block himself does not take a clear positionsupporting integration Instead he advocates a ldquomore multidisciplinaryand socially informed futurerdquo for those following the input-interactiontradition (p 139) Making a somewhat different argument Watson-Gegeo (2004) sees a possible new ldquosynthesisrdquo of the cognitive with thesociocultural because of developments in the field that view cognition asa phenomenon which ldquooriginates in social interaction and is shaped bycultural and sociopolitical processesrdquo (p 331) Thorne (2005) andLantolf (2000) envision Vygotskyan theory in particular as providing alens for viewing social context as central to the development of cognition(see also Johnson 2004)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 51

IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVESFOR CLASSROOM PRACTICE

Hall (2002) observes that traditional SLA approaches seek to identifygood pedagogical interventions that will most effectively ldquofacilitatelearnersrsquo assimilation of new systemic knowledge into known knowledgestructuresrdquo (p 48) However given their different understandings oflanguage learning socioculturally informed studies offer much differentrecommendations for improving classroom practice For example inseeing learning as participation as relational and interactive and asconstrained by unequal power relations Lave and Wengerrsquos perspectiveasks educators to consider how the practices of school relate to thoseoutside of school how schools and classrooms themselves are organizedinto communities of practice and what kinds of participation are madeaccessible to students

Other studies taking sociocultural perspectives have examined class-room interactions or discourse patterns with an eye toward identifyingthose that best facilitate student participation (Gutierrez Rymes ampLarsen 1995 Nassaji amp Wells 2000 Nystrand Gamoran Zeiser amp Long2003 Tharp amp Gallimore 1991) Still others have examined such topicsas the kinds of guided or scaffolded assistance from teachers (or otherexperts) that can move students along within their ZPD (Aljaafreh ampLantolf 1994 Anton 1999 McCormick amp Donato 2000 Nassaji ampCumming 2000) the effectiveness of goal-oriented dialogue betweenpeers to mediate learning (Donato 1994 Ohta 2000 Swain amp Lapkin1998) and the need for dialogic and contextually sensitive approachesto language assessment ( Johnson 2001 2004) These studies are only afew among many but they share the sociocultural awareness that highlysituated classroom participation promotes language learning

We acknowledge that we do not specify general recommendations fortransforming classroom practices primarily because we are aware of thelimits of what can be generalized across classroom contexts Hall (2000)speaks to the situatedness of learning processes in saying that ldquoeffectingchange in our classrooms will not result from imposing solutions fromoutside but from nurturing effectual practices that are indigenous to ourparticular contextsrdquo (p 295) Clearly this is no easy task for educators Itrequires ongoing and intense work with every group of students andreflective awareness of how the affective and political dimensions ofclassroom life affect individual studentsrsquo participation However with theincreased awareness and sensitivity to local contexts that socioculturalperspectives bring us we have reason to hope that we are closer tounderstanding and creating the kinds of classroom communities thatlearners need

52 TESOL QUARTERLY

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

Although it is difficult to make predictions about the next 15 years insuch a dynamic field we end our article by looking forward to somedevelopments we consider exciting and worth watching Among them iswork in conversation analysis investigating language learning as it occursin the turn-by-turn development of conversational processes (see egMarkee 2004) developments in discursive psychology (not yet emergentin SLA but relevant for researchers interested in learner positioningwithin social practices see eg Davies amp Harreacute 1990) a growth in workfocusing on postcolonial transnational and World Englishes (egCanagarajah 2000 Jenkins 2003 also this issue Kachru 2001 Pennycook1998 Rampton 1995) and explorations in the new kinds of discursivepractices that language learners engage when using new technologies(see especially Gee 2003 Kern this issue Lam 2000 Thorne 2003 andWarschauer 1997) We are eager to see what unfolds

THE AUTHORS

Jane Zuengler is a professor in the English Department at the University ofWisconsinndashMadison Her research and teaching interests include second languageacquisition and use classroom discourse analysis critical perspectives on languageand the global spread of English

Elizabeth R Miller is a doctoral candidate in the English Department at theUniversity of WisconsinndashMadison Her research interests include second languageacquisition and use microanalytic discourse analysis and critical and poststructuralperspectives on language pedagogy and ideology

REFERENCES

Adair-Hauck B amp Donato R (1994) Foreign language explanations within thezone of proximal development The Canadian Modern Language Review 50 532ndash555

Aljaafreh A amp Lantolf J P (1994) Negative feedback as regulation and secondlanguage learning in the zone of proximal development The Modern LanguageJournal 78 465ndash483

Anton M (1999) The discourse of a learner-centered classroom Socioculturalperspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second language classroom TheModern Language Journal 83 303ndash318

Anton M amp DiCamilla F (1998) Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborativeinteraction in the L2 classroom The Canadian Modern Language Review 54 314ndash342

Atkinson D (2002) Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisi-tion The Modern Language Journal 86 525ndash545

Atkinson D (2003) Language socialization and dys-socialization in a South Indiancollege In R Bayley amp S R Schechter (Eds) Language socialization in bilingualand multilingual societies (pp 147ndash168) Clevedon England Multilingual Matters

40 TESOL QUARTERLY

discourserdquo (pp 2ndash3) As such language socialization research hasinvestigated the interconnected processes of linguistic and culturallearning in discourse practices interactional routines and participationstructures and roles3

Although language socialization research in the 1980s largely investi-gated ways in which children are socialized into the social practices of acommunity by the mid-1990s the language socialization approach wasbeing applied to adult second language learners (see eg Duff 1995Harklau 1994 Poole 1992) Whether at home in the classroom atwork or in any number of other environments language learners areembedded in and learn to become competent participants in culturallysocially and politically shaped communicative contexts The linguisticforms used in these contexts and their social significance affect howlearners come to understand and use language

In a recent review of language socialization research in SLA Zuenglerand Cole (2005) observed that even though some studies portraysocialization as a smooth and successful process (eg Kanagy 1999Ohta 1999) many other studies mostly classroom based demonstrateldquolanguage socialization as potentially problematic tension producingand unsuccessfulrdquo (p 306) For example some researchers have foundthat school socialization processes can have negative effects on secondlanguage learning (Atkinson 2003 Duff amp Early 1999 Rymes 1997Willet 1995) and others have observed contradictory home and schoolsocialization processes which often result in studentsrsquo relatively unsuc-cessful socialization to school norms (Crago 1992 Moore 1999 Watson-Gegeo 1992) These findings among others point to the shiftingemphasis in language socialization research to the sociopolitical dimen-sions of discourse and social organization and their implications forlanguage learning (Watson-Gegeo 2004) Like language socializationsituated learning theory to which we now turn underscores the role ofsocial identity and relationships as well as the historical and practicalconditions of language use in learning

LEARNING AS CHANGING PARTICIPATIONIN SITUATED PRACTICES

Typically situated learningmdashmost notably represented by Lave andWengerrsquos (1991) notion of community of practicemdashhas not been positionedas the primary learning theory in SLA research in the same way that

3 See however Watson-Gegeo (2004) and Watson-Gegeo and Nielsen (2003) who insist thatinvestigating and understanding cognitive development should not be abandoned in languagesocialization research

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 41

Vygotskian or language socialization theories have been For examplethough Tooheyrsquos ethnographic research (2000) and the related work byDay (2002) both draw heavily on Lave and Wengerrsquos community ofpractice they also invoke Vygotskian sociocultural theory and Bakhtinrsquosdialogic perspective (see next section) Lave and Wenger note that theycould have adopted a socialization model but they found that theapprenticeship model helped them conceptualize ldquolearning in situatedwaysmdashin the transformative possibilities of being and becoming com-plex full cultural-historical participants in the worldrdquo (p 32) As sug-gested in this comment situated learning foregrounds learnersrsquo participa-tion in particular social practices understood as habitual ways people(re)produce material and symbolic resources often attached to particu-lar times and places and comprising communities of practice in com-plex often overlapping ways

Lave and Wengerrsquos (1991) conception of legitimate peripheral participa-tion is meant to describe the changes of engagement in particular socialpractices that entail learning Thus we can consider second languagelearners who demonstrate a change from limited to fuller participationin social practices involving their second (or additional) language asgiving evidence of language development (much as language socializa-tion views children or novices being socialized into more appropriateparticipation in the social practices of their communities) ElsewhereWenger (1998) maintains that learning is ldquonot a separate activity [but] is something we can assumemdashwhether we see it or not Evenfailing to learn what is expected in a given situation usually involveslearning something else insteadrdquo (p 8) Toohey (1999) agrees suggest-ing that this approach can help us avoid consigning poor success insecond language learning merely to an individualrsquos failure to learnLegitimate peripheral participation allows us to see instead that somemembers learn to take a less empowered position in a community ofpractice because of the kinds of participation made available to them byldquoprocesses of exclusion and subordination [that] operate locallyrdquo (p135) Toohey adds that it might be less helpful to see learners asmarginalized than to view them as ldquovery much integratedrdquo into schools orother communities of practice but in positions that maintain theirperipheral participation (p 135) This shift in focus away from languageand learning as an individual achievement aligns with Bakhtinrsquos view oflanguage as constituted in particular sociohistorical contexts

Bakhtin and the Dialogic Perspective

Given Mikhail Bakhtinrsquos view of the fundamentally social nature oflanguage and his metaphor of appropriation to conceptualize how

42 TESOL QUARTERLY

people take othersrsquo utterances in coming to own a languagemdashwithin aspecific social space and historical moment Bakhtinian theory overlapsin important ways with situated learning Though Hall (1995 2002) andJohnson (2004) have extensively discussed Bakhtinrsquos ideas and theirapplicability for understanding second language learning most secondlanguage researchers have drawn on select concepts from Bakhtinrsquosphilosophical writings and as with situated learning have folded them inwith other sociocultural frameworks

Like the sociocultural theories already described we find that Bakhtin(1981) stresses the sociality of intellectual processes in claiming thatldquolanguage for the individual consciousness lies on the border betweenoneself and the otherrdquo (p 293) One of the key concepts in Bakhtinrsquoswritings frequently invoked in SLA research is dialogism the mutualparticipation of speakers and hearers in the construction of utterancesand the connectedness of all utterances to past and future expressionsThus the linguistic resources we use and learn can never be seen asmerely part of a ldquoneutral and impersonal languagerdquo rather Bakhtinviewed our use of language as an appropriation of words that at one timeldquoexist[ed] in other peoplersquos mouthsrdquo before we make them our own (pp293ndash294) Hall (2002) explains that in this view an utterance ldquocan onlybe understood fully by considering its history of use by other people inother places for other reasonsrdquo (p 13) Within this framework Toohey(2000) describes language learning as a process in which learners ldquotry onother peoplersquos utterances they take words from other peoplersquos mouthsthey appropriate these utterances and gradually (but not without conflict)these utterances come to serve their needs and relay their meaningsrdquo(p 13)

Packaged with dialogism is Bakhtinrsquos understanding of the inherentlyideological nature of language In agreeing that ldquoall language is politi-calrdquo Hall (1995) asserts that the ldquoauthority and privilege residing incertain interactive resources result from sociopolitical and historicalforces surrounding their userdquo (p 214) Every utterance we producereveals our stance toward the interlocutors involved signaling our socialpositioning within the local interaction and in response to largersociopolitical forces This ideological nature of language is foregroundedby critical theorists who see the role of power relations as primary forunderstanding the social world both in broader social worlds as well asin our very local social practices

Critical Theory

From the point of view of critical theory being socialized into thepractices of a community includes learning onersquos place in the sociopolitical

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 43

organization of those practices Researchers who incorporate criticaltheory into their exploration of second language learning argue that onemust account for relations of power in order to gain a fuller understand-ing of the practices and interactions in which learners participatemdashandthus of their learning processes But what is more important theseresearchers contend that this understanding should then lead to socialand educational change such that more equitable social relations can beeffected particularly in the interests of disenfranchised groups andindividuals It is interesting that in contrast to the theory of legitimateperipheral participation (Lave amp Wenger 1991) in which learners areviewed as learning their marginalized participation critical theoriststend to view marginalized members of a community as having theiraccess to learning blocked because they may be prevented from partici-pating meaningfully in target-language social practices The critical focusin second language learning has been strongly influenced by the work ofPennycook (1990 1999 2001) as well as Norton (1995 1997b 2000) andCanagarajah (1993 1999 2005)

Though the range of critical research is outside the scope of thisdiscussion we highlight one area of interest language and identity thathas gained footing in the field and become a research area in its ownright It has been addressed in a special issue of TESOL Quarterly(Norton 1997a) as well as in numerous other publications From asociocultural perspective our identities are shaped by and through ourlanguage use (Norton 1995 1997b 2000 Pavlenko amp Blackledge 2003)Although issues of identity and learning have been treated in all of thesociocultural approaches to learning that we have discussed so far wethink it is appropriate to mention them here because they often exploreand critique the ways in which the patterning of power relationships canlegitimate some identities and forms of participation but devalue othersAs such language learners have much more at stake than merelydeveloping competence in an additional linguistic code As Morgan(1998) notes ldquolanguage lsquoconditionsrsquo our expectations and desires andcommunicates what might be possible in terms of ourselvesmdashour iden-titymdashand the lsquorealitiesrsquo we might developrdquo (p 12)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURALTENSIONS AND DEBATES

As we have seen the SLA field in the past 15 years has expandedfrom a largely cognitive orientation to include sociocultural approachessuch as those just documented This expansion we believe is one ofthe main reasons the SLA field has during the past 15 years witnesseddebates and tensions that in their cross-paradigm criticisms and

44 TESOL QUARTERLY

ontological disagreements are more fundamental than the (largely)intraparadigm issues surrounding for example the relative validity ofoptions for eliciting speech that received attention in the earlierdecades of SLA This said we would not however go as far as Larsen-Freeman (2002) in describing the current SLA field as being ldquoin a stateof turmoilrdquo (p 33) We prefer Lantolfrsquos (1996) more positive acceptingportrayal of the SLA field as ldquoincredibly and happily diverse creativeoften contentious and always full of controversyrdquo (p 738)

In this section we discuss two debates that originated within the past15 years and still continue These debates are arguably the mostimportant given their ontological differences the great amount ofattention the SLA field has paid them at conferences in the literatureand on a more cynical note the wrestling for academic territory thatsome have seen in them Each debate shakes out as the cognitivists andsocioculturalists arguing with each other for reasons we hope to makeclear However we feel that such labels (cognitivists socioculturalists) ifused as the primary characterizations of the debates would obscure themore basic ontological differences that underlie the arguments Thoughthe two debates are related each originated in and focused on differentconceptions conceptions that we feel are more important means offraming and understanding each of the debates Framing by conceptionthen we first discuss the debate around understandings of learning4 andafter that the debate about theory construction in SLA

The Debate Around the Understanding of Learning in SLA

At the 1996 annual conference of the International Association ofApplied Linguistics (AILA) in Jyvaumlskylauml Finland Alan Firth and JohannesWagner (1996) organized a symposium in which they delivered a paperarguing that SLA had long been dominated by cognitive views of thelearner and learning as individualistic mentalistic and as functioningindependent of the context and use of the language Following theirpaper several presenters took a variety of positions vis-agrave-vis Firth andWagnerrsquos critique (One of the authors attended that symposium andremembers that the atmosphere was quite electric) Although Firth andWagner were not necessarily the first to raise such criticism of the field(see eg Bremer Roberts Vasseur Simonot amp Broeder 1996 Hall1995 Rampton 1987) attention to Firth and Wagnerrsquos criticism inparticular with prominent respondents (eg Joan Kelly Hall Gabriele

4 Though earlier SLA work sometimes differentiated learning from acquisition following thedistinction made by Krashen (eg 1982 1985) we understand the two terms as synonymousOur understanding reflects the fieldrsquos current position given that Krashenrsquos theory has fallenout of favor

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 45

Kasper Nanda Poulisse Michael Long) from varying orientations offer-ing support or declaring opposition was guaranteed when in 1997 theirsymposium papers were published along with additional response papersin the Modern Language Journal (see Firth amp Wagner 1997) The debateintensified further after the Modern Language Journal published SusanGassrsquos (1998) response to Firth and Wagner and Firth and Wagnerrsquos(1998) response to Gass5

Firth and Wagner (1997) criticize the field of SLA for its overwhelm-ingly cognitive orientation in defining and researching the learner andlearning Such an approach too strongly emphasizes the individual theinternalization of mental processes and ldquothe development of grammati-cal competencerdquo (p 288) Meaning does not occur they argue inldquoprivate thoughts executed and then transferred from brain to brain but[as] a social and negotiable product of interaction transcending indi-vidual intentions and behavioursrdquo (p 290) Like other humans alanguage learner should be considered a ldquoparticipant-as-language-lsquouserrsquoin social interactionrdquo (p 286) It is time they say to question the fieldrsquosdivision of language use (as consigned to the social) from languagelearning (as the individualized decontextualized domain of the cogni-tive) An SLA field reformulated according to Firth and Wagnerrsquosargument would help us gain more comprehension of ldquohow language isused as it is being acquired through interaction and used resourcefullycontingently and contextuallyrdquo (p 296) Reiterating their view oflearning in their response to Gass (1998) they invoke Vygotsky inasserting that ldquocognitive structures are influenced and indeed devel-oped through engagement in social activity From this perspective itcan be said that language use forms cognitionrdquo (Firth amp Wagner 1998p 92)

Firth and Wagnerrsquos argument that learning (or acquisition) occursthrough use would find support not just in Vygotsky but also in the othersociocultural perspectives discussed in this article In fact Kramsch(2002) points out that the unifying thread running through her editedcollection ldquois a common dissatisfaction with the traditional separationbetween language acquisition and language socializationrdquo (p 4) lan-guage socialization being one of the sociocultural perspectives promi-nent in current SLA Some go further In her contribution to theKramsch collection Larsen-Freeman (2002) appears to be beyondldquodissatisfactionrdquo in declaring that ldquothe failure to consider language userdquois one of the ldquomost trenchant criticisms of mainstream SLA researchrdquo (p34) the other being the lack of balance between the social and thecognitive

5 For reprints of some of the papers as well as commentary see Seidlhofer (2003) Larsen-Freeman (2002) provides a very concise summary of the debate

46 TESOL QUARTERLY

Although some of the respondents (namely Hall 1997 and Liddicoat1997) support Firth and Wagnerrsquos argument it is the opposing respon-dents whose position we summarize particularly thosemdashLong (1997)Kasper (1997) and Gass (1998)mdashwho assert strong opposition to Firthand Wagnerrsquos claim that we should not separate acquisition and usebecause use is actually how learning takes place Perhaps because theyshare a cognitive orientation all three give basically the same responsemaintaining a strong split between acquisition and use To Kasper(1997) the ldquomost nagging problemrdquo with Firth and Wagnerrsquos paper isthat it ldquohas in fact very little to say about L2 acquisitionrdquo (p 310) becauseas she sees it although social context can influence SLA the SLA processitself is essentially cognitive Long (1997) completely agrees ending hisresponse by offering his ldquoskepticism as to whether greater insights intoSL use will necessarily have much to say about SL acquisitionrdquo (p 322) Andthough Gass (1998) concedes that perhaps ldquosome parts of language areconstructed sociallyrdquo that in itself does not imply that ldquowe cannotinvestigate language as an abstract entity that resides in the individualrdquo(p 88) maintaining in so doing her view of learning as largely anindividualized mental process Drawing a figure characterizing the fieldGass (1998) presents ldquoSLArdquo and ldquoSL Userdquo as together making upresearch on ldquoSecond Language Studiesrdquo but it is important that shedraws ldquoSLArdquo and ldquoSL Userdquo as branches that are separate and uncon-nected (p 88)

As Larsen-Freeman (2002) points out this debate is irresolvablebecause it involves two different ontological positions that reflect ldquofunda-mental differences in the way they frame their understanding of learn-ingrdquo (p 37) What one might hope for though is that ldquowe agree todisagreerdquo as the expression goes and accept that contrasting views oflearning can stimulate rather than befuddle the field

The Debate on Theory Construction in SLAPositivism Versus Relativism

During the past 15 years the SLA field has devoted more attention tometatheoretical and metamethodological concerns than it had in earlierdecades The most prominent debate has concerned theory constructionin SLA Though others have written (and continue to write) on theoryconstruction6 we have selected a set of authors and articles rangingfrom 1991 to 2000 that comprise a coherent debate for discussion Thediscussion we profile of theory constructionmdashin fact any discussion oftheory constructionmdashaddresses a complex subject that raises a number

6 See for example Atkinson (2002) McGroarty (1998) and van Lier (1991 1994)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 47

of questions We have distilled from the discussion the authorsrsquo debateon positivism versus relativism in theory construction The tensions anddifferences it raises reflect a new dynamic entering the field one thatcontinues and that results from we believe the arrival on the SLA sceneof the sociocultural perspectives we discussed earlier7

Beretta (1991) framed a discussion of theory construction by address-ing issues such as whether or not (what he saw as) a diversity of theoriesand criteria in SLA represents a problem that is should this diversity bereduced to one or a few theories Considering different approaches totheory building Beretta arrives at a clear conclusion in favor of fewrather than many theories viewing the former as the result of ldquorational-ityrdquo and the latter the outcome of ldquorelativismrdquo (p 495) Comparing SLAto the ldquoalready-successful sciencesrdquo (p 497 ie the so-called hardsciences) Beretta says that because these fields do not unlike SLA haveldquomultiple rival theoriesrdquo (p 497) it is not beneficial for SLA to havemany theories either He goes on to state that the ldquomost anarchiccriterion of allrdquo is that of ldquono criterionrdquo (p 501) Referring to what hecalls ldquoextreme relativismrdquo Berettarsquos nightmare scenario is one in whichphenomena are not independent of but ldquoalways relative to the values ofindividuals and communitiesrdquo (p 501) This ldquowhateverrdquo position (to usea current slang term) implies that ldquopoetry voodoo religion and non-sense are no less valid bases for belief than lsquosciencersquordquo (p 501) Clearlythen Beretta supports theory building only from a rationalistpositivist8

paradigm and certainly not from a relativist one He is not aloneAlthough Crookes (1992) does not address relativism his agreementwith Berretta is implicit in his adherence to a positivistic notion ofscience as the gold standard in considering theory construction9

The debate continued with the publication of a special issue of AppliedLinguistics in 1993 titled ldquoTheory Construction in SLArdquo which containspapers from a 1991 conference at Michigan State University titledldquoTheory Construction and Methodology in Second Language ResearchrdquoAlmost all of the contributors (ie Beretta Long Crookes Gregg)10 take

7 To follow the debate the reader should consult in this order Beretta (1991) Crookes(1992) Beretta (1993) Block (1996) Gregg Long Jordan amp Beretta (1997) Lantolf (1996)and Gregg (2000)

8 Though Beretta states that positivism is not a viable paradigm any longer he appears to bekeeping to positivism nevertheless taking perhaps a postpositivistic stance instead Forinformation on the two positions (which are within the same paradigm) see for example Gubaand Lincoln (1998) Because we see positivism and postpositivism as matters of degree ratherthan substance and because positivism is the better known term in the field we will use positivismto describe Berettarsquos and othersrsquo positions

9 Such a characterization of science (as equivalent to positivism) may be simplistic We thankone of the anonymous reviewers for pointing this out

10 The exception is Schumann (1993) who argues to oversimplify it that art and science arenot that different Because Schumannrsquos position is similar to that of the other relativists that wediscuss we will not focus on him here

48 TESOL QUARTERLY

a similar position that although it does not necessarily mention relativ-ism explicitly nevertheless implicitly opposes it by supporting positivismas the (sole) paradigm for cognitive research on SLA Beretta andCrookes (1993) dismiss the argument that the social can cause thecontent of theories they argue that social conditions are not only notsufficient but are not necessary ldquofor scientific discoveryrdquo(p 253) Gregg(1993) like Beretta and Crookes (1993) does not attack relativismdirectly Nevertheless it is clear that Gregg (1993) opposes relativism ldquoInSLA the overall explanandum is the acquisition (or non-acquisition)of L2 competence in the Chomskyan sense of the termrdquo (p 278) Andthe criteria that Gregg chooses for discussing theory constructiontransition theories and property theories come from psychology (ieCummins 1983) Thus in what becomes an ongoing metaphor in thedebate Greggrsquos ldquoLet a Couple of Flowers Bloomrdquo does not advocate arelativistrsquos acceptance of a multiplicity of theories but advocates ldquoacouplerdquo as opposed to many and within a cognitive and positivisticframework

Adapting Greggrsquos metaphor Lantolfrsquos (1996) article subtitled ldquoLet-ting All the Flowers Bloomrdquo not surprisingly supports relativism andopposes positivism Though Blockrsquos (1996) article is more wide-ranginghe too argues for relativism ldquoReality is a social and therefore multipleconstruction there is no tangible fragmentable reality on to whichscience can convergerdquo (p 69 citing Lincoln 1990) However that doesnot mean that everything is acceptable Block asserts Though heacknowledges that relativism and positivism are two fundamentallydifferent ontologies he argues again citing Lincoln (1990) that ratherthan throwing their hands up at the situation relativists attempt to findpatterns ldquoworking hypotheses or temporary time-and-place-bound knowl-edgerdquo (Block 1996 p 69) Coming from a similar position Lantolf(1996) provides a ldquopostmodernist critical analysisrdquo of the theory-buildingliterature of Gregg Long Crookes and others pointing out that theyare all clearly dedicated to the rationalistpositivist paradigm in the SLAfield and adding ironically that they ldquoshare a common fear of thedreaded lsquorelativismrsquordquo (p 715) In fact Lantolf coins a term for thiscondition relativaphobia (p 731) In a detailed set of points Lantolfargues against what he sees as the hegemony of the positivistic echoingBlockrsquos (1996) accusation of ldquoscience envyrdquo (p 64) in accusing Greggand the others of having ldquophysics envyrdquo (p 717) Where Gregg and theothers consider the existence within SLA of multiple and incommensu-rable theories an obstacle to the development and maturation of thefield Lantolf (1996) encourages ldquoLetting All the Flowers Bloomrdquowarning that otherwise ldquoonce theoretical hegemony is achieved alterna-tive metaphors are cut off or suffocated by the single official metaphor

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 49

subsequently those who espouse different world views cease to havea voicerdquo (p 739)

Both Block (1996) and Lantolf (1996) generated response articlesGregg Long Jordan and Beretta (1997) critiqued the Block articlewhile Gregg (2000) responded to Lantolf (1996) by presenting anegative summary of postmodernism Writing from within their positivistparadigm Gregg Long Jordan and Beretta (1997) accept Blockrsquoscriticism that they have ldquoscience envyrdquo

Let us grant that many or even all of us in the field have the occasional twingeof envy for the accomplishments of other sciences given the fairly feebleprogress made so far in SLA and the magnificent intellectual achievementsof the more successful sciences such envy would certainly be unsurprising(p 543)

Unfortunately their stance becomes both smug and naiumlve For exampleGregg and his colleagues (1997) declare a state of ldquodisbeliefrdquo in Blockrsquospoint that controlling for extraneous variables in SLA research isldquoprobably not even desirablerdquo (p 544 quoting Block 1996 p 74)Continuing they declare ldquoDo we actually need to point out thedisastrous consequences of Blockrsquos lsquostancersquo for SLA or indeed for anyintellectual inquiryrdquo (p 544) No one invoking a positivist paradigmwould disagree with their critique because one of the paradigmrsquosprinciples is indeed the manipulation of variables which includescontrolling wherever possible for extraneous variables However whatGregg and colleagues (1997) fail to recognize is that Blockrsquos statementcomes from a different (relativist) paradigm rendering their responseirrelevant

In his critique of Lantolf (1996) Gregg (2000) does not directlyreiterate the anti-relativist pro-positivist argument that he and hiscolleagues had already published elsewhere Instead he begins bysummarizing (negatively) postmodernism the approach that Lantolf(1996) takes in his article Describing postmodernism Gregg discussesits stance that among other things instead of written texts havingobjective meaningmdashthat of the textrsquos authormdashmeaning is generated asthe reader interacts with the text Greggrsquos response to this stance revealshis reluctance (or inability) to think outside of his paradigm ldquoSuch aperspective strikes me as nonsenserdquo (p 386) On the other hand hetakes ldquothe common-sense position that the meaning of sentences canusually be agreed upon and that there generally are correct andincorrect interpretations of (meaningful) sentencesrdquo (pp 386ndash387)

Concluding his discussion of postmodernism Gregg (2000) assertsagain from within his paradigm

50 TESOL QUARTERLY

It is no accident that postmodernism originated as a movement amongliterary critics and cultural philosophers It flourishes that is precisely inthose areas of intellectual activity where decisive evidence is extremely hard tofind Faced with a range of disciplines that are actually making progress the postmodernists tried to turn the tables on the sciences Ratherthan claiming that the grapes of science are sour the postmodernist assuresus that there are no grapes To put it a bit differently one can seepostmodernism as a sophisticated way for academics in the humanities toovercome their own ldquophysics envyrdquo (pp 389ndash390)

With that memorable point of view we will end our discussion of thetheory construction debate On the positive side we agree that debateslike this stimulate a field And debates being debates it is not necessaryor relevant to try to come to agreement After all (as we indicated indiscussing the debate about learning) the debate on theory constructionis occurring across very different paradigms with contradictory views ofreality Although the debate can be framed as occurring betweencognitivists and socioculturalists we have emphasized a more fundamen-tal difference Like Lantolf (1996) we view as positive a field in whichpossibly incommensurable theories proliferate and are debated ratherthan allowing one theory to dominate without being problematized Weare only sorry that so much energy has gone into some participantsrsquorefusal to admit (or understand) that these positions on theory areincommensurable because they stem from contradictory ontologies Andthe smug tone that some of the debate takes is therefore not only naiumlvebut unfair

Though we have discussed a debate whose outcome is incommensura-bility some argue for cognitive-sociocultural integration Authors takevarying approaches in making their argument For example Larsen-Freeman (2002) proposes chaoscomplexity theory as a means ofaccommodating both sociocultural and cognitive perspectives withinSLA Block (2003) cites several pieces of research that argue for thecomplementarity of cognitive and sociocultural views namely Ellis(2000) Swain and Lapkin (1998) Tarone and Liu (1995) and Teutsch-Dwyer (2001) However Block himself does not take a clear positionsupporting integration Instead he advocates a ldquomore multidisciplinaryand socially informed futurerdquo for those following the input-interactiontradition (p 139) Making a somewhat different argument Watson-Gegeo (2004) sees a possible new ldquosynthesisrdquo of the cognitive with thesociocultural because of developments in the field that view cognition asa phenomenon which ldquooriginates in social interaction and is shaped bycultural and sociopolitical processesrdquo (p 331) Thorne (2005) andLantolf (2000) envision Vygotskyan theory in particular as providing alens for viewing social context as central to the development of cognition(see also Johnson 2004)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 51

IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVESFOR CLASSROOM PRACTICE

Hall (2002) observes that traditional SLA approaches seek to identifygood pedagogical interventions that will most effectively ldquofacilitatelearnersrsquo assimilation of new systemic knowledge into known knowledgestructuresrdquo (p 48) However given their different understandings oflanguage learning socioculturally informed studies offer much differentrecommendations for improving classroom practice For example inseeing learning as participation as relational and interactive and asconstrained by unequal power relations Lave and Wengerrsquos perspectiveasks educators to consider how the practices of school relate to thoseoutside of school how schools and classrooms themselves are organizedinto communities of practice and what kinds of participation are madeaccessible to students

Other studies taking sociocultural perspectives have examined class-room interactions or discourse patterns with an eye toward identifyingthose that best facilitate student participation (Gutierrez Rymes ampLarsen 1995 Nassaji amp Wells 2000 Nystrand Gamoran Zeiser amp Long2003 Tharp amp Gallimore 1991) Still others have examined such topicsas the kinds of guided or scaffolded assistance from teachers (or otherexperts) that can move students along within their ZPD (Aljaafreh ampLantolf 1994 Anton 1999 McCormick amp Donato 2000 Nassaji ampCumming 2000) the effectiveness of goal-oriented dialogue betweenpeers to mediate learning (Donato 1994 Ohta 2000 Swain amp Lapkin1998) and the need for dialogic and contextually sensitive approachesto language assessment ( Johnson 2001 2004) These studies are only afew among many but they share the sociocultural awareness that highlysituated classroom participation promotes language learning

We acknowledge that we do not specify general recommendations fortransforming classroom practices primarily because we are aware of thelimits of what can be generalized across classroom contexts Hall (2000)speaks to the situatedness of learning processes in saying that ldquoeffectingchange in our classrooms will not result from imposing solutions fromoutside but from nurturing effectual practices that are indigenous to ourparticular contextsrdquo (p 295) Clearly this is no easy task for educators Itrequires ongoing and intense work with every group of students andreflective awareness of how the affective and political dimensions ofclassroom life affect individual studentsrsquo participation However with theincreased awareness and sensitivity to local contexts that socioculturalperspectives bring us we have reason to hope that we are closer tounderstanding and creating the kinds of classroom communities thatlearners need

52 TESOL QUARTERLY

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

Although it is difficult to make predictions about the next 15 years insuch a dynamic field we end our article by looking forward to somedevelopments we consider exciting and worth watching Among them iswork in conversation analysis investigating language learning as it occursin the turn-by-turn development of conversational processes (see egMarkee 2004) developments in discursive psychology (not yet emergentin SLA but relevant for researchers interested in learner positioningwithin social practices see eg Davies amp Harreacute 1990) a growth in workfocusing on postcolonial transnational and World Englishes (egCanagarajah 2000 Jenkins 2003 also this issue Kachru 2001 Pennycook1998 Rampton 1995) and explorations in the new kinds of discursivepractices that language learners engage when using new technologies(see especially Gee 2003 Kern this issue Lam 2000 Thorne 2003 andWarschauer 1997) We are eager to see what unfolds

THE AUTHORS

Jane Zuengler is a professor in the English Department at the University ofWisconsinndashMadison Her research and teaching interests include second languageacquisition and use classroom discourse analysis critical perspectives on languageand the global spread of English

Elizabeth R Miller is a doctoral candidate in the English Department at theUniversity of WisconsinndashMadison Her research interests include second languageacquisition and use microanalytic discourse analysis and critical and poststructuralperspectives on language pedagogy and ideology

REFERENCES

Adair-Hauck B amp Donato R (1994) Foreign language explanations within thezone of proximal development The Canadian Modern Language Review 50 532ndash555

Aljaafreh A amp Lantolf J P (1994) Negative feedback as regulation and secondlanguage learning in the zone of proximal development The Modern LanguageJournal 78 465ndash483

Anton M (1999) The discourse of a learner-centered classroom Socioculturalperspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second language classroom TheModern Language Journal 83 303ndash318

Anton M amp DiCamilla F (1998) Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborativeinteraction in the L2 classroom The Canadian Modern Language Review 54 314ndash342

Atkinson D (2002) Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisi-tion The Modern Language Journal 86 525ndash545

Atkinson D (2003) Language socialization and dys-socialization in a South Indiancollege In R Bayley amp S R Schechter (Eds) Language socialization in bilingualand multilingual societies (pp 147ndash168) Clevedon England Multilingual Matters

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 41

Vygotskian or language socialization theories have been For examplethough Tooheyrsquos ethnographic research (2000) and the related work byDay (2002) both draw heavily on Lave and Wengerrsquos community ofpractice they also invoke Vygotskian sociocultural theory and Bakhtinrsquosdialogic perspective (see next section) Lave and Wenger note that theycould have adopted a socialization model but they found that theapprenticeship model helped them conceptualize ldquolearning in situatedwaysmdashin the transformative possibilities of being and becoming com-plex full cultural-historical participants in the worldrdquo (p 32) As sug-gested in this comment situated learning foregrounds learnersrsquo participa-tion in particular social practices understood as habitual ways people(re)produce material and symbolic resources often attached to particu-lar times and places and comprising communities of practice in com-plex often overlapping ways

Lave and Wengerrsquos (1991) conception of legitimate peripheral participa-tion is meant to describe the changes of engagement in particular socialpractices that entail learning Thus we can consider second languagelearners who demonstrate a change from limited to fuller participationin social practices involving their second (or additional) language asgiving evidence of language development (much as language socializa-tion views children or novices being socialized into more appropriateparticipation in the social practices of their communities) ElsewhereWenger (1998) maintains that learning is ldquonot a separate activity [but] is something we can assumemdashwhether we see it or not Evenfailing to learn what is expected in a given situation usually involveslearning something else insteadrdquo (p 8) Toohey (1999) agrees suggest-ing that this approach can help us avoid consigning poor success insecond language learning merely to an individualrsquos failure to learnLegitimate peripheral participation allows us to see instead that somemembers learn to take a less empowered position in a community ofpractice because of the kinds of participation made available to them byldquoprocesses of exclusion and subordination [that] operate locallyrdquo (p135) Toohey adds that it might be less helpful to see learners asmarginalized than to view them as ldquovery much integratedrdquo into schools orother communities of practice but in positions that maintain theirperipheral participation (p 135) This shift in focus away from languageand learning as an individual achievement aligns with Bakhtinrsquos view oflanguage as constituted in particular sociohistorical contexts

Bakhtin and the Dialogic Perspective

Given Mikhail Bakhtinrsquos view of the fundamentally social nature oflanguage and his metaphor of appropriation to conceptualize how

42 TESOL QUARTERLY

people take othersrsquo utterances in coming to own a languagemdashwithin aspecific social space and historical moment Bakhtinian theory overlapsin important ways with situated learning Though Hall (1995 2002) andJohnson (2004) have extensively discussed Bakhtinrsquos ideas and theirapplicability for understanding second language learning most secondlanguage researchers have drawn on select concepts from Bakhtinrsquosphilosophical writings and as with situated learning have folded them inwith other sociocultural frameworks

Like the sociocultural theories already described we find that Bakhtin(1981) stresses the sociality of intellectual processes in claiming thatldquolanguage for the individual consciousness lies on the border betweenoneself and the otherrdquo (p 293) One of the key concepts in Bakhtinrsquoswritings frequently invoked in SLA research is dialogism the mutualparticipation of speakers and hearers in the construction of utterancesand the connectedness of all utterances to past and future expressionsThus the linguistic resources we use and learn can never be seen asmerely part of a ldquoneutral and impersonal languagerdquo rather Bakhtinviewed our use of language as an appropriation of words that at one timeldquoexist[ed] in other peoplersquos mouthsrdquo before we make them our own (pp293ndash294) Hall (2002) explains that in this view an utterance ldquocan onlybe understood fully by considering its history of use by other people inother places for other reasonsrdquo (p 13) Within this framework Toohey(2000) describes language learning as a process in which learners ldquotry onother peoplersquos utterances they take words from other peoplersquos mouthsthey appropriate these utterances and gradually (but not without conflict)these utterances come to serve their needs and relay their meaningsrdquo(p 13)

Packaged with dialogism is Bakhtinrsquos understanding of the inherentlyideological nature of language In agreeing that ldquoall language is politi-calrdquo Hall (1995) asserts that the ldquoauthority and privilege residing incertain interactive resources result from sociopolitical and historicalforces surrounding their userdquo (p 214) Every utterance we producereveals our stance toward the interlocutors involved signaling our socialpositioning within the local interaction and in response to largersociopolitical forces This ideological nature of language is foregroundedby critical theorists who see the role of power relations as primary forunderstanding the social world both in broader social worlds as well asin our very local social practices

Critical Theory

From the point of view of critical theory being socialized into thepractices of a community includes learning onersquos place in the sociopolitical

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 43

organization of those practices Researchers who incorporate criticaltheory into their exploration of second language learning argue that onemust account for relations of power in order to gain a fuller understand-ing of the practices and interactions in which learners participatemdashandthus of their learning processes But what is more important theseresearchers contend that this understanding should then lead to socialand educational change such that more equitable social relations can beeffected particularly in the interests of disenfranchised groups andindividuals It is interesting that in contrast to the theory of legitimateperipheral participation (Lave amp Wenger 1991) in which learners areviewed as learning their marginalized participation critical theoriststend to view marginalized members of a community as having theiraccess to learning blocked because they may be prevented from partici-pating meaningfully in target-language social practices The critical focusin second language learning has been strongly influenced by the work ofPennycook (1990 1999 2001) as well as Norton (1995 1997b 2000) andCanagarajah (1993 1999 2005)

Though the range of critical research is outside the scope of thisdiscussion we highlight one area of interest language and identity thathas gained footing in the field and become a research area in its ownright It has been addressed in a special issue of TESOL Quarterly(Norton 1997a) as well as in numerous other publications From asociocultural perspective our identities are shaped by and through ourlanguage use (Norton 1995 1997b 2000 Pavlenko amp Blackledge 2003)Although issues of identity and learning have been treated in all of thesociocultural approaches to learning that we have discussed so far wethink it is appropriate to mention them here because they often exploreand critique the ways in which the patterning of power relationships canlegitimate some identities and forms of participation but devalue othersAs such language learners have much more at stake than merelydeveloping competence in an additional linguistic code As Morgan(1998) notes ldquolanguage lsquoconditionsrsquo our expectations and desires andcommunicates what might be possible in terms of ourselvesmdashour iden-titymdashand the lsquorealitiesrsquo we might developrdquo (p 12)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURALTENSIONS AND DEBATES

As we have seen the SLA field in the past 15 years has expandedfrom a largely cognitive orientation to include sociocultural approachessuch as those just documented This expansion we believe is one ofthe main reasons the SLA field has during the past 15 years witnesseddebates and tensions that in their cross-paradigm criticisms and

44 TESOL QUARTERLY

ontological disagreements are more fundamental than the (largely)intraparadigm issues surrounding for example the relative validity ofoptions for eliciting speech that received attention in the earlierdecades of SLA This said we would not however go as far as Larsen-Freeman (2002) in describing the current SLA field as being ldquoin a stateof turmoilrdquo (p 33) We prefer Lantolfrsquos (1996) more positive acceptingportrayal of the SLA field as ldquoincredibly and happily diverse creativeoften contentious and always full of controversyrdquo (p 738)

In this section we discuss two debates that originated within the past15 years and still continue These debates are arguably the mostimportant given their ontological differences the great amount ofattention the SLA field has paid them at conferences in the literatureand on a more cynical note the wrestling for academic territory thatsome have seen in them Each debate shakes out as the cognitivists andsocioculturalists arguing with each other for reasons we hope to makeclear However we feel that such labels (cognitivists socioculturalists) ifused as the primary characterizations of the debates would obscure themore basic ontological differences that underlie the arguments Thoughthe two debates are related each originated in and focused on differentconceptions conceptions that we feel are more important means offraming and understanding each of the debates Framing by conceptionthen we first discuss the debate around understandings of learning4 andafter that the debate about theory construction in SLA

The Debate Around the Understanding of Learning in SLA

At the 1996 annual conference of the International Association ofApplied Linguistics (AILA) in Jyvaumlskylauml Finland Alan Firth and JohannesWagner (1996) organized a symposium in which they delivered a paperarguing that SLA had long been dominated by cognitive views of thelearner and learning as individualistic mentalistic and as functioningindependent of the context and use of the language Following theirpaper several presenters took a variety of positions vis-agrave-vis Firth andWagnerrsquos critique (One of the authors attended that symposium andremembers that the atmosphere was quite electric) Although Firth andWagner were not necessarily the first to raise such criticism of the field(see eg Bremer Roberts Vasseur Simonot amp Broeder 1996 Hall1995 Rampton 1987) attention to Firth and Wagnerrsquos criticism inparticular with prominent respondents (eg Joan Kelly Hall Gabriele

4 Though earlier SLA work sometimes differentiated learning from acquisition following thedistinction made by Krashen (eg 1982 1985) we understand the two terms as synonymousOur understanding reflects the fieldrsquos current position given that Krashenrsquos theory has fallenout of favor

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 45

Kasper Nanda Poulisse Michael Long) from varying orientations offer-ing support or declaring opposition was guaranteed when in 1997 theirsymposium papers were published along with additional response papersin the Modern Language Journal (see Firth amp Wagner 1997) The debateintensified further after the Modern Language Journal published SusanGassrsquos (1998) response to Firth and Wagner and Firth and Wagnerrsquos(1998) response to Gass5

Firth and Wagner (1997) criticize the field of SLA for its overwhelm-ingly cognitive orientation in defining and researching the learner andlearning Such an approach too strongly emphasizes the individual theinternalization of mental processes and ldquothe development of grammati-cal competencerdquo (p 288) Meaning does not occur they argue inldquoprivate thoughts executed and then transferred from brain to brain but[as] a social and negotiable product of interaction transcending indi-vidual intentions and behavioursrdquo (p 290) Like other humans alanguage learner should be considered a ldquoparticipant-as-language-lsquouserrsquoin social interactionrdquo (p 286) It is time they say to question the fieldrsquosdivision of language use (as consigned to the social) from languagelearning (as the individualized decontextualized domain of the cogni-tive) An SLA field reformulated according to Firth and Wagnerrsquosargument would help us gain more comprehension of ldquohow language isused as it is being acquired through interaction and used resourcefullycontingently and contextuallyrdquo (p 296) Reiterating their view oflearning in their response to Gass (1998) they invoke Vygotsky inasserting that ldquocognitive structures are influenced and indeed devel-oped through engagement in social activity From this perspective itcan be said that language use forms cognitionrdquo (Firth amp Wagner 1998p 92)

Firth and Wagnerrsquos argument that learning (or acquisition) occursthrough use would find support not just in Vygotsky but also in the othersociocultural perspectives discussed in this article In fact Kramsch(2002) points out that the unifying thread running through her editedcollection ldquois a common dissatisfaction with the traditional separationbetween language acquisition and language socializationrdquo (p 4) lan-guage socialization being one of the sociocultural perspectives promi-nent in current SLA Some go further In her contribution to theKramsch collection Larsen-Freeman (2002) appears to be beyondldquodissatisfactionrdquo in declaring that ldquothe failure to consider language userdquois one of the ldquomost trenchant criticisms of mainstream SLA researchrdquo (p34) the other being the lack of balance between the social and thecognitive

5 For reprints of some of the papers as well as commentary see Seidlhofer (2003) Larsen-Freeman (2002) provides a very concise summary of the debate

46 TESOL QUARTERLY

Although some of the respondents (namely Hall 1997 and Liddicoat1997) support Firth and Wagnerrsquos argument it is the opposing respon-dents whose position we summarize particularly thosemdashLong (1997)Kasper (1997) and Gass (1998)mdashwho assert strong opposition to Firthand Wagnerrsquos claim that we should not separate acquisition and usebecause use is actually how learning takes place Perhaps because theyshare a cognitive orientation all three give basically the same responsemaintaining a strong split between acquisition and use To Kasper(1997) the ldquomost nagging problemrdquo with Firth and Wagnerrsquos paper isthat it ldquohas in fact very little to say about L2 acquisitionrdquo (p 310) becauseas she sees it although social context can influence SLA the SLA processitself is essentially cognitive Long (1997) completely agrees ending hisresponse by offering his ldquoskepticism as to whether greater insights intoSL use will necessarily have much to say about SL acquisitionrdquo (p 322) Andthough Gass (1998) concedes that perhaps ldquosome parts of language areconstructed sociallyrdquo that in itself does not imply that ldquowe cannotinvestigate language as an abstract entity that resides in the individualrdquo(p 88) maintaining in so doing her view of learning as largely anindividualized mental process Drawing a figure characterizing the fieldGass (1998) presents ldquoSLArdquo and ldquoSL Userdquo as together making upresearch on ldquoSecond Language Studiesrdquo but it is important that shedraws ldquoSLArdquo and ldquoSL Userdquo as branches that are separate and uncon-nected (p 88)

As Larsen-Freeman (2002) points out this debate is irresolvablebecause it involves two different ontological positions that reflect ldquofunda-mental differences in the way they frame their understanding of learn-ingrdquo (p 37) What one might hope for though is that ldquowe agree todisagreerdquo as the expression goes and accept that contrasting views oflearning can stimulate rather than befuddle the field

The Debate on Theory Construction in SLAPositivism Versus Relativism

During the past 15 years the SLA field has devoted more attention tometatheoretical and metamethodological concerns than it had in earlierdecades The most prominent debate has concerned theory constructionin SLA Though others have written (and continue to write) on theoryconstruction6 we have selected a set of authors and articles rangingfrom 1991 to 2000 that comprise a coherent debate for discussion Thediscussion we profile of theory constructionmdashin fact any discussion oftheory constructionmdashaddresses a complex subject that raises a number

6 See for example Atkinson (2002) McGroarty (1998) and van Lier (1991 1994)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 47

of questions We have distilled from the discussion the authorsrsquo debateon positivism versus relativism in theory construction The tensions anddifferences it raises reflect a new dynamic entering the field one thatcontinues and that results from we believe the arrival on the SLA sceneof the sociocultural perspectives we discussed earlier7

Beretta (1991) framed a discussion of theory construction by address-ing issues such as whether or not (what he saw as) a diversity of theoriesand criteria in SLA represents a problem that is should this diversity bereduced to one or a few theories Considering different approaches totheory building Beretta arrives at a clear conclusion in favor of fewrather than many theories viewing the former as the result of ldquorational-ityrdquo and the latter the outcome of ldquorelativismrdquo (p 495) Comparing SLAto the ldquoalready-successful sciencesrdquo (p 497 ie the so-called hardsciences) Beretta says that because these fields do not unlike SLA haveldquomultiple rival theoriesrdquo (p 497) it is not beneficial for SLA to havemany theories either He goes on to state that the ldquomost anarchiccriterion of allrdquo is that of ldquono criterionrdquo (p 501) Referring to what hecalls ldquoextreme relativismrdquo Berettarsquos nightmare scenario is one in whichphenomena are not independent of but ldquoalways relative to the values ofindividuals and communitiesrdquo (p 501) This ldquowhateverrdquo position (to usea current slang term) implies that ldquopoetry voodoo religion and non-sense are no less valid bases for belief than lsquosciencersquordquo (p 501) Clearlythen Beretta supports theory building only from a rationalistpositivist8

paradigm and certainly not from a relativist one He is not aloneAlthough Crookes (1992) does not address relativism his agreementwith Berretta is implicit in his adherence to a positivistic notion ofscience as the gold standard in considering theory construction9

The debate continued with the publication of a special issue of AppliedLinguistics in 1993 titled ldquoTheory Construction in SLArdquo which containspapers from a 1991 conference at Michigan State University titledldquoTheory Construction and Methodology in Second Language ResearchrdquoAlmost all of the contributors (ie Beretta Long Crookes Gregg)10 take

7 To follow the debate the reader should consult in this order Beretta (1991) Crookes(1992) Beretta (1993) Block (1996) Gregg Long Jordan amp Beretta (1997) Lantolf (1996)and Gregg (2000)

8 Though Beretta states that positivism is not a viable paradigm any longer he appears to bekeeping to positivism nevertheless taking perhaps a postpositivistic stance instead Forinformation on the two positions (which are within the same paradigm) see for example Gubaand Lincoln (1998) Because we see positivism and postpositivism as matters of degree ratherthan substance and because positivism is the better known term in the field we will use positivismto describe Berettarsquos and othersrsquo positions

9 Such a characterization of science (as equivalent to positivism) may be simplistic We thankone of the anonymous reviewers for pointing this out

10 The exception is Schumann (1993) who argues to oversimplify it that art and science arenot that different Because Schumannrsquos position is similar to that of the other relativists that wediscuss we will not focus on him here

48 TESOL QUARTERLY

a similar position that although it does not necessarily mention relativ-ism explicitly nevertheless implicitly opposes it by supporting positivismas the (sole) paradigm for cognitive research on SLA Beretta andCrookes (1993) dismiss the argument that the social can cause thecontent of theories they argue that social conditions are not only notsufficient but are not necessary ldquofor scientific discoveryrdquo(p 253) Gregg(1993) like Beretta and Crookes (1993) does not attack relativismdirectly Nevertheless it is clear that Gregg (1993) opposes relativism ldquoInSLA the overall explanandum is the acquisition (or non-acquisition)of L2 competence in the Chomskyan sense of the termrdquo (p 278) Andthe criteria that Gregg chooses for discussing theory constructiontransition theories and property theories come from psychology (ieCummins 1983) Thus in what becomes an ongoing metaphor in thedebate Greggrsquos ldquoLet a Couple of Flowers Bloomrdquo does not advocate arelativistrsquos acceptance of a multiplicity of theories but advocates ldquoacouplerdquo as opposed to many and within a cognitive and positivisticframework

Adapting Greggrsquos metaphor Lantolfrsquos (1996) article subtitled ldquoLet-ting All the Flowers Bloomrdquo not surprisingly supports relativism andopposes positivism Though Blockrsquos (1996) article is more wide-ranginghe too argues for relativism ldquoReality is a social and therefore multipleconstruction there is no tangible fragmentable reality on to whichscience can convergerdquo (p 69 citing Lincoln 1990) However that doesnot mean that everything is acceptable Block asserts Though heacknowledges that relativism and positivism are two fundamentallydifferent ontologies he argues again citing Lincoln (1990) that ratherthan throwing their hands up at the situation relativists attempt to findpatterns ldquoworking hypotheses or temporary time-and-place-bound knowl-edgerdquo (Block 1996 p 69) Coming from a similar position Lantolf(1996) provides a ldquopostmodernist critical analysisrdquo of the theory-buildingliterature of Gregg Long Crookes and others pointing out that theyare all clearly dedicated to the rationalistpositivist paradigm in the SLAfield and adding ironically that they ldquoshare a common fear of thedreaded lsquorelativismrsquordquo (p 715) In fact Lantolf coins a term for thiscondition relativaphobia (p 731) In a detailed set of points Lantolfargues against what he sees as the hegemony of the positivistic echoingBlockrsquos (1996) accusation of ldquoscience envyrdquo (p 64) in accusing Greggand the others of having ldquophysics envyrdquo (p 717) Where Gregg and theothers consider the existence within SLA of multiple and incommensu-rable theories an obstacle to the development and maturation of thefield Lantolf (1996) encourages ldquoLetting All the Flowers Bloomrdquowarning that otherwise ldquoonce theoretical hegemony is achieved alterna-tive metaphors are cut off or suffocated by the single official metaphor

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 49

subsequently those who espouse different world views cease to havea voicerdquo (p 739)

Both Block (1996) and Lantolf (1996) generated response articlesGregg Long Jordan and Beretta (1997) critiqued the Block articlewhile Gregg (2000) responded to Lantolf (1996) by presenting anegative summary of postmodernism Writing from within their positivistparadigm Gregg Long Jordan and Beretta (1997) accept Blockrsquoscriticism that they have ldquoscience envyrdquo

Let us grant that many or even all of us in the field have the occasional twingeof envy for the accomplishments of other sciences given the fairly feebleprogress made so far in SLA and the magnificent intellectual achievementsof the more successful sciences such envy would certainly be unsurprising(p 543)

Unfortunately their stance becomes both smug and naiumlve For exampleGregg and his colleagues (1997) declare a state of ldquodisbeliefrdquo in Blockrsquospoint that controlling for extraneous variables in SLA research isldquoprobably not even desirablerdquo (p 544 quoting Block 1996 p 74)Continuing they declare ldquoDo we actually need to point out thedisastrous consequences of Blockrsquos lsquostancersquo for SLA or indeed for anyintellectual inquiryrdquo (p 544) No one invoking a positivist paradigmwould disagree with their critique because one of the paradigmrsquosprinciples is indeed the manipulation of variables which includescontrolling wherever possible for extraneous variables However whatGregg and colleagues (1997) fail to recognize is that Blockrsquos statementcomes from a different (relativist) paradigm rendering their responseirrelevant

In his critique of Lantolf (1996) Gregg (2000) does not directlyreiterate the anti-relativist pro-positivist argument that he and hiscolleagues had already published elsewhere Instead he begins bysummarizing (negatively) postmodernism the approach that Lantolf(1996) takes in his article Describing postmodernism Gregg discussesits stance that among other things instead of written texts havingobjective meaningmdashthat of the textrsquos authormdashmeaning is generated asthe reader interacts with the text Greggrsquos response to this stance revealshis reluctance (or inability) to think outside of his paradigm ldquoSuch aperspective strikes me as nonsenserdquo (p 386) On the other hand hetakes ldquothe common-sense position that the meaning of sentences canusually be agreed upon and that there generally are correct andincorrect interpretations of (meaningful) sentencesrdquo (pp 386ndash387)

Concluding his discussion of postmodernism Gregg (2000) assertsagain from within his paradigm

50 TESOL QUARTERLY

It is no accident that postmodernism originated as a movement amongliterary critics and cultural philosophers It flourishes that is precisely inthose areas of intellectual activity where decisive evidence is extremely hard tofind Faced with a range of disciplines that are actually making progress the postmodernists tried to turn the tables on the sciences Ratherthan claiming that the grapes of science are sour the postmodernist assuresus that there are no grapes To put it a bit differently one can seepostmodernism as a sophisticated way for academics in the humanities toovercome their own ldquophysics envyrdquo (pp 389ndash390)

With that memorable point of view we will end our discussion of thetheory construction debate On the positive side we agree that debateslike this stimulate a field And debates being debates it is not necessaryor relevant to try to come to agreement After all (as we indicated indiscussing the debate about learning) the debate on theory constructionis occurring across very different paradigms with contradictory views ofreality Although the debate can be framed as occurring betweencognitivists and socioculturalists we have emphasized a more fundamen-tal difference Like Lantolf (1996) we view as positive a field in whichpossibly incommensurable theories proliferate and are debated ratherthan allowing one theory to dominate without being problematized Weare only sorry that so much energy has gone into some participantsrsquorefusal to admit (or understand) that these positions on theory areincommensurable because they stem from contradictory ontologies Andthe smug tone that some of the debate takes is therefore not only naiumlvebut unfair

Though we have discussed a debate whose outcome is incommensura-bility some argue for cognitive-sociocultural integration Authors takevarying approaches in making their argument For example Larsen-Freeman (2002) proposes chaoscomplexity theory as a means ofaccommodating both sociocultural and cognitive perspectives withinSLA Block (2003) cites several pieces of research that argue for thecomplementarity of cognitive and sociocultural views namely Ellis(2000) Swain and Lapkin (1998) Tarone and Liu (1995) and Teutsch-Dwyer (2001) However Block himself does not take a clear positionsupporting integration Instead he advocates a ldquomore multidisciplinaryand socially informed futurerdquo for those following the input-interactiontradition (p 139) Making a somewhat different argument Watson-Gegeo (2004) sees a possible new ldquosynthesisrdquo of the cognitive with thesociocultural because of developments in the field that view cognition asa phenomenon which ldquooriginates in social interaction and is shaped bycultural and sociopolitical processesrdquo (p 331) Thorne (2005) andLantolf (2000) envision Vygotskyan theory in particular as providing alens for viewing social context as central to the development of cognition(see also Johnson 2004)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 51

IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVESFOR CLASSROOM PRACTICE

Hall (2002) observes that traditional SLA approaches seek to identifygood pedagogical interventions that will most effectively ldquofacilitatelearnersrsquo assimilation of new systemic knowledge into known knowledgestructuresrdquo (p 48) However given their different understandings oflanguage learning socioculturally informed studies offer much differentrecommendations for improving classroom practice For example inseeing learning as participation as relational and interactive and asconstrained by unequal power relations Lave and Wengerrsquos perspectiveasks educators to consider how the practices of school relate to thoseoutside of school how schools and classrooms themselves are organizedinto communities of practice and what kinds of participation are madeaccessible to students

Other studies taking sociocultural perspectives have examined class-room interactions or discourse patterns with an eye toward identifyingthose that best facilitate student participation (Gutierrez Rymes ampLarsen 1995 Nassaji amp Wells 2000 Nystrand Gamoran Zeiser amp Long2003 Tharp amp Gallimore 1991) Still others have examined such topicsas the kinds of guided or scaffolded assistance from teachers (or otherexperts) that can move students along within their ZPD (Aljaafreh ampLantolf 1994 Anton 1999 McCormick amp Donato 2000 Nassaji ampCumming 2000) the effectiveness of goal-oriented dialogue betweenpeers to mediate learning (Donato 1994 Ohta 2000 Swain amp Lapkin1998) and the need for dialogic and contextually sensitive approachesto language assessment ( Johnson 2001 2004) These studies are only afew among many but they share the sociocultural awareness that highlysituated classroom participation promotes language learning

We acknowledge that we do not specify general recommendations fortransforming classroom practices primarily because we are aware of thelimits of what can be generalized across classroom contexts Hall (2000)speaks to the situatedness of learning processes in saying that ldquoeffectingchange in our classrooms will not result from imposing solutions fromoutside but from nurturing effectual practices that are indigenous to ourparticular contextsrdquo (p 295) Clearly this is no easy task for educators Itrequires ongoing and intense work with every group of students andreflective awareness of how the affective and political dimensions ofclassroom life affect individual studentsrsquo participation However with theincreased awareness and sensitivity to local contexts that socioculturalperspectives bring us we have reason to hope that we are closer tounderstanding and creating the kinds of classroom communities thatlearners need

52 TESOL QUARTERLY

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

Although it is difficult to make predictions about the next 15 years insuch a dynamic field we end our article by looking forward to somedevelopments we consider exciting and worth watching Among them iswork in conversation analysis investigating language learning as it occursin the turn-by-turn development of conversational processes (see egMarkee 2004) developments in discursive psychology (not yet emergentin SLA but relevant for researchers interested in learner positioningwithin social practices see eg Davies amp Harreacute 1990) a growth in workfocusing on postcolonial transnational and World Englishes (egCanagarajah 2000 Jenkins 2003 also this issue Kachru 2001 Pennycook1998 Rampton 1995) and explorations in the new kinds of discursivepractices that language learners engage when using new technologies(see especially Gee 2003 Kern this issue Lam 2000 Thorne 2003 andWarschauer 1997) We are eager to see what unfolds

THE AUTHORS

Jane Zuengler is a professor in the English Department at the University ofWisconsinndashMadison Her research and teaching interests include second languageacquisition and use classroom discourse analysis critical perspectives on languageand the global spread of English

Elizabeth R Miller is a doctoral candidate in the English Department at theUniversity of WisconsinndashMadison Her research interests include second languageacquisition and use microanalytic discourse analysis and critical and poststructuralperspectives on language pedagogy and ideology

REFERENCES

Adair-Hauck B amp Donato R (1994) Foreign language explanations within thezone of proximal development The Canadian Modern Language Review 50 532ndash555

Aljaafreh A amp Lantolf J P (1994) Negative feedback as regulation and secondlanguage learning in the zone of proximal development The Modern LanguageJournal 78 465ndash483

Anton M (1999) The discourse of a learner-centered classroom Socioculturalperspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second language classroom TheModern Language Journal 83 303ndash318

Anton M amp DiCamilla F (1998) Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborativeinteraction in the L2 classroom The Canadian Modern Language Review 54 314ndash342

Atkinson D (2002) Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisi-tion The Modern Language Journal 86 525ndash545

Atkinson D (2003) Language socialization and dys-socialization in a South Indiancollege In R Bayley amp S R Schechter (Eds) Language socialization in bilingualand multilingual societies (pp 147ndash168) Clevedon England Multilingual Matters

42 TESOL QUARTERLY

people take othersrsquo utterances in coming to own a languagemdashwithin aspecific social space and historical moment Bakhtinian theory overlapsin important ways with situated learning Though Hall (1995 2002) andJohnson (2004) have extensively discussed Bakhtinrsquos ideas and theirapplicability for understanding second language learning most secondlanguage researchers have drawn on select concepts from Bakhtinrsquosphilosophical writings and as with situated learning have folded them inwith other sociocultural frameworks

Like the sociocultural theories already described we find that Bakhtin(1981) stresses the sociality of intellectual processes in claiming thatldquolanguage for the individual consciousness lies on the border betweenoneself and the otherrdquo (p 293) One of the key concepts in Bakhtinrsquoswritings frequently invoked in SLA research is dialogism the mutualparticipation of speakers and hearers in the construction of utterancesand the connectedness of all utterances to past and future expressionsThus the linguistic resources we use and learn can never be seen asmerely part of a ldquoneutral and impersonal languagerdquo rather Bakhtinviewed our use of language as an appropriation of words that at one timeldquoexist[ed] in other peoplersquos mouthsrdquo before we make them our own (pp293ndash294) Hall (2002) explains that in this view an utterance ldquocan onlybe understood fully by considering its history of use by other people inother places for other reasonsrdquo (p 13) Within this framework Toohey(2000) describes language learning as a process in which learners ldquotry onother peoplersquos utterances they take words from other peoplersquos mouthsthey appropriate these utterances and gradually (but not without conflict)these utterances come to serve their needs and relay their meaningsrdquo(p 13)

Packaged with dialogism is Bakhtinrsquos understanding of the inherentlyideological nature of language In agreeing that ldquoall language is politi-calrdquo Hall (1995) asserts that the ldquoauthority and privilege residing incertain interactive resources result from sociopolitical and historicalforces surrounding their userdquo (p 214) Every utterance we producereveals our stance toward the interlocutors involved signaling our socialpositioning within the local interaction and in response to largersociopolitical forces This ideological nature of language is foregroundedby critical theorists who see the role of power relations as primary forunderstanding the social world both in broader social worlds as well asin our very local social practices

Critical Theory

From the point of view of critical theory being socialized into thepractices of a community includes learning onersquos place in the sociopolitical

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 43

organization of those practices Researchers who incorporate criticaltheory into their exploration of second language learning argue that onemust account for relations of power in order to gain a fuller understand-ing of the practices and interactions in which learners participatemdashandthus of their learning processes But what is more important theseresearchers contend that this understanding should then lead to socialand educational change such that more equitable social relations can beeffected particularly in the interests of disenfranchised groups andindividuals It is interesting that in contrast to the theory of legitimateperipheral participation (Lave amp Wenger 1991) in which learners areviewed as learning their marginalized participation critical theoriststend to view marginalized members of a community as having theiraccess to learning blocked because they may be prevented from partici-pating meaningfully in target-language social practices The critical focusin second language learning has been strongly influenced by the work ofPennycook (1990 1999 2001) as well as Norton (1995 1997b 2000) andCanagarajah (1993 1999 2005)

Though the range of critical research is outside the scope of thisdiscussion we highlight one area of interest language and identity thathas gained footing in the field and become a research area in its ownright It has been addressed in a special issue of TESOL Quarterly(Norton 1997a) as well as in numerous other publications From asociocultural perspective our identities are shaped by and through ourlanguage use (Norton 1995 1997b 2000 Pavlenko amp Blackledge 2003)Although issues of identity and learning have been treated in all of thesociocultural approaches to learning that we have discussed so far wethink it is appropriate to mention them here because they often exploreand critique the ways in which the patterning of power relationships canlegitimate some identities and forms of participation but devalue othersAs such language learners have much more at stake than merelydeveloping competence in an additional linguistic code As Morgan(1998) notes ldquolanguage lsquoconditionsrsquo our expectations and desires andcommunicates what might be possible in terms of ourselvesmdashour iden-titymdashand the lsquorealitiesrsquo we might developrdquo (p 12)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURALTENSIONS AND DEBATES

As we have seen the SLA field in the past 15 years has expandedfrom a largely cognitive orientation to include sociocultural approachessuch as those just documented This expansion we believe is one ofthe main reasons the SLA field has during the past 15 years witnesseddebates and tensions that in their cross-paradigm criticisms and

44 TESOL QUARTERLY

ontological disagreements are more fundamental than the (largely)intraparadigm issues surrounding for example the relative validity ofoptions for eliciting speech that received attention in the earlierdecades of SLA This said we would not however go as far as Larsen-Freeman (2002) in describing the current SLA field as being ldquoin a stateof turmoilrdquo (p 33) We prefer Lantolfrsquos (1996) more positive acceptingportrayal of the SLA field as ldquoincredibly and happily diverse creativeoften contentious and always full of controversyrdquo (p 738)

In this section we discuss two debates that originated within the past15 years and still continue These debates are arguably the mostimportant given their ontological differences the great amount ofattention the SLA field has paid them at conferences in the literatureand on a more cynical note the wrestling for academic territory thatsome have seen in them Each debate shakes out as the cognitivists andsocioculturalists arguing with each other for reasons we hope to makeclear However we feel that such labels (cognitivists socioculturalists) ifused as the primary characterizations of the debates would obscure themore basic ontological differences that underlie the arguments Thoughthe two debates are related each originated in and focused on differentconceptions conceptions that we feel are more important means offraming and understanding each of the debates Framing by conceptionthen we first discuss the debate around understandings of learning4 andafter that the debate about theory construction in SLA

The Debate Around the Understanding of Learning in SLA

At the 1996 annual conference of the International Association ofApplied Linguistics (AILA) in Jyvaumlskylauml Finland Alan Firth and JohannesWagner (1996) organized a symposium in which they delivered a paperarguing that SLA had long been dominated by cognitive views of thelearner and learning as individualistic mentalistic and as functioningindependent of the context and use of the language Following theirpaper several presenters took a variety of positions vis-agrave-vis Firth andWagnerrsquos critique (One of the authors attended that symposium andremembers that the atmosphere was quite electric) Although Firth andWagner were not necessarily the first to raise such criticism of the field(see eg Bremer Roberts Vasseur Simonot amp Broeder 1996 Hall1995 Rampton 1987) attention to Firth and Wagnerrsquos criticism inparticular with prominent respondents (eg Joan Kelly Hall Gabriele

4 Though earlier SLA work sometimes differentiated learning from acquisition following thedistinction made by Krashen (eg 1982 1985) we understand the two terms as synonymousOur understanding reflects the fieldrsquos current position given that Krashenrsquos theory has fallenout of favor

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 45

Kasper Nanda Poulisse Michael Long) from varying orientations offer-ing support or declaring opposition was guaranteed when in 1997 theirsymposium papers were published along with additional response papersin the Modern Language Journal (see Firth amp Wagner 1997) The debateintensified further after the Modern Language Journal published SusanGassrsquos (1998) response to Firth and Wagner and Firth and Wagnerrsquos(1998) response to Gass5

Firth and Wagner (1997) criticize the field of SLA for its overwhelm-ingly cognitive orientation in defining and researching the learner andlearning Such an approach too strongly emphasizes the individual theinternalization of mental processes and ldquothe development of grammati-cal competencerdquo (p 288) Meaning does not occur they argue inldquoprivate thoughts executed and then transferred from brain to brain but[as] a social and negotiable product of interaction transcending indi-vidual intentions and behavioursrdquo (p 290) Like other humans alanguage learner should be considered a ldquoparticipant-as-language-lsquouserrsquoin social interactionrdquo (p 286) It is time they say to question the fieldrsquosdivision of language use (as consigned to the social) from languagelearning (as the individualized decontextualized domain of the cogni-tive) An SLA field reformulated according to Firth and Wagnerrsquosargument would help us gain more comprehension of ldquohow language isused as it is being acquired through interaction and used resourcefullycontingently and contextuallyrdquo (p 296) Reiterating their view oflearning in their response to Gass (1998) they invoke Vygotsky inasserting that ldquocognitive structures are influenced and indeed devel-oped through engagement in social activity From this perspective itcan be said that language use forms cognitionrdquo (Firth amp Wagner 1998p 92)

Firth and Wagnerrsquos argument that learning (or acquisition) occursthrough use would find support not just in Vygotsky but also in the othersociocultural perspectives discussed in this article In fact Kramsch(2002) points out that the unifying thread running through her editedcollection ldquois a common dissatisfaction with the traditional separationbetween language acquisition and language socializationrdquo (p 4) lan-guage socialization being one of the sociocultural perspectives promi-nent in current SLA Some go further In her contribution to theKramsch collection Larsen-Freeman (2002) appears to be beyondldquodissatisfactionrdquo in declaring that ldquothe failure to consider language userdquois one of the ldquomost trenchant criticisms of mainstream SLA researchrdquo (p34) the other being the lack of balance between the social and thecognitive

5 For reprints of some of the papers as well as commentary see Seidlhofer (2003) Larsen-Freeman (2002) provides a very concise summary of the debate

46 TESOL QUARTERLY

Although some of the respondents (namely Hall 1997 and Liddicoat1997) support Firth and Wagnerrsquos argument it is the opposing respon-dents whose position we summarize particularly thosemdashLong (1997)Kasper (1997) and Gass (1998)mdashwho assert strong opposition to Firthand Wagnerrsquos claim that we should not separate acquisition and usebecause use is actually how learning takes place Perhaps because theyshare a cognitive orientation all three give basically the same responsemaintaining a strong split between acquisition and use To Kasper(1997) the ldquomost nagging problemrdquo with Firth and Wagnerrsquos paper isthat it ldquohas in fact very little to say about L2 acquisitionrdquo (p 310) becauseas she sees it although social context can influence SLA the SLA processitself is essentially cognitive Long (1997) completely agrees ending hisresponse by offering his ldquoskepticism as to whether greater insights intoSL use will necessarily have much to say about SL acquisitionrdquo (p 322) Andthough Gass (1998) concedes that perhaps ldquosome parts of language areconstructed sociallyrdquo that in itself does not imply that ldquowe cannotinvestigate language as an abstract entity that resides in the individualrdquo(p 88) maintaining in so doing her view of learning as largely anindividualized mental process Drawing a figure characterizing the fieldGass (1998) presents ldquoSLArdquo and ldquoSL Userdquo as together making upresearch on ldquoSecond Language Studiesrdquo but it is important that shedraws ldquoSLArdquo and ldquoSL Userdquo as branches that are separate and uncon-nected (p 88)

As Larsen-Freeman (2002) points out this debate is irresolvablebecause it involves two different ontological positions that reflect ldquofunda-mental differences in the way they frame their understanding of learn-ingrdquo (p 37) What one might hope for though is that ldquowe agree todisagreerdquo as the expression goes and accept that contrasting views oflearning can stimulate rather than befuddle the field

The Debate on Theory Construction in SLAPositivism Versus Relativism

During the past 15 years the SLA field has devoted more attention tometatheoretical and metamethodological concerns than it had in earlierdecades The most prominent debate has concerned theory constructionin SLA Though others have written (and continue to write) on theoryconstruction6 we have selected a set of authors and articles rangingfrom 1991 to 2000 that comprise a coherent debate for discussion Thediscussion we profile of theory constructionmdashin fact any discussion oftheory constructionmdashaddresses a complex subject that raises a number

6 See for example Atkinson (2002) McGroarty (1998) and van Lier (1991 1994)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 47

of questions We have distilled from the discussion the authorsrsquo debateon positivism versus relativism in theory construction The tensions anddifferences it raises reflect a new dynamic entering the field one thatcontinues and that results from we believe the arrival on the SLA sceneof the sociocultural perspectives we discussed earlier7

Beretta (1991) framed a discussion of theory construction by address-ing issues such as whether or not (what he saw as) a diversity of theoriesand criteria in SLA represents a problem that is should this diversity bereduced to one or a few theories Considering different approaches totheory building Beretta arrives at a clear conclusion in favor of fewrather than many theories viewing the former as the result of ldquorational-ityrdquo and the latter the outcome of ldquorelativismrdquo (p 495) Comparing SLAto the ldquoalready-successful sciencesrdquo (p 497 ie the so-called hardsciences) Beretta says that because these fields do not unlike SLA haveldquomultiple rival theoriesrdquo (p 497) it is not beneficial for SLA to havemany theories either He goes on to state that the ldquomost anarchiccriterion of allrdquo is that of ldquono criterionrdquo (p 501) Referring to what hecalls ldquoextreme relativismrdquo Berettarsquos nightmare scenario is one in whichphenomena are not independent of but ldquoalways relative to the values ofindividuals and communitiesrdquo (p 501) This ldquowhateverrdquo position (to usea current slang term) implies that ldquopoetry voodoo religion and non-sense are no less valid bases for belief than lsquosciencersquordquo (p 501) Clearlythen Beretta supports theory building only from a rationalistpositivist8

paradigm and certainly not from a relativist one He is not aloneAlthough Crookes (1992) does not address relativism his agreementwith Berretta is implicit in his adherence to a positivistic notion ofscience as the gold standard in considering theory construction9

The debate continued with the publication of a special issue of AppliedLinguistics in 1993 titled ldquoTheory Construction in SLArdquo which containspapers from a 1991 conference at Michigan State University titledldquoTheory Construction and Methodology in Second Language ResearchrdquoAlmost all of the contributors (ie Beretta Long Crookes Gregg)10 take

7 To follow the debate the reader should consult in this order Beretta (1991) Crookes(1992) Beretta (1993) Block (1996) Gregg Long Jordan amp Beretta (1997) Lantolf (1996)and Gregg (2000)

8 Though Beretta states that positivism is not a viable paradigm any longer he appears to bekeeping to positivism nevertheless taking perhaps a postpositivistic stance instead Forinformation on the two positions (which are within the same paradigm) see for example Gubaand Lincoln (1998) Because we see positivism and postpositivism as matters of degree ratherthan substance and because positivism is the better known term in the field we will use positivismto describe Berettarsquos and othersrsquo positions

9 Such a characterization of science (as equivalent to positivism) may be simplistic We thankone of the anonymous reviewers for pointing this out

10 The exception is Schumann (1993) who argues to oversimplify it that art and science arenot that different Because Schumannrsquos position is similar to that of the other relativists that wediscuss we will not focus on him here

48 TESOL QUARTERLY

a similar position that although it does not necessarily mention relativ-ism explicitly nevertheless implicitly opposes it by supporting positivismas the (sole) paradigm for cognitive research on SLA Beretta andCrookes (1993) dismiss the argument that the social can cause thecontent of theories they argue that social conditions are not only notsufficient but are not necessary ldquofor scientific discoveryrdquo(p 253) Gregg(1993) like Beretta and Crookes (1993) does not attack relativismdirectly Nevertheless it is clear that Gregg (1993) opposes relativism ldquoInSLA the overall explanandum is the acquisition (or non-acquisition)of L2 competence in the Chomskyan sense of the termrdquo (p 278) Andthe criteria that Gregg chooses for discussing theory constructiontransition theories and property theories come from psychology (ieCummins 1983) Thus in what becomes an ongoing metaphor in thedebate Greggrsquos ldquoLet a Couple of Flowers Bloomrdquo does not advocate arelativistrsquos acceptance of a multiplicity of theories but advocates ldquoacouplerdquo as opposed to many and within a cognitive and positivisticframework

Adapting Greggrsquos metaphor Lantolfrsquos (1996) article subtitled ldquoLet-ting All the Flowers Bloomrdquo not surprisingly supports relativism andopposes positivism Though Blockrsquos (1996) article is more wide-ranginghe too argues for relativism ldquoReality is a social and therefore multipleconstruction there is no tangible fragmentable reality on to whichscience can convergerdquo (p 69 citing Lincoln 1990) However that doesnot mean that everything is acceptable Block asserts Though heacknowledges that relativism and positivism are two fundamentallydifferent ontologies he argues again citing Lincoln (1990) that ratherthan throwing their hands up at the situation relativists attempt to findpatterns ldquoworking hypotheses or temporary time-and-place-bound knowl-edgerdquo (Block 1996 p 69) Coming from a similar position Lantolf(1996) provides a ldquopostmodernist critical analysisrdquo of the theory-buildingliterature of Gregg Long Crookes and others pointing out that theyare all clearly dedicated to the rationalistpositivist paradigm in the SLAfield and adding ironically that they ldquoshare a common fear of thedreaded lsquorelativismrsquordquo (p 715) In fact Lantolf coins a term for thiscondition relativaphobia (p 731) In a detailed set of points Lantolfargues against what he sees as the hegemony of the positivistic echoingBlockrsquos (1996) accusation of ldquoscience envyrdquo (p 64) in accusing Greggand the others of having ldquophysics envyrdquo (p 717) Where Gregg and theothers consider the existence within SLA of multiple and incommensu-rable theories an obstacle to the development and maturation of thefield Lantolf (1996) encourages ldquoLetting All the Flowers Bloomrdquowarning that otherwise ldquoonce theoretical hegemony is achieved alterna-tive metaphors are cut off or suffocated by the single official metaphor

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 49

subsequently those who espouse different world views cease to havea voicerdquo (p 739)

Both Block (1996) and Lantolf (1996) generated response articlesGregg Long Jordan and Beretta (1997) critiqued the Block articlewhile Gregg (2000) responded to Lantolf (1996) by presenting anegative summary of postmodernism Writing from within their positivistparadigm Gregg Long Jordan and Beretta (1997) accept Blockrsquoscriticism that they have ldquoscience envyrdquo

Let us grant that many or even all of us in the field have the occasional twingeof envy for the accomplishments of other sciences given the fairly feebleprogress made so far in SLA and the magnificent intellectual achievementsof the more successful sciences such envy would certainly be unsurprising(p 543)

Unfortunately their stance becomes both smug and naiumlve For exampleGregg and his colleagues (1997) declare a state of ldquodisbeliefrdquo in Blockrsquospoint that controlling for extraneous variables in SLA research isldquoprobably not even desirablerdquo (p 544 quoting Block 1996 p 74)Continuing they declare ldquoDo we actually need to point out thedisastrous consequences of Blockrsquos lsquostancersquo for SLA or indeed for anyintellectual inquiryrdquo (p 544) No one invoking a positivist paradigmwould disagree with their critique because one of the paradigmrsquosprinciples is indeed the manipulation of variables which includescontrolling wherever possible for extraneous variables However whatGregg and colleagues (1997) fail to recognize is that Blockrsquos statementcomes from a different (relativist) paradigm rendering their responseirrelevant

In his critique of Lantolf (1996) Gregg (2000) does not directlyreiterate the anti-relativist pro-positivist argument that he and hiscolleagues had already published elsewhere Instead he begins bysummarizing (negatively) postmodernism the approach that Lantolf(1996) takes in his article Describing postmodernism Gregg discussesits stance that among other things instead of written texts havingobjective meaningmdashthat of the textrsquos authormdashmeaning is generated asthe reader interacts with the text Greggrsquos response to this stance revealshis reluctance (or inability) to think outside of his paradigm ldquoSuch aperspective strikes me as nonsenserdquo (p 386) On the other hand hetakes ldquothe common-sense position that the meaning of sentences canusually be agreed upon and that there generally are correct andincorrect interpretations of (meaningful) sentencesrdquo (pp 386ndash387)

Concluding his discussion of postmodernism Gregg (2000) assertsagain from within his paradigm

50 TESOL QUARTERLY

It is no accident that postmodernism originated as a movement amongliterary critics and cultural philosophers It flourishes that is precisely inthose areas of intellectual activity where decisive evidence is extremely hard tofind Faced with a range of disciplines that are actually making progress the postmodernists tried to turn the tables on the sciences Ratherthan claiming that the grapes of science are sour the postmodernist assuresus that there are no grapes To put it a bit differently one can seepostmodernism as a sophisticated way for academics in the humanities toovercome their own ldquophysics envyrdquo (pp 389ndash390)

With that memorable point of view we will end our discussion of thetheory construction debate On the positive side we agree that debateslike this stimulate a field And debates being debates it is not necessaryor relevant to try to come to agreement After all (as we indicated indiscussing the debate about learning) the debate on theory constructionis occurring across very different paradigms with contradictory views ofreality Although the debate can be framed as occurring betweencognitivists and socioculturalists we have emphasized a more fundamen-tal difference Like Lantolf (1996) we view as positive a field in whichpossibly incommensurable theories proliferate and are debated ratherthan allowing one theory to dominate without being problematized Weare only sorry that so much energy has gone into some participantsrsquorefusal to admit (or understand) that these positions on theory areincommensurable because they stem from contradictory ontologies Andthe smug tone that some of the debate takes is therefore not only naiumlvebut unfair

Though we have discussed a debate whose outcome is incommensura-bility some argue for cognitive-sociocultural integration Authors takevarying approaches in making their argument For example Larsen-Freeman (2002) proposes chaoscomplexity theory as a means ofaccommodating both sociocultural and cognitive perspectives withinSLA Block (2003) cites several pieces of research that argue for thecomplementarity of cognitive and sociocultural views namely Ellis(2000) Swain and Lapkin (1998) Tarone and Liu (1995) and Teutsch-Dwyer (2001) However Block himself does not take a clear positionsupporting integration Instead he advocates a ldquomore multidisciplinaryand socially informed futurerdquo for those following the input-interactiontradition (p 139) Making a somewhat different argument Watson-Gegeo (2004) sees a possible new ldquosynthesisrdquo of the cognitive with thesociocultural because of developments in the field that view cognition asa phenomenon which ldquooriginates in social interaction and is shaped bycultural and sociopolitical processesrdquo (p 331) Thorne (2005) andLantolf (2000) envision Vygotskyan theory in particular as providing alens for viewing social context as central to the development of cognition(see also Johnson 2004)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 51

IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVESFOR CLASSROOM PRACTICE

Hall (2002) observes that traditional SLA approaches seek to identifygood pedagogical interventions that will most effectively ldquofacilitatelearnersrsquo assimilation of new systemic knowledge into known knowledgestructuresrdquo (p 48) However given their different understandings oflanguage learning socioculturally informed studies offer much differentrecommendations for improving classroom practice For example inseeing learning as participation as relational and interactive and asconstrained by unequal power relations Lave and Wengerrsquos perspectiveasks educators to consider how the practices of school relate to thoseoutside of school how schools and classrooms themselves are organizedinto communities of practice and what kinds of participation are madeaccessible to students

Other studies taking sociocultural perspectives have examined class-room interactions or discourse patterns with an eye toward identifyingthose that best facilitate student participation (Gutierrez Rymes ampLarsen 1995 Nassaji amp Wells 2000 Nystrand Gamoran Zeiser amp Long2003 Tharp amp Gallimore 1991) Still others have examined such topicsas the kinds of guided or scaffolded assistance from teachers (or otherexperts) that can move students along within their ZPD (Aljaafreh ampLantolf 1994 Anton 1999 McCormick amp Donato 2000 Nassaji ampCumming 2000) the effectiveness of goal-oriented dialogue betweenpeers to mediate learning (Donato 1994 Ohta 2000 Swain amp Lapkin1998) and the need for dialogic and contextually sensitive approachesto language assessment ( Johnson 2001 2004) These studies are only afew among many but they share the sociocultural awareness that highlysituated classroom participation promotes language learning

We acknowledge that we do not specify general recommendations fortransforming classroom practices primarily because we are aware of thelimits of what can be generalized across classroom contexts Hall (2000)speaks to the situatedness of learning processes in saying that ldquoeffectingchange in our classrooms will not result from imposing solutions fromoutside but from nurturing effectual practices that are indigenous to ourparticular contextsrdquo (p 295) Clearly this is no easy task for educators Itrequires ongoing and intense work with every group of students andreflective awareness of how the affective and political dimensions ofclassroom life affect individual studentsrsquo participation However with theincreased awareness and sensitivity to local contexts that socioculturalperspectives bring us we have reason to hope that we are closer tounderstanding and creating the kinds of classroom communities thatlearners need

52 TESOL QUARTERLY

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

Although it is difficult to make predictions about the next 15 years insuch a dynamic field we end our article by looking forward to somedevelopments we consider exciting and worth watching Among them iswork in conversation analysis investigating language learning as it occursin the turn-by-turn development of conversational processes (see egMarkee 2004) developments in discursive psychology (not yet emergentin SLA but relevant for researchers interested in learner positioningwithin social practices see eg Davies amp Harreacute 1990) a growth in workfocusing on postcolonial transnational and World Englishes (egCanagarajah 2000 Jenkins 2003 also this issue Kachru 2001 Pennycook1998 Rampton 1995) and explorations in the new kinds of discursivepractices that language learners engage when using new technologies(see especially Gee 2003 Kern this issue Lam 2000 Thorne 2003 andWarschauer 1997) We are eager to see what unfolds

THE AUTHORS

Jane Zuengler is a professor in the English Department at the University ofWisconsinndashMadison Her research and teaching interests include second languageacquisition and use classroom discourse analysis critical perspectives on languageand the global spread of English

Elizabeth R Miller is a doctoral candidate in the English Department at theUniversity of WisconsinndashMadison Her research interests include second languageacquisition and use microanalytic discourse analysis and critical and poststructuralperspectives on language pedagogy and ideology

REFERENCES

Adair-Hauck B amp Donato R (1994) Foreign language explanations within thezone of proximal development The Canadian Modern Language Review 50 532ndash555

Aljaafreh A amp Lantolf J P (1994) Negative feedback as regulation and secondlanguage learning in the zone of proximal development The Modern LanguageJournal 78 465ndash483

Anton M (1999) The discourse of a learner-centered classroom Socioculturalperspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second language classroom TheModern Language Journal 83 303ndash318

Anton M amp DiCamilla F (1998) Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborativeinteraction in the L2 classroom The Canadian Modern Language Review 54 314ndash342

Atkinson D (2002) Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisi-tion The Modern Language Journal 86 525ndash545

Atkinson D (2003) Language socialization and dys-socialization in a South Indiancollege In R Bayley amp S R Schechter (Eds) Language socialization in bilingualand multilingual societies (pp 147ndash168) Clevedon England Multilingual Matters

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 43

organization of those practices Researchers who incorporate criticaltheory into their exploration of second language learning argue that onemust account for relations of power in order to gain a fuller understand-ing of the practices and interactions in which learners participatemdashandthus of their learning processes But what is more important theseresearchers contend that this understanding should then lead to socialand educational change such that more equitable social relations can beeffected particularly in the interests of disenfranchised groups andindividuals It is interesting that in contrast to the theory of legitimateperipheral participation (Lave amp Wenger 1991) in which learners areviewed as learning their marginalized participation critical theoriststend to view marginalized members of a community as having theiraccess to learning blocked because they may be prevented from partici-pating meaningfully in target-language social practices The critical focusin second language learning has been strongly influenced by the work ofPennycook (1990 1999 2001) as well as Norton (1995 1997b 2000) andCanagarajah (1993 1999 2005)

Though the range of critical research is outside the scope of thisdiscussion we highlight one area of interest language and identity thathas gained footing in the field and become a research area in its ownright It has been addressed in a special issue of TESOL Quarterly(Norton 1997a) as well as in numerous other publications From asociocultural perspective our identities are shaped by and through ourlanguage use (Norton 1995 1997b 2000 Pavlenko amp Blackledge 2003)Although issues of identity and learning have been treated in all of thesociocultural approaches to learning that we have discussed so far wethink it is appropriate to mention them here because they often exploreand critique the ways in which the patterning of power relationships canlegitimate some identities and forms of participation but devalue othersAs such language learners have much more at stake than merelydeveloping competence in an additional linguistic code As Morgan(1998) notes ldquolanguage lsquoconditionsrsquo our expectations and desires andcommunicates what might be possible in terms of ourselvesmdashour iden-titymdashand the lsquorealitiesrsquo we might developrdquo (p 12)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURALTENSIONS AND DEBATES

As we have seen the SLA field in the past 15 years has expandedfrom a largely cognitive orientation to include sociocultural approachessuch as those just documented This expansion we believe is one ofthe main reasons the SLA field has during the past 15 years witnesseddebates and tensions that in their cross-paradigm criticisms and

44 TESOL QUARTERLY

ontological disagreements are more fundamental than the (largely)intraparadigm issues surrounding for example the relative validity ofoptions for eliciting speech that received attention in the earlierdecades of SLA This said we would not however go as far as Larsen-Freeman (2002) in describing the current SLA field as being ldquoin a stateof turmoilrdquo (p 33) We prefer Lantolfrsquos (1996) more positive acceptingportrayal of the SLA field as ldquoincredibly and happily diverse creativeoften contentious and always full of controversyrdquo (p 738)

In this section we discuss two debates that originated within the past15 years and still continue These debates are arguably the mostimportant given their ontological differences the great amount ofattention the SLA field has paid them at conferences in the literatureand on a more cynical note the wrestling for academic territory thatsome have seen in them Each debate shakes out as the cognitivists andsocioculturalists arguing with each other for reasons we hope to makeclear However we feel that such labels (cognitivists socioculturalists) ifused as the primary characterizations of the debates would obscure themore basic ontological differences that underlie the arguments Thoughthe two debates are related each originated in and focused on differentconceptions conceptions that we feel are more important means offraming and understanding each of the debates Framing by conceptionthen we first discuss the debate around understandings of learning4 andafter that the debate about theory construction in SLA

The Debate Around the Understanding of Learning in SLA

At the 1996 annual conference of the International Association ofApplied Linguistics (AILA) in Jyvaumlskylauml Finland Alan Firth and JohannesWagner (1996) organized a symposium in which they delivered a paperarguing that SLA had long been dominated by cognitive views of thelearner and learning as individualistic mentalistic and as functioningindependent of the context and use of the language Following theirpaper several presenters took a variety of positions vis-agrave-vis Firth andWagnerrsquos critique (One of the authors attended that symposium andremembers that the atmosphere was quite electric) Although Firth andWagner were not necessarily the first to raise such criticism of the field(see eg Bremer Roberts Vasseur Simonot amp Broeder 1996 Hall1995 Rampton 1987) attention to Firth and Wagnerrsquos criticism inparticular with prominent respondents (eg Joan Kelly Hall Gabriele

4 Though earlier SLA work sometimes differentiated learning from acquisition following thedistinction made by Krashen (eg 1982 1985) we understand the two terms as synonymousOur understanding reflects the fieldrsquos current position given that Krashenrsquos theory has fallenout of favor

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 45

Kasper Nanda Poulisse Michael Long) from varying orientations offer-ing support or declaring opposition was guaranteed when in 1997 theirsymposium papers were published along with additional response papersin the Modern Language Journal (see Firth amp Wagner 1997) The debateintensified further after the Modern Language Journal published SusanGassrsquos (1998) response to Firth and Wagner and Firth and Wagnerrsquos(1998) response to Gass5

Firth and Wagner (1997) criticize the field of SLA for its overwhelm-ingly cognitive orientation in defining and researching the learner andlearning Such an approach too strongly emphasizes the individual theinternalization of mental processes and ldquothe development of grammati-cal competencerdquo (p 288) Meaning does not occur they argue inldquoprivate thoughts executed and then transferred from brain to brain but[as] a social and negotiable product of interaction transcending indi-vidual intentions and behavioursrdquo (p 290) Like other humans alanguage learner should be considered a ldquoparticipant-as-language-lsquouserrsquoin social interactionrdquo (p 286) It is time they say to question the fieldrsquosdivision of language use (as consigned to the social) from languagelearning (as the individualized decontextualized domain of the cogni-tive) An SLA field reformulated according to Firth and Wagnerrsquosargument would help us gain more comprehension of ldquohow language isused as it is being acquired through interaction and used resourcefullycontingently and contextuallyrdquo (p 296) Reiterating their view oflearning in their response to Gass (1998) they invoke Vygotsky inasserting that ldquocognitive structures are influenced and indeed devel-oped through engagement in social activity From this perspective itcan be said that language use forms cognitionrdquo (Firth amp Wagner 1998p 92)

Firth and Wagnerrsquos argument that learning (or acquisition) occursthrough use would find support not just in Vygotsky but also in the othersociocultural perspectives discussed in this article In fact Kramsch(2002) points out that the unifying thread running through her editedcollection ldquois a common dissatisfaction with the traditional separationbetween language acquisition and language socializationrdquo (p 4) lan-guage socialization being one of the sociocultural perspectives promi-nent in current SLA Some go further In her contribution to theKramsch collection Larsen-Freeman (2002) appears to be beyondldquodissatisfactionrdquo in declaring that ldquothe failure to consider language userdquois one of the ldquomost trenchant criticisms of mainstream SLA researchrdquo (p34) the other being the lack of balance between the social and thecognitive

5 For reprints of some of the papers as well as commentary see Seidlhofer (2003) Larsen-Freeman (2002) provides a very concise summary of the debate

46 TESOL QUARTERLY

Although some of the respondents (namely Hall 1997 and Liddicoat1997) support Firth and Wagnerrsquos argument it is the opposing respon-dents whose position we summarize particularly thosemdashLong (1997)Kasper (1997) and Gass (1998)mdashwho assert strong opposition to Firthand Wagnerrsquos claim that we should not separate acquisition and usebecause use is actually how learning takes place Perhaps because theyshare a cognitive orientation all three give basically the same responsemaintaining a strong split between acquisition and use To Kasper(1997) the ldquomost nagging problemrdquo with Firth and Wagnerrsquos paper isthat it ldquohas in fact very little to say about L2 acquisitionrdquo (p 310) becauseas she sees it although social context can influence SLA the SLA processitself is essentially cognitive Long (1997) completely agrees ending hisresponse by offering his ldquoskepticism as to whether greater insights intoSL use will necessarily have much to say about SL acquisitionrdquo (p 322) Andthough Gass (1998) concedes that perhaps ldquosome parts of language areconstructed sociallyrdquo that in itself does not imply that ldquowe cannotinvestigate language as an abstract entity that resides in the individualrdquo(p 88) maintaining in so doing her view of learning as largely anindividualized mental process Drawing a figure characterizing the fieldGass (1998) presents ldquoSLArdquo and ldquoSL Userdquo as together making upresearch on ldquoSecond Language Studiesrdquo but it is important that shedraws ldquoSLArdquo and ldquoSL Userdquo as branches that are separate and uncon-nected (p 88)

As Larsen-Freeman (2002) points out this debate is irresolvablebecause it involves two different ontological positions that reflect ldquofunda-mental differences in the way they frame their understanding of learn-ingrdquo (p 37) What one might hope for though is that ldquowe agree todisagreerdquo as the expression goes and accept that contrasting views oflearning can stimulate rather than befuddle the field

The Debate on Theory Construction in SLAPositivism Versus Relativism

During the past 15 years the SLA field has devoted more attention tometatheoretical and metamethodological concerns than it had in earlierdecades The most prominent debate has concerned theory constructionin SLA Though others have written (and continue to write) on theoryconstruction6 we have selected a set of authors and articles rangingfrom 1991 to 2000 that comprise a coherent debate for discussion Thediscussion we profile of theory constructionmdashin fact any discussion oftheory constructionmdashaddresses a complex subject that raises a number

6 See for example Atkinson (2002) McGroarty (1998) and van Lier (1991 1994)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 47

of questions We have distilled from the discussion the authorsrsquo debateon positivism versus relativism in theory construction The tensions anddifferences it raises reflect a new dynamic entering the field one thatcontinues and that results from we believe the arrival on the SLA sceneof the sociocultural perspectives we discussed earlier7

Beretta (1991) framed a discussion of theory construction by address-ing issues such as whether or not (what he saw as) a diversity of theoriesand criteria in SLA represents a problem that is should this diversity bereduced to one or a few theories Considering different approaches totheory building Beretta arrives at a clear conclusion in favor of fewrather than many theories viewing the former as the result of ldquorational-ityrdquo and the latter the outcome of ldquorelativismrdquo (p 495) Comparing SLAto the ldquoalready-successful sciencesrdquo (p 497 ie the so-called hardsciences) Beretta says that because these fields do not unlike SLA haveldquomultiple rival theoriesrdquo (p 497) it is not beneficial for SLA to havemany theories either He goes on to state that the ldquomost anarchiccriterion of allrdquo is that of ldquono criterionrdquo (p 501) Referring to what hecalls ldquoextreme relativismrdquo Berettarsquos nightmare scenario is one in whichphenomena are not independent of but ldquoalways relative to the values ofindividuals and communitiesrdquo (p 501) This ldquowhateverrdquo position (to usea current slang term) implies that ldquopoetry voodoo religion and non-sense are no less valid bases for belief than lsquosciencersquordquo (p 501) Clearlythen Beretta supports theory building only from a rationalistpositivist8

paradigm and certainly not from a relativist one He is not aloneAlthough Crookes (1992) does not address relativism his agreementwith Berretta is implicit in his adherence to a positivistic notion ofscience as the gold standard in considering theory construction9

The debate continued with the publication of a special issue of AppliedLinguistics in 1993 titled ldquoTheory Construction in SLArdquo which containspapers from a 1991 conference at Michigan State University titledldquoTheory Construction and Methodology in Second Language ResearchrdquoAlmost all of the contributors (ie Beretta Long Crookes Gregg)10 take

7 To follow the debate the reader should consult in this order Beretta (1991) Crookes(1992) Beretta (1993) Block (1996) Gregg Long Jordan amp Beretta (1997) Lantolf (1996)and Gregg (2000)

8 Though Beretta states that positivism is not a viable paradigm any longer he appears to bekeeping to positivism nevertheless taking perhaps a postpositivistic stance instead Forinformation on the two positions (which are within the same paradigm) see for example Gubaand Lincoln (1998) Because we see positivism and postpositivism as matters of degree ratherthan substance and because positivism is the better known term in the field we will use positivismto describe Berettarsquos and othersrsquo positions

9 Such a characterization of science (as equivalent to positivism) may be simplistic We thankone of the anonymous reviewers for pointing this out

10 The exception is Schumann (1993) who argues to oversimplify it that art and science arenot that different Because Schumannrsquos position is similar to that of the other relativists that wediscuss we will not focus on him here

48 TESOL QUARTERLY

a similar position that although it does not necessarily mention relativ-ism explicitly nevertheless implicitly opposes it by supporting positivismas the (sole) paradigm for cognitive research on SLA Beretta andCrookes (1993) dismiss the argument that the social can cause thecontent of theories they argue that social conditions are not only notsufficient but are not necessary ldquofor scientific discoveryrdquo(p 253) Gregg(1993) like Beretta and Crookes (1993) does not attack relativismdirectly Nevertheless it is clear that Gregg (1993) opposes relativism ldquoInSLA the overall explanandum is the acquisition (or non-acquisition)of L2 competence in the Chomskyan sense of the termrdquo (p 278) Andthe criteria that Gregg chooses for discussing theory constructiontransition theories and property theories come from psychology (ieCummins 1983) Thus in what becomes an ongoing metaphor in thedebate Greggrsquos ldquoLet a Couple of Flowers Bloomrdquo does not advocate arelativistrsquos acceptance of a multiplicity of theories but advocates ldquoacouplerdquo as opposed to many and within a cognitive and positivisticframework

Adapting Greggrsquos metaphor Lantolfrsquos (1996) article subtitled ldquoLet-ting All the Flowers Bloomrdquo not surprisingly supports relativism andopposes positivism Though Blockrsquos (1996) article is more wide-ranginghe too argues for relativism ldquoReality is a social and therefore multipleconstruction there is no tangible fragmentable reality on to whichscience can convergerdquo (p 69 citing Lincoln 1990) However that doesnot mean that everything is acceptable Block asserts Though heacknowledges that relativism and positivism are two fundamentallydifferent ontologies he argues again citing Lincoln (1990) that ratherthan throwing their hands up at the situation relativists attempt to findpatterns ldquoworking hypotheses or temporary time-and-place-bound knowl-edgerdquo (Block 1996 p 69) Coming from a similar position Lantolf(1996) provides a ldquopostmodernist critical analysisrdquo of the theory-buildingliterature of Gregg Long Crookes and others pointing out that theyare all clearly dedicated to the rationalistpositivist paradigm in the SLAfield and adding ironically that they ldquoshare a common fear of thedreaded lsquorelativismrsquordquo (p 715) In fact Lantolf coins a term for thiscondition relativaphobia (p 731) In a detailed set of points Lantolfargues against what he sees as the hegemony of the positivistic echoingBlockrsquos (1996) accusation of ldquoscience envyrdquo (p 64) in accusing Greggand the others of having ldquophysics envyrdquo (p 717) Where Gregg and theothers consider the existence within SLA of multiple and incommensu-rable theories an obstacle to the development and maturation of thefield Lantolf (1996) encourages ldquoLetting All the Flowers Bloomrdquowarning that otherwise ldquoonce theoretical hegemony is achieved alterna-tive metaphors are cut off or suffocated by the single official metaphor

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 49

subsequently those who espouse different world views cease to havea voicerdquo (p 739)

Both Block (1996) and Lantolf (1996) generated response articlesGregg Long Jordan and Beretta (1997) critiqued the Block articlewhile Gregg (2000) responded to Lantolf (1996) by presenting anegative summary of postmodernism Writing from within their positivistparadigm Gregg Long Jordan and Beretta (1997) accept Blockrsquoscriticism that they have ldquoscience envyrdquo

Let us grant that many or even all of us in the field have the occasional twingeof envy for the accomplishments of other sciences given the fairly feebleprogress made so far in SLA and the magnificent intellectual achievementsof the more successful sciences such envy would certainly be unsurprising(p 543)

Unfortunately their stance becomes both smug and naiumlve For exampleGregg and his colleagues (1997) declare a state of ldquodisbeliefrdquo in Blockrsquospoint that controlling for extraneous variables in SLA research isldquoprobably not even desirablerdquo (p 544 quoting Block 1996 p 74)Continuing they declare ldquoDo we actually need to point out thedisastrous consequences of Blockrsquos lsquostancersquo for SLA or indeed for anyintellectual inquiryrdquo (p 544) No one invoking a positivist paradigmwould disagree with their critique because one of the paradigmrsquosprinciples is indeed the manipulation of variables which includescontrolling wherever possible for extraneous variables However whatGregg and colleagues (1997) fail to recognize is that Blockrsquos statementcomes from a different (relativist) paradigm rendering their responseirrelevant

In his critique of Lantolf (1996) Gregg (2000) does not directlyreiterate the anti-relativist pro-positivist argument that he and hiscolleagues had already published elsewhere Instead he begins bysummarizing (negatively) postmodernism the approach that Lantolf(1996) takes in his article Describing postmodernism Gregg discussesits stance that among other things instead of written texts havingobjective meaningmdashthat of the textrsquos authormdashmeaning is generated asthe reader interacts with the text Greggrsquos response to this stance revealshis reluctance (or inability) to think outside of his paradigm ldquoSuch aperspective strikes me as nonsenserdquo (p 386) On the other hand hetakes ldquothe common-sense position that the meaning of sentences canusually be agreed upon and that there generally are correct andincorrect interpretations of (meaningful) sentencesrdquo (pp 386ndash387)

Concluding his discussion of postmodernism Gregg (2000) assertsagain from within his paradigm

50 TESOL QUARTERLY

It is no accident that postmodernism originated as a movement amongliterary critics and cultural philosophers It flourishes that is precisely inthose areas of intellectual activity where decisive evidence is extremely hard tofind Faced with a range of disciplines that are actually making progress the postmodernists tried to turn the tables on the sciences Ratherthan claiming that the grapes of science are sour the postmodernist assuresus that there are no grapes To put it a bit differently one can seepostmodernism as a sophisticated way for academics in the humanities toovercome their own ldquophysics envyrdquo (pp 389ndash390)

With that memorable point of view we will end our discussion of thetheory construction debate On the positive side we agree that debateslike this stimulate a field And debates being debates it is not necessaryor relevant to try to come to agreement After all (as we indicated indiscussing the debate about learning) the debate on theory constructionis occurring across very different paradigms with contradictory views ofreality Although the debate can be framed as occurring betweencognitivists and socioculturalists we have emphasized a more fundamen-tal difference Like Lantolf (1996) we view as positive a field in whichpossibly incommensurable theories proliferate and are debated ratherthan allowing one theory to dominate without being problematized Weare only sorry that so much energy has gone into some participantsrsquorefusal to admit (or understand) that these positions on theory areincommensurable because they stem from contradictory ontologies Andthe smug tone that some of the debate takes is therefore not only naiumlvebut unfair

Though we have discussed a debate whose outcome is incommensura-bility some argue for cognitive-sociocultural integration Authors takevarying approaches in making their argument For example Larsen-Freeman (2002) proposes chaoscomplexity theory as a means ofaccommodating both sociocultural and cognitive perspectives withinSLA Block (2003) cites several pieces of research that argue for thecomplementarity of cognitive and sociocultural views namely Ellis(2000) Swain and Lapkin (1998) Tarone and Liu (1995) and Teutsch-Dwyer (2001) However Block himself does not take a clear positionsupporting integration Instead he advocates a ldquomore multidisciplinaryand socially informed futurerdquo for those following the input-interactiontradition (p 139) Making a somewhat different argument Watson-Gegeo (2004) sees a possible new ldquosynthesisrdquo of the cognitive with thesociocultural because of developments in the field that view cognition asa phenomenon which ldquooriginates in social interaction and is shaped bycultural and sociopolitical processesrdquo (p 331) Thorne (2005) andLantolf (2000) envision Vygotskyan theory in particular as providing alens for viewing social context as central to the development of cognition(see also Johnson 2004)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 51

IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVESFOR CLASSROOM PRACTICE

Hall (2002) observes that traditional SLA approaches seek to identifygood pedagogical interventions that will most effectively ldquofacilitatelearnersrsquo assimilation of new systemic knowledge into known knowledgestructuresrdquo (p 48) However given their different understandings oflanguage learning socioculturally informed studies offer much differentrecommendations for improving classroom practice For example inseeing learning as participation as relational and interactive and asconstrained by unequal power relations Lave and Wengerrsquos perspectiveasks educators to consider how the practices of school relate to thoseoutside of school how schools and classrooms themselves are organizedinto communities of practice and what kinds of participation are madeaccessible to students

Other studies taking sociocultural perspectives have examined class-room interactions or discourse patterns with an eye toward identifyingthose that best facilitate student participation (Gutierrez Rymes ampLarsen 1995 Nassaji amp Wells 2000 Nystrand Gamoran Zeiser amp Long2003 Tharp amp Gallimore 1991) Still others have examined such topicsas the kinds of guided or scaffolded assistance from teachers (or otherexperts) that can move students along within their ZPD (Aljaafreh ampLantolf 1994 Anton 1999 McCormick amp Donato 2000 Nassaji ampCumming 2000) the effectiveness of goal-oriented dialogue betweenpeers to mediate learning (Donato 1994 Ohta 2000 Swain amp Lapkin1998) and the need for dialogic and contextually sensitive approachesto language assessment ( Johnson 2001 2004) These studies are only afew among many but they share the sociocultural awareness that highlysituated classroom participation promotes language learning

We acknowledge that we do not specify general recommendations fortransforming classroom practices primarily because we are aware of thelimits of what can be generalized across classroom contexts Hall (2000)speaks to the situatedness of learning processes in saying that ldquoeffectingchange in our classrooms will not result from imposing solutions fromoutside but from nurturing effectual practices that are indigenous to ourparticular contextsrdquo (p 295) Clearly this is no easy task for educators Itrequires ongoing and intense work with every group of students andreflective awareness of how the affective and political dimensions ofclassroom life affect individual studentsrsquo participation However with theincreased awareness and sensitivity to local contexts that socioculturalperspectives bring us we have reason to hope that we are closer tounderstanding and creating the kinds of classroom communities thatlearners need

52 TESOL QUARTERLY

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

Although it is difficult to make predictions about the next 15 years insuch a dynamic field we end our article by looking forward to somedevelopments we consider exciting and worth watching Among them iswork in conversation analysis investigating language learning as it occursin the turn-by-turn development of conversational processes (see egMarkee 2004) developments in discursive psychology (not yet emergentin SLA but relevant for researchers interested in learner positioningwithin social practices see eg Davies amp Harreacute 1990) a growth in workfocusing on postcolonial transnational and World Englishes (egCanagarajah 2000 Jenkins 2003 also this issue Kachru 2001 Pennycook1998 Rampton 1995) and explorations in the new kinds of discursivepractices that language learners engage when using new technologies(see especially Gee 2003 Kern this issue Lam 2000 Thorne 2003 andWarschauer 1997) We are eager to see what unfolds

THE AUTHORS

Jane Zuengler is a professor in the English Department at the University ofWisconsinndashMadison Her research and teaching interests include second languageacquisition and use classroom discourse analysis critical perspectives on languageand the global spread of English

Elizabeth R Miller is a doctoral candidate in the English Department at theUniversity of WisconsinndashMadison Her research interests include second languageacquisition and use microanalytic discourse analysis and critical and poststructuralperspectives on language pedagogy and ideology

REFERENCES

Adair-Hauck B amp Donato R (1994) Foreign language explanations within thezone of proximal development The Canadian Modern Language Review 50 532ndash555

Aljaafreh A amp Lantolf J P (1994) Negative feedback as regulation and secondlanguage learning in the zone of proximal development The Modern LanguageJournal 78 465ndash483

Anton M (1999) The discourse of a learner-centered classroom Socioculturalperspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second language classroom TheModern Language Journal 83 303ndash318

Anton M amp DiCamilla F (1998) Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborativeinteraction in the L2 classroom The Canadian Modern Language Review 54 314ndash342

Atkinson D (2002) Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisi-tion The Modern Language Journal 86 525ndash545

Atkinson D (2003) Language socialization and dys-socialization in a South Indiancollege In R Bayley amp S R Schechter (Eds) Language socialization in bilingualand multilingual societies (pp 147ndash168) Clevedon England Multilingual Matters

44 TESOL QUARTERLY

ontological disagreements are more fundamental than the (largely)intraparadigm issues surrounding for example the relative validity ofoptions for eliciting speech that received attention in the earlierdecades of SLA This said we would not however go as far as Larsen-Freeman (2002) in describing the current SLA field as being ldquoin a stateof turmoilrdquo (p 33) We prefer Lantolfrsquos (1996) more positive acceptingportrayal of the SLA field as ldquoincredibly and happily diverse creativeoften contentious and always full of controversyrdquo (p 738)

In this section we discuss two debates that originated within the past15 years and still continue These debates are arguably the mostimportant given their ontological differences the great amount ofattention the SLA field has paid them at conferences in the literatureand on a more cynical note the wrestling for academic territory thatsome have seen in them Each debate shakes out as the cognitivists andsocioculturalists arguing with each other for reasons we hope to makeclear However we feel that such labels (cognitivists socioculturalists) ifused as the primary characterizations of the debates would obscure themore basic ontological differences that underlie the arguments Thoughthe two debates are related each originated in and focused on differentconceptions conceptions that we feel are more important means offraming and understanding each of the debates Framing by conceptionthen we first discuss the debate around understandings of learning4 andafter that the debate about theory construction in SLA

The Debate Around the Understanding of Learning in SLA

At the 1996 annual conference of the International Association ofApplied Linguistics (AILA) in Jyvaumlskylauml Finland Alan Firth and JohannesWagner (1996) organized a symposium in which they delivered a paperarguing that SLA had long been dominated by cognitive views of thelearner and learning as individualistic mentalistic and as functioningindependent of the context and use of the language Following theirpaper several presenters took a variety of positions vis-agrave-vis Firth andWagnerrsquos critique (One of the authors attended that symposium andremembers that the atmosphere was quite electric) Although Firth andWagner were not necessarily the first to raise such criticism of the field(see eg Bremer Roberts Vasseur Simonot amp Broeder 1996 Hall1995 Rampton 1987) attention to Firth and Wagnerrsquos criticism inparticular with prominent respondents (eg Joan Kelly Hall Gabriele

4 Though earlier SLA work sometimes differentiated learning from acquisition following thedistinction made by Krashen (eg 1982 1985) we understand the two terms as synonymousOur understanding reflects the fieldrsquos current position given that Krashenrsquos theory has fallenout of favor

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 45

Kasper Nanda Poulisse Michael Long) from varying orientations offer-ing support or declaring opposition was guaranteed when in 1997 theirsymposium papers were published along with additional response papersin the Modern Language Journal (see Firth amp Wagner 1997) The debateintensified further after the Modern Language Journal published SusanGassrsquos (1998) response to Firth and Wagner and Firth and Wagnerrsquos(1998) response to Gass5

Firth and Wagner (1997) criticize the field of SLA for its overwhelm-ingly cognitive orientation in defining and researching the learner andlearning Such an approach too strongly emphasizes the individual theinternalization of mental processes and ldquothe development of grammati-cal competencerdquo (p 288) Meaning does not occur they argue inldquoprivate thoughts executed and then transferred from brain to brain but[as] a social and negotiable product of interaction transcending indi-vidual intentions and behavioursrdquo (p 290) Like other humans alanguage learner should be considered a ldquoparticipant-as-language-lsquouserrsquoin social interactionrdquo (p 286) It is time they say to question the fieldrsquosdivision of language use (as consigned to the social) from languagelearning (as the individualized decontextualized domain of the cogni-tive) An SLA field reformulated according to Firth and Wagnerrsquosargument would help us gain more comprehension of ldquohow language isused as it is being acquired through interaction and used resourcefullycontingently and contextuallyrdquo (p 296) Reiterating their view oflearning in their response to Gass (1998) they invoke Vygotsky inasserting that ldquocognitive structures are influenced and indeed devel-oped through engagement in social activity From this perspective itcan be said that language use forms cognitionrdquo (Firth amp Wagner 1998p 92)

Firth and Wagnerrsquos argument that learning (or acquisition) occursthrough use would find support not just in Vygotsky but also in the othersociocultural perspectives discussed in this article In fact Kramsch(2002) points out that the unifying thread running through her editedcollection ldquois a common dissatisfaction with the traditional separationbetween language acquisition and language socializationrdquo (p 4) lan-guage socialization being one of the sociocultural perspectives promi-nent in current SLA Some go further In her contribution to theKramsch collection Larsen-Freeman (2002) appears to be beyondldquodissatisfactionrdquo in declaring that ldquothe failure to consider language userdquois one of the ldquomost trenchant criticisms of mainstream SLA researchrdquo (p34) the other being the lack of balance between the social and thecognitive

5 For reprints of some of the papers as well as commentary see Seidlhofer (2003) Larsen-Freeman (2002) provides a very concise summary of the debate

46 TESOL QUARTERLY

Although some of the respondents (namely Hall 1997 and Liddicoat1997) support Firth and Wagnerrsquos argument it is the opposing respon-dents whose position we summarize particularly thosemdashLong (1997)Kasper (1997) and Gass (1998)mdashwho assert strong opposition to Firthand Wagnerrsquos claim that we should not separate acquisition and usebecause use is actually how learning takes place Perhaps because theyshare a cognitive orientation all three give basically the same responsemaintaining a strong split between acquisition and use To Kasper(1997) the ldquomost nagging problemrdquo with Firth and Wagnerrsquos paper isthat it ldquohas in fact very little to say about L2 acquisitionrdquo (p 310) becauseas she sees it although social context can influence SLA the SLA processitself is essentially cognitive Long (1997) completely agrees ending hisresponse by offering his ldquoskepticism as to whether greater insights intoSL use will necessarily have much to say about SL acquisitionrdquo (p 322) Andthough Gass (1998) concedes that perhaps ldquosome parts of language areconstructed sociallyrdquo that in itself does not imply that ldquowe cannotinvestigate language as an abstract entity that resides in the individualrdquo(p 88) maintaining in so doing her view of learning as largely anindividualized mental process Drawing a figure characterizing the fieldGass (1998) presents ldquoSLArdquo and ldquoSL Userdquo as together making upresearch on ldquoSecond Language Studiesrdquo but it is important that shedraws ldquoSLArdquo and ldquoSL Userdquo as branches that are separate and uncon-nected (p 88)

As Larsen-Freeman (2002) points out this debate is irresolvablebecause it involves two different ontological positions that reflect ldquofunda-mental differences in the way they frame their understanding of learn-ingrdquo (p 37) What one might hope for though is that ldquowe agree todisagreerdquo as the expression goes and accept that contrasting views oflearning can stimulate rather than befuddle the field

The Debate on Theory Construction in SLAPositivism Versus Relativism

During the past 15 years the SLA field has devoted more attention tometatheoretical and metamethodological concerns than it had in earlierdecades The most prominent debate has concerned theory constructionin SLA Though others have written (and continue to write) on theoryconstruction6 we have selected a set of authors and articles rangingfrom 1991 to 2000 that comprise a coherent debate for discussion Thediscussion we profile of theory constructionmdashin fact any discussion oftheory constructionmdashaddresses a complex subject that raises a number

6 See for example Atkinson (2002) McGroarty (1998) and van Lier (1991 1994)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 47

of questions We have distilled from the discussion the authorsrsquo debateon positivism versus relativism in theory construction The tensions anddifferences it raises reflect a new dynamic entering the field one thatcontinues and that results from we believe the arrival on the SLA sceneof the sociocultural perspectives we discussed earlier7

Beretta (1991) framed a discussion of theory construction by address-ing issues such as whether or not (what he saw as) a diversity of theoriesand criteria in SLA represents a problem that is should this diversity bereduced to one or a few theories Considering different approaches totheory building Beretta arrives at a clear conclusion in favor of fewrather than many theories viewing the former as the result of ldquorational-ityrdquo and the latter the outcome of ldquorelativismrdquo (p 495) Comparing SLAto the ldquoalready-successful sciencesrdquo (p 497 ie the so-called hardsciences) Beretta says that because these fields do not unlike SLA haveldquomultiple rival theoriesrdquo (p 497) it is not beneficial for SLA to havemany theories either He goes on to state that the ldquomost anarchiccriterion of allrdquo is that of ldquono criterionrdquo (p 501) Referring to what hecalls ldquoextreme relativismrdquo Berettarsquos nightmare scenario is one in whichphenomena are not independent of but ldquoalways relative to the values ofindividuals and communitiesrdquo (p 501) This ldquowhateverrdquo position (to usea current slang term) implies that ldquopoetry voodoo religion and non-sense are no less valid bases for belief than lsquosciencersquordquo (p 501) Clearlythen Beretta supports theory building only from a rationalistpositivist8

paradigm and certainly not from a relativist one He is not aloneAlthough Crookes (1992) does not address relativism his agreementwith Berretta is implicit in his adherence to a positivistic notion ofscience as the gold standard in considering theory construction9

The debate continued with the publication of a special issue of AppliedLinguistics in 1993 titled ldquoTheory Construction in SLArdquo which containspapers from a 1991 conference at Michigan State University titledldquoTheory Construction and Methodology in Second Language ResearchrdquoAlmost all of the contributors (ie Beretta Long Crookes Gregg)10 take

7 To follow the debate the reader should consult in this order Beretta (1991) Crookes(1992) Beretta (1993) Block (1996) Gregg Long Jordan amp Beretta (1997) Lantolf (1996)and Gregg (2000)

8 Though Beretta states that positivism is not a viable paradigm any longer he appears to bekeeping to positivism nevertheless taking perhaps a postpositivistic stance instead Forinformation on the two positions (which are within the same paradigm) see for example Gubaand Lincoln (1998) Because we see positivism and postpositivism as matters of degree ratherthan substance and because positivism is the better known term in the field we will use positivismto describe Berettarsquos and othersrsquo positions

9 Such a characterization of science (as equivalent to positivism) may be simplistic We thankone of the anonymous reviewers for pointing this out

10 The exception is Schumann (1993) who argues to oversimplify it that art and science arenot that different Because Schumannrsquos position is similar to that of the other relativists that wediscuss we will not focus on him here

48 TESOL QUARTERLY

a similar position that although it does not necessarily mention relativ-ism explicitly nevertheless implicitly opposes it by supporting positivismas the (sole) paradigm for cognitive research on SLA Beretta andCrookes (1993) dismiss the argument that the social can cause thecontent of theories they argue that social conditions are not only notsufficient but are not necessary ldquofor scientific discoveryrdquo(p 253) Gregg(1993) like Beretta and Crookes (1993) does not attack relativismdirectly Nevertheless it is clear that Gregg (1993) opposes relativism ldquoInSLA the overall explanandum is the acquisition (or non-acquisition)of L2 competence in the Chomskyan sense of the termrdquo (p 278) Andthe criteria that Gregg chooses for discussing theory constructiontransition theories and property theories come from psychology (ieCummins 1983) Thus in what becomes an ongoing metaphor in thedebate Greggrsquos ldquoLet a Couple of Flowers Bloomrdquo does not advocate arelativistrsquos acceptance of a multiplicity of theories but advocates ldquoacouplerdquo as opposed to many and within a cognitive and positivisticframework

Adapting Greggrsquos metaphor Lantolfrsquos (1996) article subtitled ldquoLet-ting All the Flowers Bloomrdquo not surprisingly supports relativism andopposes positivism Though Blockrsquos (1996) article is more wide-ranginghe too argues for relativism ldquoReality is a social and therefore multipleconstruction there is no tangible fragmentable reality on to whichscience can convergerdquo (p 69 citing Lincoln 1990) However that doesnot mean that everything is acceptable Block asserts Though heacknowledges that relativism and positivism are two fundamentallydifferent ontologies he argues again citing Lincoln (1990) that ratherthan throwing their hands up at the situation relativists attempt to findpatterns ldquoworking hypotheses or temporary time-and-place-bound knowl-edgerdquo (Block 1996 p 69) Coming from a similar position Lantolf(1996) provides a ldquopostmodernist critical analysisrdquo of the theory-buildingliterature of Gregg Long Crookes and others pointing out that theyare all clearly dedicated to the rationalistpositivist paradigm in the SLAfield and adding ironically that they ldquoshare a common fear of thedreaded lsquorelativismrsquordquo (p 715) In fact Lantolf coins a term for thiscondition relativaphobia (p 731) In a detailed set of points Lantolfargues against what he sees as the hegemony of the positivistic echoingBlockrsquos (1996) accusation of ldquoscience envyrdquo (p 64) in accusing Greggand the others of having ldquophysics envyrdquo (p 717) Where Gregg and theothers consider the existence within SLA of multiple and incommensu-rable theories an obstacle to the development and maturation of thefield Lantolf (1996) encourages ldquoLetting All the Flowers Bloomrdquowarning that otherwise ldquoonce theoretical hegemony is achieved alterna-tive metaphors are cut off or suffocated by the single official metaphor

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 49

subsequently those who espouse different world views cease to havea voicerdquo (p 739)

Both Block (1996) and Lantolf (1996) generated response articlesGregg Long Jordan and Beretta (1997) critiqued the Block articlewhile Gregg (2000) responded to Lantolf (1996) by presenting anegative summary of postmodernism Writing from within their positivistparadigm Gregg Long Jordan and Beretta (1997) accept Blockrsquoscriticism that they have ldquoscience envyrdquo

Let us grant that many or even all of us in the field have the occasional twingeof envy for the accomplishments of other sciences given the fairly feebleprogress made so far in SLA and the magnificent intellectual achievementsof the more successful sciences such envy would certainly be unsurprising(p 543)

Unfortunately their stance becomes both smug and naiumlve For exampleGregg and his colleagues (1997) declare a state of ldquodisbeliefrdquo in Blockrsquospoint that controlling for extraneous variables in SLA research isldquoprobably not even desirablerdquo (p 544 quoting Block 1996 p 74)Continuing they declare ldquoDo we actually need to point out thedisastrous consequences of Blockrsquos lsquostancersquo for SLA or indeed for anyintellectual inquiryrdquo (p 544) No one invoking a positivist paradigmwould disagree with their critique because one of the paradigmrsquosprinciples is indeed the manipulation of variables which includescontrolling wherever possible for extraneous variables However whatGregg and colleagues (1997) fail to recognize is that Blockrsquos statementcomes from a different (relativist) paradigm rendering their responseirrelevant

In his critique of Lantolf (1996) Gregg (2000) does not directlyreiterate the anti-relativist pro-positivist argument that he and hiscolleagues had already published elsewhere Instead he begins bysummarizing (negatively) postmodernism the approach that Lantolf(1996) takes in his article Describing postmodernism Gregg discussesits stance that among other things instead of written texts havingobjective meaningmdashthat of the textrsquos authormdashmeaning is generated asthe reader interacts with the text Greggrsquos response to this stance revealshis reluctance (or inability) to think outside of his paradigm ldquoSuch aperspective strikes me as nonsenserdquo (p 386) On the other hand hetakes ldquothe common-sense position that the meaning of sentences canusually be agreed upon and that there generally are correct andincorrect interpretations of (meaningful) sentencesrdquo (pp 386ndash387)

Concluding his discussion of postmodernism Gregg (2000) assertsagain from within his paradigm

50 TESOL QUARTERLY

It is no accident that postmodernism originated as a movement amongliterary critics and cultural philosophers It flourishes that is precisely inthose areas of intellectual activity where decisive evidence is extremely hard tofind Faced with a range of disciplines that are actually making progress the postmodernists tried to turn the tables on the sciences Ratherthan claiming that the grapes of science are sour the postmodernist assuresus that there are no grapes To put it a bit differently one can seepostmodernism as a sophisticated way for academics in the humanities toovercome their own ldquophysics envyrdquo (pp 389ndash390)

With that memorable point of view we will end our discussion of thetheory construction debate On the positive side we agree that debateslike this stimulate a field And debates being debates it is not necessaryor relevant to try to come to agreement After all (as we indicated indiscussing the debate about learning) the debate on theory constructionis occurring across very different paradigms with contradictory views ofreality Although the debate can be framed as occurring betweencognitivists and socioculturalists we have emphasized a more fundamen-tal difference Like Lantolf (1996) we view as positive a field in whichpossibly incommensurable theories proliferate and are debated ratherthan allowing one theory to dominate without being problematized Weare only sorry that so much energy has gone into some participantsrsquorefusal to admit (or understand) that these positions on theory areincommensurable because they stem from contradictory ontologies Andthe smug tone that some of the debate takes is therefore not only naiumlvebut unfair

Though we have discussed a debate whose outcome is incommensura-bility some argue for cognitive-sociocultural integration Authors takevarying approaches in making their argument For example Larsen-Freeman (2002) proposes chaoscomplexity theory as a means ofaccommodating both sociocultural and cognitive perspectives withinSLA Block (2003) cites several pieces of research that argue for thecomplementarity of cognitive and sociocultural views namely Ellis(2000) Swain and Lapkin (1998) Tarone and Liu (1995) and Teutsch-Dwyer (2001) However Block himself does not take a clear positionsupporting integration Instead he advocates a ldquomore multidisciplinaryand socially informed futurerdquo for those following the input-interactiontradition (p 139) Making a somewhat different argument Watson-Gegeo (2004) sees a possible new ldquosynthesisrdquo of the cognitive with thesociocultural because of developments in the field that view cognition asa phenomenon which ldquooriginates in social interaction and is shaped bycultural and sociopolitical processesrdquo (p 331) Thorne (2005) andLantolf (2000) envision Vygotskyan theory in particular as providing alens for viewing social context as central to the development of cognition(see also Johnson 2004)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 51

IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVESFOR CLASSROOM PRACTICE

Hall (2002) observes that traditional SLA approaches seek to identifygood pedagogical interventions that will most effectively ldquofacilitatelearnersrsquo assimilation of new systemic knowledge into known knowledgestructuresrdquo (p 48) However given their different understandings oflanguage learning socioculturally informed studies offer much differentrecommendations for improving classroom practice For example inseeing learning as participation as relational and interactive and asconstrained by unequal power relations Lave and Wengerrsquos perspectiveasks educators to consider how the practices of school relate to thoseoutside of school how schools and classrooms themselves are organizedinto communities of practice and what kinds of participation are madeaccessible to students

Other studies taking sociocultural perspectives have examined class-room interactions or discourse patterns with an eye toward identifyingthose that best facilitate student participation (Gutierrez Rymes ampLarsen 1995 Nassaji amp Wells 2000 Nystrand Gamoran Zeiser amp Long2003 Tharp amp Gallimore 1991) Still others have examined such topicsas the kinds of guided or scaffolded assistance from teachers (or otherexperts) that can move students along within their ZPD (Aljaafreh ampLantolf 1994 Anton 1999 McCormick amp Donato 2000 Nassaji ampCumming 2000) the effectiveness of goal-oriented dialogue betweenpeers to mediate learning (Donato 1994 Ohta 2000 Swain amp Lapkin1998) and the need for dialogic and contextually sensitive approachesto language assessment ( Johnson 2001 2004) These studies are only afew among many but they share the sociocultural awareness that highlysituated classroom participation promotes language learning

We acknowledge that we do not specify general recommendations fortransforming classroom practices primarily because we are aware of thelimits of what can be generalized across classroom contexts Hall (2000)speaks to the situatedness of learning processes in saying that ldquoeffectingchange in our classrooms will not result from imposing solutions fromoutside but from nurturing effectual practices that are indigenous to ourparticular contextsrdquo (p 295) Clearly this is no easy task for educators Itrequires ongoing and intense work with every group of students andreflective awareness of how the affective and political dimensions ofclassroom life affect individual studentsrsquo participation However with theincreased awareness and sensitivity to local contexts that socioculturalperspectives bring us we have reason to hope that we are closer tounderstanding and creating the kinds of classroom communities thatlearners need

52 TESOL QUARTERLY

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

Although it is difficult to make predictions about the next 15 years insuch a dynamic field we end our article by looking forward to somedevelopments we consider exciting and worth watching Among them iswork in conversation analysis investigating language learning as it occursin the turn-by-turn development of conversational processes (see egMarkee 2004) developments in discursive psychology (not yet emergentin SLA but relevant for researchers interested in learner positioningwithin social practices see eg Davies amp Harreacute 1990) a growth in workfocusing on postcolonial transnational and World Englishes (egCanagarajah 2000 Jenkins 2003 also this issue Kachru 2001 Pennycook1998 Rampton 1995) and explorations in the new kinds of discursivepractices that language learners engage when using new technologies(see especially Gee 2003 Kern this issue Lam 2000 Thorne 2003 andWarschauer 1997) We are eager to see what unfolds

THE AUTHORS

Jane Zuengler is a professor in the English Department at the University ofWisconsinndashMadison Her research and teaching interests include second languageacquisition and use classroom discourse analysis critical perspectives on languageand the global spread of English

Elizabeth R Miller is a doctoral candidate in the English Department at theUniversity of WisconsinndashMadison Her research interests include second languageacquisition and use microanalytic discourse analysis and critical and poststructuralperspectives on language pedagogy and ideology

REFERENCES

Adair-Hauck B amp Donato R (1994) Foreign language explanations within thezone of proximal development The Canadian Modern Language Review 50 532ndash555

Aljaafreh A amp Lantolf J P (1994) Negative feedback as regulation and secondlanguage learning in the zone of proximal development The Modern LanguageJournal 78 465ndash483

Anton M (1999) The discourse of a learner-centered classroom Socioculturalperspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second language classroom TheModern Language Journal 83 303ndash318

Anton M amp DiCamilla F (1998) Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborativeinteraction in the L2 classroom The Canadian Modern Language Review 54 314ndash342

Atkinson D (2002) Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisi-tion The Modern Language Journal 86 525ndash545

Atkinson D (2003) Language socialization and dys-socialization in a South Indiancollege In R Bayley amp S R Schechter (Eds) Language socialization in bilingualand multilingual societies (pp 147ndash168) Clevedon England Multilingual Matters

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 45

Kasper Nanda Poulisse Michael Long) from varying orientations offer-ing support or declaring opposition was guaranteed when in 1997 theirsymposium papers were published along with additional response papersin the Modern Language Journal (see Firth amp Wagner 1997) The debateintensified further after the Modern Language Journal published SusanGassrsquos (1998) response to Firth and Wagner and Firth and Wagnerrsquos(1998) response to Gass5

Firth and Wagner (1997) criticize the field of SLA for its overwhelm-ingly cognitive orientation in defining and researching the learner andlearning Such an approach too strongly emphasizes the individual theinternalization of mental processes and ldquothe development of grammati-cal competencerdquo (p 288) Meaning does not occur they argue inldquoprivate thoughts executed and then transferred from brain to brain but[as] a social and negotiable product of interaction transcending indi-vidual intentions and behavioursrdquo (p 290) Like other humans alanguage learner should be considered a ldquoparticipant-as-language-lsquouserrsquoin social interactionrdquo (p 286) It is time they say to question the fieldrsquosdivision of language use (as consigned to the social) from languagelearning (as the individualized decontextualized domain of the cogni-tive) An SLA field reformulated according to Firth and Wagnerrsquosargument would help us gain more comprehension of ldquohow language isused as it is being acquired through interaction and used resourcefullycontingently and contextuallyrdquo (p 296) Reiterating their view oflearning in their response to Gass (1998) they invoke Vygotsky inasserting that ldquocognitive structures are influenced and indeed devel-oped through engagement in social activity From this perspective itcan be said that language use forms cognitionrdquo (Firth amp Wagner 1998p 92)

Firth and Wagnerrsquos argument that learning (or acquisition) occursthrough use would find support not just in Vygotsky but also in the othersociocultural perspectives discussed in this article In fact Kramsch(2002) points out that the unifying thread running through her editedcollection ldquois a common dissatisfaction with the traditional separationbetween language acquisition and language socializationrdquo (p 4) lan-guage socialization being one of the sociocultural perspectives promi-nent in current SLA Some go further In her contribution to theKramsch collection Larsen-Freeman (2002) appears to be beyondldquodissatisfactionrdquo in declaring that ldquothe failure to consider language userdquois one of the ldquomost trenchant criticisms of mainstream SLA researchrdquo (p34) the other being the lack of balance between the social and thecognitive

5 For reprints of some of the papers as well as commentary see Seidlhofer (2003) Larsen-Freeman (2002) provides a very concise summary of the debate

46 TESOL QUARTERLY

Although some of the respondents (namely Hall 1997 and Liddicoat1997) support Firth and Wagnerrsquos argument it is the opposing respon-dents whose position we summarize particularly thosemdashLong (1997)Kasper (1997) and Gass (1998)mdashwho assert strong opposition to Firthand Wagnerrsquos claim that we should not separate acquisition and usebecause use is actually how learning takes place Perhaps because theyshare a cognitive orientation all three give basically the same responsemaintaining a strong split between acquisition and use To Kasper(1997) the ldquomost nagging problemrdquo with Firth and Wagnerrsquos paper isthat it ldquohas in fact very little to say about L2 acquisitionrdquo (p 310) becauseas she sees it although social context can influence SLA the SLA processitself is essentially cognitive Long (1997) completely agrees ending hisresponse by offering his ldquoskepticism as to whether greater insights intoSL use will necessarily have much to say about SL acquisitionrdquo (p 322) Andthough Gass (1998) concedes that perhaps ldquosome parts of language areconstructed sociallyrdquo that in itself does not imply that ldquowe cannotinvestigate language as an abstract entity that resides in the individualrdquo(p 88) maintaining in so doing her view of learning as largely anindividualized mental process Drawing a figure characterizing the fieldGass (1998) presents ldquoSLArdquo and ldquoSL Userdquo as together making upresearch on ldquoSecond Language Studiesrdquo but it is important that shedraws ldquoSLArdquo and ldquoSL Userdquo as branches that are separate and uncon-nected (p 88)

As Larsen-Freeman (2002) points out this debate is irresolvablebecause it involves two different ontological positions that reflect ldquofunda-mental differences in the way they frame their understanding of learn-ingrdquo (p 37) What one might hope for though is that ldquowe agree todisagreerdquo as the expression goes and accept that contrasting views oflearning can stimulate rather than befuddle the field

The Debate on Theory Construction in SLAPositivism Versus Relativism

During the past 15 years the SLA field has devoted more attention tometatheoretical and metamethodological concerns than it had in earlierdecades The most prominent debate has concerned theory constructionin SLA Though others have written (and continue to write) on theoryconstruction6 we have selected a set of authors and articles rangingfrom 1991 to 2000 that comprise a coherent debate for discussion Thediscussion we profile of theory constructionmdashin fact any discussion oftheory constructionmdashaddresses a complex subject that raises a number

6 See for example Atkinson (2002) McGroarty (1998) and van Lier (1991 1994)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 47

of questions We have distilled from the discussion the authorsrsquo debateon positivism versus relativism in theory construction The tensions anddifferences it raises reflect a new dynamic entering the field one thatcontinues and that results from we believe the arrival on the SLA sceneof the sociocultural perspectives we discussed earlier7

Beretta (1991) framed a discussion of theory construction by address-ing issues such as whether or not (what he saw as) a diversity of theoriesand criteria in SLA represents a problem that is should this diversity bereduced to one or a few theories Considering different approaches totheory building Beretta arrives at a clear conclusion in favor of fewrather than many theories viewing the former as the result of ldquorational-ityrdquo and the latter the outcome of ldquorelativismrdquo (p 495) Comparing SLAto the ldquoalready-successful sciencesrdquo (p 497 ie the so-called hardsciences) Beretta says that because these fields do not unlike SLA haveldquomultiple rival theoriesrdquo (p 497) it is not beneficial for SLA to havemany theories either He goes on to state that the ldquomost anarchiccriterion of allrdquo is that of ldquono criterionrdquo (p 501) Referring to what hecalls ldquoextreme relativismrdquo Berettarsquos nightmare scenario is one in whichphenomena are not independent of but ldquoalways relative to the values ofindividuals and communitiesrdquo (p 501) This ldquowhateverrdquo position (to usea current slang term) implies that ldquopoetry voodoo religion and non-sense are no less valid bases for belief than lsquosciencersquordquo (p 501) Clearlythen Beretta supports theory building only from a rationalistpositivist8

paradigm and certainly not from a relativist one He is not aloneAlthough Crookes (1992) does not address relativism his agreementwith Berretta is implicit in his adherence to a positivistic notion ofscience as the gold standard in considering theory construction9

The debate continued with the publication of a special issue of AppliedLinguistics in 1993 titled ldquoTheory Construction in SLArdquo which containspapers from a 1991 conference at Michigan State University titledldquoTheory Construction and Methodology in Second Language ResearchrdquoAlmost all of the contributors (ie Beretta Long Crookes Gregg)10 take

7 To follow the debate the reader should consult in this order Beretta (1991) Crookes(1992) Beretta (1993) Block (1996) Gregg Long Jordan amp Beretta (1997) Lantolf (1996)and Gregg (2000)

8 Though Beretta states that positivism is not a viable paradigm any longer he appears to bekeeping to positivism nevertheless taking perhaps a postpositivistic stance instead Forinformation on the two positions (which are within the same paradigm) see for example Gubaand Lincoln (1998) Because we see positivism and postpositivism as matters of degree ratherthan substance and because positivism is the better known term in the field we will use positivismto describe Berettarsquos and othersrsquo positions

9 Such a characterization of science (as equivalent to positivism) may be simplistic We thankone of the anonymous reviewers for pointing this out

10 The exception is Schumann (1993) who argues to oversimplify it that art and science arenot that different Because Schumannrsquos position is similar to that of the other relativists that wediscuss we will not focus on him here

48 TESOL QUARTERLY

a similar position that although it does not necessarily mention relativ-ism explicitly nevertheless implicitly opposes it by supporting positivismas the (sole) paradigm for cognitive research on SLA Beretta andCrookes (1993) dismiss the argument that the social can cause thecontent of theories they argue that social conditions are not only notsufficient but are not necessary ldquofor scientific discoveryrdquo(p 253) Gregg(1993) like Beretta and Crookes (1993) does not attack relativismdirectly Nevertheless it is clear that Gregg (1993) opposes relativism ldquoInSLA the overall explanandum is the acquisition (or non-acquisition)of L2 competence in the Chomskyan sense of the termrdquo (p 278) Andthe criteria that Gregg chooses for discussing theory constructiontransition theories and property theories come from psychology (ieCummins 1983) Thus in what becomes an ongoing metaphor in thedebate Greggrsquos ldquoLet a Couple of Flowers Bloomrdquo does not advocate arelativistrsquos acceptance of a multiplicity of theories but advocates ldquoacouplerdquo as opposed to many and within a cognitive and positivisticframework

Adapting Greggrsquos metaphor Lantolfrsquos (1996) article subtitled ldquoLet-ting All the Flowers Bloomrdquo not surprisingly supports relativism andopposes positivism Though Blockrsquos (1996) article is more wide-ranginghe too argues for relativism ldquoReality is a social and therefore multipleconstruction there is no tangible fragmentable reality on to whichscience can convergerdquo (p 69 citing Lincoln 1990) However that doesnot mean that everything is acceptable Block asserts Though heacknowledges that relativism and positivism are two fundamentallydifferent ontologies he argues again citing Lincoln (1990) that ratherthan throwing their hands up at the situation relativists attempt to findpatterns ldquoworking hypotheses or temporary time-and-place-bound knowl-edgerdquo (Block 1996 p 69) Coming from a similar position Lantolf(1996) provides a ldquopostmodernist critical analysisrdquo of the theory-buildingliterature of Gregg Long Crookes and others pointing out that theyare all clearly dedicated to the rationalistpositivist paradigm in the SLAfield and adding ironically that they ldquoshare a common fear of thedreaded lsquorelativismrsquordquo (p 715) In fact Lantolf coins a term for thiscondition relativaphobia (p 731) In a detailed set of points Lantolfargues against what he sees as the hegemony of the positivistic echoingBlockrsquos (1996) accusation of ldquoscience envyrdquo (p 64) in accusing Greggand the others of having ldquophysics envyrdquo (p 717) Where Gregg and theothers consider the existence within SLA of multiple and incommensu-rable theories an obstacle to the development and maturation of thefield Lantolf (1996) encourages ldquoLetting All the Flowers Bloomrdquowarning that otherwise ldquoonce theoretical hegemony is achieved alterna-tive metaphors are cut off or suffocated by the single official metaphor

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 49

subsequently those who espouse different world views cease to havea voicerdquo (p 739)

Both Block (1996) and Lantolf (1996) generated response articlesGregg Long Jordan and Beretta (1997) critiqued the Block articlewhile Gregg (2000) responded to Lantolf (1996) by presenting anegative summary of postmodernism Writing from within their positivistparadigm Gregg Long Jordan and Beretta (1997) accept Blockrsquoscriticism that they have ldquoscience envyrdquo

Let us grant that many or even all of us in the field have the occasional twingeof envy for the accomplishments of other sciences given the fairly feebleprogress made so far in SLA and the magnificent intellectual achievementsof the more successful sciences such envy would certainly be unsurprising(p 543)

Unfortunately their stance becomes both smug and naiumlve For exampleGregg and his colleagues (1997) declare a state of ldquodisbeliefrdquo in Blockrsquospoint that controlling for extraneous variables in SLA research isldquoprobably not even desirablerdquo (p 544 quoting Block 1996 p 74)Continuing they declare ldquoDo we actually need to point out thedisastrous consequences of Blockrsquos lsquostancersquo for SLA or indeed for anyintellectual inquiryrdquo (p 544) No one invoking a positivist paradigmwould disagree with their critique because one of the paradigmrsquosprinciples is indeed the manipulation of variables which includescontrolling wherever possible for extraneous variables However whatGregg and colleagues (1997) fail to recognize is that Blockrsquos statementcomes from a different (relativist) paradigm rendering their responseirrelevant

In his critique of Lantolf (1996) Gregg (2000) does not directlyreiterate the anti-relativist pro-positivist argument that he and hiscolleagues had already published elsewhere Instead he begins bysummarizing (negatively) postmodernism the approach that Lantolf(1996) takes in his article Describing postmodernism Gregg discussesits stance that among other things instead of written texts havingobjective meaningmdashthat of the textrsquos authormdashmeaning is generated asthe reader interacts with the text Greggrsquos response to this stance revealshis reluctance (or inability) to think outside of his paradigm ldquoSuch aperspective strikes me as nonsenserdquo (p 386) On the other hand hetakes ldquothe common-sense position that the meaning of sentences canusually be agreed upon and that there generally are correct andincorrect interpretations of (meaningful) sentencesrdquo (pp 386ndash387)

Concluding his discussion of postmodernism Gregg (2000) assertsagain from within his paradigm

50 TESOL QUARTERLY

It is no accident that postmodernism originated as a movement amongliterary critics and cultural philosophers It flourishes that is precisely inthose areas of intellectual activity where decisive evidence is extremely hard tofind Faced with a range of disciplines that are actually making progress the postmodernists tried to turn the tables on the sciences Ratherthan claiming that the grapes of science are sour the postmodernist assuresus that there are no grapes To put it a bit differently one can seepostmodernism as a sophisticated way for academics in the humanities toovercome their own ldquophysics envyrdquo (pp 389ndash390)

With that memorable point of view we will end our discussion of thetheory construction debate On the positive side we agree that debateslike this stimulate a field And debates being debates it is not necessaryor relevant to try to come to agreement After all (as we indicated indiscussing the debate about learning) the debate on theory constructionis occurring across very different paradigms with contradictory views ofreality Although the debate can be framed as occurring betweencognitivists and socioculturalists we have emphasized a more fundamen-tal difference Like Lantolf (1996) we view as positive a field in whichpossibly incommensurable theories proliferate and are debated ratherthan allowing one theory to dominate without being problematized Weare only sorry that so much energy has gone into some participantsrsquorefusal to admit (or understand) that these positions on theory areincommensurable because they stem from contradictory ontologies Andthe smug tone that some of the debate takes is therefore not only naiumlvebut unfair

Though we have discussed a debate whose outcome is incommensura-bility some argue for cognitive-sociocultural integration Authors takevarying approaches in making their argument For example Larsen-Freeman (2002) proposes chaoscomplexity theory as a means ofaccommodating both sociocultural and cognitive perspectives withinSLA Block (2003) cites several pieces of research that argue for thecomplementarity of cognitive and sociocultural views namely Ellis(2000) Swain and Lapkin (1998) Tarone and Liu (1995) and Teutsch-Dwyer (2001) However Block himself does not take a clear positionsupporting integration Instead he advocates a ldquomore multidisciplinaryand socially informed futurerdquo for those following the input-interactiontradition (p 139) Making a somewhat different argument Watson-Gegeo (2004) sees a possible new ldquosynthesisrdquo of the cognitive with thesociocultural because of developments in the field that view cognition asa phenomenon which ldquooriginates in social interaction and is shaped bycultural and sociopolitical processesrdquo (p 331) Thorne (2005) andLantolf (2000) envision Vygotskyan theory in particular as providing alens for viewing social context as central to the development of cognition(see also Johnson 2004)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 51

IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVESFOR CLASSROOM PRACTICE

Hall (2002) observes that traditional SLA approaches seek to identifygood pedagogical interventions that will most effectively ldquofacilitatelearnersrsquo assimilation of new systemic knowledge into known knowledgestructuresrdquo (p 48) However given their different understandings oflanguage learning socioculturally informed studies offer much differentrecommendations for improving classroom practice For example inseeing learning as participation as relational and interactive and asconstrained by unequal power relations Lave and Wengerrsquos perspectiveasks educators to consider how the practices of school relate to thoseoutside of school how schools and classrooms themselves are organizedinto communities of practice and what kinds of participation are madeaccessible to students

Other studies taking sociocultural perspectives have examined class-room interactions or discourse patterns with an eye toward identifyingthose that best facilitate student participation (Gutierrez Rymes ampLarsen 1995 Nassaji amp Wells 2000 Nystrand Gamoran Zeiser amp Long2003 Tharp amp Gallimore 1991) Still others have examined such topicsas the kinds of guided or scaffolded assistance from teachers (or otherexperts) that can move students along within their ZPD (Aljaafreh ampLantolf 1994 Anton 1999 McCormick amp Donato 2000 Nassaji ampCumming 2000) the effectiveness of goal-oriented dialogue betweenpeers to mediate learning (Donato 1994 Ohta 2000 Swain amp Lapkin1998) and the need for dialogic and contextually sensitive approachesto language assessment ( Johnson 2001 2004) These studies are only afew among many but they share the sociocultural awareness that highlysituated classroom participation promotes language learning

We acknowledge that we do not specify general recommendations fortransforming classroom practices primarily because we are aware of thelimits of what can be generalized across classroom contexts Hall (2000)speaks to the situatedness of learning processes in saying that ldquoeffectingchange in our classrooms will not result from imposing solutions fromoutside but from nurturing effectual practices that are indigenous to ourparticular contextsrdquo (p 295) Clearly this is no easy task for educators Itrequires ongoing and intense work with every group of students andreflective awareness of how the affective and political dimensions ofclassroom life affect individual studentsrsquo participation However with theincreased awareness and sensitivity to local contexts that socioculturalperspectives bring us we have reason to hope that we are closer tounderstanding and creating the kinds of classroom communities thatlearners need

52 TESOL QUARTERLY

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

Although it is difficult to make predictions about the next 15 years insuch a dynamic field we end our article by looking forward to somedevelopments we consider exciting and worth watching Among them iswork in conversation analysis investigating language learning as it occursin the turn-by-turn development of conversational processes (see egMarkee 2004) developments in discursive psychology (not yet emergentin SLA but relevant for researchers interested in learner positioningwithin social practices see eg Davies amp Harreacute 1990) a growth in workfocusing on postcolonial transnational and World Englishes (egCanagarajah 2000 Jenkins 2003 also this issue Kachru 2001 Pennycook1998 Rampton 1995) and explorations in the new kinds of discursivepractices that language learners engage when using new technologies(see especially Gee 2003 Kern this issue Lam 2000 Thorne 2003 andWarschauer 1997) We are eager to see what unfolds

THE AUTHORS

Jane Zuengler is a professor in the English Department at the University ofWisconsinndashMadison Her research and teaching interests include second languageacquisition and use classroom discourse analysis critical perspectives on languageand the global spread of English

Elizabeth R Miller is a doctoral candidate in the English Department at theUniversity of WisconsinndashMadison Her research interests include second languageacquisition and use microanalytic discourse analysis and critical and poststructuralperspectives on language pedagogy and ideology

REFERENCES

Adair-Hauck B amp Donato R (1994) Foreign language explanations within thezone of proximal development The Canadian Modern Language Review 50 532ndash555

Aljaafreh A amp Lantolf J P (1994) Negative feedback as regulation and secondlanguage learning in the zone of proximal development The Modern LanguageJournal 78 465ndash483

Anton M (1999) The discourse of a learner-centered classroom Socioculturalperspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second language classroom TheModern Language Journal 83 303ndash318

Anton M amp DiCamilla F (1998) Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborativeinteraction in the L2 classroom The Canadian Modern Language Review 54 314ndash342

Atkinson D (2002) Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisi-tion The Modern Language Journal 86 525ndash545

Atkinson D (2003) Language socialization and dys-socialization in a South Indiancollege In R Bayley amp S R Schechter (Eds) Language socialization in bilingualand multilingual societies (pp 147ndash168) Clevedon England Multilingual Matters

46 TESOL QUARTERLY

Although some of the respondents (namely Hall 1997 and Liddicoat1997) support Firth and Wagnerrsquos argument it is the opposing respon-dents whose position we summarize particularly thosemdashLong (1997)Kasper (1997) and Gass (1998)mdashwho assert strong opposition to Firthand Wagnerrsquos claim that we should not separate acquisition and usebecause use is actually how learning takes place Perhaps because theyshare a cognitive orientation all three give basically the same responsemaintaining a strong split between acquisition and use To Kasper(1997) the ldquomost nagging problemrdquo with Firth and Wagnerrsquos paper isthat it ldquohas in fact very little to say about L2 acquisitionrdquo (p 310) becauseas she sees it although social context can influence SLA the SLA processitself is essentially cognitive Long (1997) completely agrees ending hisresponse by offering his ldquoskepticism as to whether greater insights intoSL use will necessarily have much to say about SL acquisitionrdquo (p 322) Andthough Gass (1998) concedes that perhaps ldquosome parts of language areconstructed sociallyrdquo that in itself does not imply that ldquowe cannotinvestigate language as an abstract entity that resides in the individualrdquo(p 88) maintaining in so doing her view of learning as largely anindividualized mental process Drawing a figure characterizing the fieldGass (1998) presents ldquoSLArdquo and ldquoSL Userdquo as together making upresearch on ldquoSecond Language Studiesrdquo but it is important that shedraws ldquoSLArdquo and ldquoSL Userdquo as branches that are separate and uncon-nected (p 88)

As Larsen-Freeman (2002) points out this debate is irresolvablebecause it involves two different ontological positions that reflect ldquofunda-mental differences in the way they frame their understanding of learn-ingrdquo (p 37) What one might hope for though is that ldquowe agree todisagreerdquo as the expression goes and accept that contrasting views oflearning can stimulate rather than befuddle the field

The Debate on Theory Construction in SLAPositivism Versus Relativism

During the past 15 years the SLA field has devoted more attention tometatheoretical and metamethodological concerns than it had in earlierdecades The most prominent debate has concerned theory constructionin SLA Though others have written (and continue to write) on theoryconstruction6 we have selected a set of authors and articles rangingfrom 1991 to 2000 that comprise a coherent debate for discussion Thediscussion we profile of theory constructionmdashin fact any discussion oftheory constructionmdashaddresses a complex subject that raises a number

6 See for example Atkinson (2002) McGroarty (1998) and van Lier (1991 1994)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 47

of questions We have distilled from the discussion the authorsrsquo debateon positivism versus relativism in theory construction The tensions anddifferences it raises reflect a new dynamic entering the field one thatcontinues and that results from we believe the arrival on the SLA sceneof the sociocultural perspectives we discussed earlier7

Beretta (1991) framed a discussion of theory construction by address-ing issues such as whether or not (what he saw as) a diversity of theoriesand criteria in SLA represents a problem that is should this diversity bereduced to one or a few theories Considering different approaches totheory building Beretta arrives at a clear conclusion in favor of fewrather than many theories viewing the former as the result of ldquorational-ityrdquo and the latter the outcome of ldquorelativismrdquo (p 495) Comparing SLAto the ldquoalready-successful sciencesrdquo (p 497 ie the so-called hardsciences) Beretta says that because these fields do not unlike SLA haveldquomultiple rival theoriesrdquo (p 497) it is not beneficial for SLA to havemany theories either He goes on to state that the ldquomost anarchiccriterion of allrdquo is that of ldquono criterionrdquo (p 501) Referring to what hecalls ldquoextreme relativismrdquo Berettarsquos nightmare scenario is one in whichphenomena are not independent of but ldquoalways relative to the values ofindividuals and communitiesrdquo (p 501) This ldquowhateverrdquo position (to usea current slang term) implies that ldquopoetry voodoo religion and non-sense are no less valid bases for belief than lsquosciencersquordquo (p 501) Clearlythen Beretta supports theory building only from a rationalistpositivist8

paradigm and certainly not from a relativist one He is not aloneAlthough Crookes (1992) does not address relativism his agreementwith Berretta is implicit in his adherence to a positivistic notion ofscience as the gold standard in considering theory construction9

The debate continued with the publication of a special issue of AppliedLinguistics in 1993 titled ldquoTheory Construction in SLArdquo which containspapers from a 1991 conference at Michigan State University titledldquoTheory Construction and Methodology in Second Language ResearchrdquoAlmost all of the contributors (ie Beretta Long Crookes Gregg)10 take

7 To follow the debate the reader should consult in this order Beretta (1991) Crookes(1992) Beretta (1993) Block (1996) Gregg Long Jordan amp Beretta (1997) Lantolf (1996)and Gregg (2000)

8 Though Beretta states that positivism is not a viable paradigm any longer he appears to bekeeping to positivism nevertheless taking perhaps a postpositivistic stance instead Forinformation on the two positions (which are within the same paradigm) see for example Gubaand Lincoln (1998) Because we see positivism and postpositivism as matters of degree ratherthan substance and because positivism is the better known term in the field we will use positivismto describe Berettarsquos and othersrsquo positions

9 Such a characterization of science (as equivalent to positivism) may be simplistic We thankone of the anonymous reviewers for pointing this out

10 The exception is Schumann (1993) who argues to oversimplify it that art and science arenot that different Because Schumannrsquos position is similar to that of the other relativists that wediscuss we will not focus on him here

48 TESOL QUARTERLY

a similar position that although it does not necessarily mention relativ-ism explicitly nevertheless implicitly opposes it by supporting positivismas the (sole) paradigm for cognitive research on SLA Beretta andCrookes (1993) dismiss the argument that the social can cause thecontent of theories they argue that social conditions are not only notsufficient but are not necessary ldquofor scientific discoveryrdquo(p 253) Gregg(1993) like Beretta and Crookes (1993) does not attack relativismdirectly Nevertheless it is clear that Gregg (1993) opposes relativism ldquoInSLA the overall explanandum is the acquisition (or non-acquisition)of L2 competence in the Chomskyan sense of the termrdquo (p 278) Andthe criteria that Gregg chooses for discussing theory constructiontransition theories and property theories come from psychology (ieCummins 1983) Thus in what becomes an ongoing metaphor in thedebate Greggrsquos ldquoLet a Couple of Flowers Bloomrdquo does not advocate arelativistrsquos acceptance of a multiplicity of theories but advocates ldquoacouplerdquo as opposed to many and within a cognitive and positivisticframework

Adapting Greggrsquos metaphor Lantolfrsquos (1996) article subtitled ldquoLet-ting All the Flowers Bloomrdquo not surprisingly supports relativism andopposes positivism Though Blockrsquos (1996) article is more wide-ranginghe too argues for relativism ldquoReality is a social and therefore multipleconstruction there is no tangible fragmentable reality on to whichscience can convergerdquo (p 69 citing Lincoln 1990) However that doesnot mean that everything is acceptable Block asserts Though heacknowledges that relativism and positivism are two fundamentallydifferent ontologies he argues again citing Lincoln (1990) that ratherthan throwing their hands up at the situation relativists attempt to findpatterns ldquoworking hypotheses or temporary time-and-place-bound knowl-edgerdquo (Block 1996 p 69) Coming from a similar position Lantolf(1996) provides a ldquopostmodernist critical analysisrdquo of the theory-buildingliterature of Gregg Long Crookes and others pointing out that theyare all clearly dedicated to the rationalistpositivist paradigm in the SLAfield and adding ironically that they ldquoshare a common fear of thedreaded lsquorelativismrsquordquo (p 715) In fact Lantolf coins a term for thiscondition relativaphobia (p 731) In a detailed set of points Lantolfargues against what he sees as the hegemony of the positivistic echoingBlockrsquos (1996) accusation of ldquoscience envyrdquo (p 64) in accusing Greggand the others of having ldquophysics envyrdquo (p 717) Where Gregg and theothers consider the existence within SLA of multiple and incommensu-rable theories an obstacle to the development and maturation of thefield Lantolf (1996) encourages ldquoLetting All the Flowers Bloomrdquowarning that otherwise ldquoonce theoretical hegemony is achieved alterna-tive metaphors are cut off or suffocated by the single official metaphor

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 49

subsequently those who espouse different world views cease to havea voicerdquo (p 739)

Both Block (1996) and Lantolf (1996) generated response articlesGregg Long Jordan and Beretta (1997) critiqued the Block articlewhile Gregg (2000) responded to Lantolf (1996) by presenting anegative summary of postmodernism Writing from within their positivistparadigm Gregg Long Jordan and Beretta (1997) accept Blockrsquoscriticism that they have ldquoscience envyrdquo

Let us grant that many or even all of us in the field have the occasional twingeof envy for the accomplishments of other sciences given the fairly feebleprogress made so far in SLA and the magnificent intellectual achievementsof the more successful sciences such envy would certainly be unsurprising(p 543)

Unfortunately their stance becomes both smug and naiumlve For exampleGregg and his colleagues (1997) declare a state of ldquodisbeliefrdquo in Blockrsquospoint that controlling for extraneous variables in SLA research isldquoprobably not even desirablerdquo (p 544 quoting Block 1996 p 74)Continuing they declare ldquoDo we actually need to point out thedisastrous consequences of Blockrsquos lsquostancersquo for SLA or indeed for anyintellectual inquiryrdquo (p 544) No one invoking a positivist paradigmwould disagree with their critique because one of the paradigmrsquosprinciples is indeed the manipulation of variables which includescontrolling wherever possible for extraneous variables However whatGregg and colleagues (1997) fail to recognize is that Blockrsquos statementcomes from a different (relativist) paradigm rendering their responseirrelevant

In his critique of Lantolf (1996) Gregg (2000) does not directlyreiterate the anti-relativist pro-positivist argument that he and hiscolleagues had already published elsewhere Instead he begins bysummarizing (negatively) postmodernism the approach that Lantolf(1996) takes in his article Describing postmodernism Gregg discussesits stance that among other things instead of written texts havingobjective meaningmdashthat of the textrsquos authormdashmeaning is generated asthe reader interacts with the text Greggrsquos response to this stance revealshis reluctance (or inability) to think outside of his paradigm ldquoSuch aperspective strikes me as nonsenserdquo (p 386) On the other hand hetakes ldquothe common-sense position that the meaning of sentences canusually be agreed upon and that there generally are correct andincorrect interpretations of (meaningful) sentencesrdquo (pp 386ndash387)

Concluding his discussion of postmodernism Gregg (2000) assertsagain from within his paradigm

50 TESOL QUARTERLY

It is no accident that postmodernism originated as a movement amongliterary critics and cultural philosophers It flourishes that is precisely inthose areas of intellectual activity where decisive evidence is extremely hard tofind Faced with a range of disciplines that are actually making progress the postmodernists tried to turn the tables on the sciences Ratherthan claiming that the grapes of science are sour the postmodernist assuresus that there are no grapes To put it a bit differently one can seepostmodernism as a sophisticated way for academics in the humanities toovercome their own ldquophysics envyrdquo (pp 389ndash390)

With that memorable point of view we will end our discussion of thetheory construction debate On the positive side we agree that debateslike this stimulate a field And debates being debates it is not necessaryor relevant to try to come to agreement After all (as we indicated indiscussing the debate about learning) the debate on theory constructionis occurring across very different paradigms with contradictory views ofreality Although the debate can be framed as occurring betweencognitivists and socioculturalists we have emphasized a more fundamen-tal difference Like Lantolf (1996) we view as positive a field in whichpossibly incommensurable theories proliferate and are debated ratherthan allowing one theory to dominate without being problematized Weare only sorry that so much energy has gone into some participantsrsquorefusal to admit (or understand) that these positions on theory areincommensurable because they stem from contradictory ontologies Andthe smug tone that some of the debate takes is therefore not only naiumlvebut unfair

Though we have discussed a debate whose outcome is incommensura-bility some argue for cognitive-sociocultural integration Authors takevarying approaches in making their argument For example Larsen-Freeman (2002) proposes chaoscomplexity theory as a means ofaccommodating both sociocultural and cognitive perspectives withinSLA Block (2003) cites several pieces of research that argue for thecomplementarity of cognitive and sociocultural views namely Ellis(2000) Swain and Lapkin (1998) Tarone and Liu (1995) and Teutsch-Dwyer (2001) However Block himself does not take a clear positionsupporting integration Instead he advocates a ldquomore multidisciplinaryand socially informed futurerdquo for those following the input-interactiontradition (p 139) Making a somewhat different argument Watson-Gegeo (2004) sees a possible new ldquosynthesisrdquo of the cognitive with thesociocultural because of developments in the field that view cognition asa phenomenon which ldquooriginates in social interaction and is shaped bycultural and sociopolitical processesrdquo (p 331) Thorne (2005) andLantolf (2000) envision Vygotskyan theory in particular as providing alens for viewing social context as central to the development of cognition(see also Johnson 2004)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 51

IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVESFOR CLASSROOM PRACTICE

Hall (2002) observes that traditional SLA approaches seek to identifygood pedagogical interventions that will most effectively ldquofacilitatelearnersrsquo assimilation of new systemic knowledge into known knowledgestructuresrdquo (p 48) However given their different understandings oflanguage learning socioculturally informed studies offer much differentrecommendations for improving classroom practice For example inseeing learning as participation as relational and interactive and asconstrained by unequal power relations Lave and Wengerrsquos perspectiveasks educators to consider how the practices of school relate to thoseoutside of school how schools and classrooms themselves are organizedinto communities of practice and what kinds of participation are madeaccessible to students

Other studies taking sociocultural perspectives have examined class-room interactions or discourse patterns with an eye toward identifyingthose that best facilitate student participation (Gutierrez Rymes ampLarsen 1995 Nassaji amp Wells 2000 Nystrand Gamoran Zeiser amp Long2003 Tharp amp Gallimore 1991) Still others have examined such topicsas the kinds of guided or scaffolded assistance from teachers (or otherexperts) that can move students along within their ZPD (Aljaafreh ampLantolf 1994 Anton 1999 McCormick amp Donato 2000 Nassaji ampCumming 2000) the effectiveness of goal-oriented dialogue betweenpeers to mediate learning (Donato 1994 Ohta 2000 Swain amp Lapkin1998) and the need for dialogic and contextually sensitive approachesto language assessment ( Johnson 2001 2004) These studies are only afew among many but they share the sociocultural awareness that highlysituated classroom participation promotes language learning

We acknowledge that we do not specify general recommendations fortransforming classroom practices primarily because we are aware of thelimits of what can be generalized across classroom contexts Hall (2000)speaks to the situatedness of learning processes in saying that ldquoeffectingchange in our classrooms will not result from imposing solutions fromoutside but from nurturing effectual practices that are indigenous to ourparticular contextsrdquo (p 295) Clearly this is no easy task for educators Itrequires ongoing and intense work with every group of students andreflective awareness of how the affective and political dimensions ofclassroom life affect individual studentsrsquo participation However with theincreased awareness and sensitivity to local contexts that socioculturalperspectives bring us we have reason to hope that we are closer tounderstanding and creating the kinds of classroom communities thatlearners need

52 TESOL QUARTERLY

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

Although it is difficult to make predictions about the next 15 years insuch a dynamic field we end our article by looking forward to somedevelopments we consider exciting and worth watching Among them iswork in conversation analysis investigating language learning as it occursin the turn-by-turn development of conversational processes (see egMarkee 2004) developments in discursive psychology (not yet emergentin SLA but relevant for researchers interested in learner positioningwithin social practices see eg Davies amp Harreacute 1990) a growth in workfocusing on postcolonial transnational and World Englishes (egCanagarajah 2000 Jenkins 2003 also this issue Kachru 2001 Pennycook1998 Rampton 1995) and explorations in the new kinds of discursivepractices that language learners engage when using new technologies(see especially Gee 2003 Kern this issue Lam 2000 Thorne 2003 andWarschauer 1997) We are eager to see what unfolds

THE AUTHORS

Jane Zuengler is a professor in the English Department at the University ofWisconsinndashMadison Her research and teaching interests include second languageacquisition and use classroom discourse analysis critical perspectives on languageand the global spread of English

Elizabeth R Miller is a doctoral candidate in the English Department at theUniversity of WisconsinndashMadison Her research interests include second languageacquisition and use microanalytic discourse analysis and critical and poststructuralperspectives on language pedagogy and ideology

REFERENCES

Adair-Hauck B amp Donato R (1994) Foreign language explanations within thezone of proximal development The Canadian Modern Language Review 50 532ndash555

Aljaafreh A amp Lantolf J P (1994) Negative feedback as regulation and secondlanguage learning in the zone of proximal development The Modern LanguageJournal 78 465ndash483

Anton M (1999) The discourse of a learner-centered classroom Socioculturalperspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second language classroom TheModern Language Journal 83 303ndash318

Anton M amp DiCamilla F (1998) Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborativeinteraction in the L2 classroom The Canadian Modern Language Review 54 314ndash342

Atkinson D (2002) Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisi-tion The Modern Language Journal 86 525ndash545

Atkinson D (2003) Language socialization and dys-socialization in a South Indiancollege In R Bayley amp S R Schechter (Eds) Language socialization in bilingualand multilingual societies (pp 147ndash168) Clevedon England Multilingual Matters

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 47

of questions We have distilled from the discussion the authorsrsquo debateon positivism versus relativism in theory construction The tensions anddifferences it raises reflect a new dynamic entering the field one thatcontinues and that results from we believe the arrival on the SLA sceneof the sociocultural perspectives we discussed earlier7

Beretta (1991) framed a discussion of theory construction by address-ing issues such as whether or not (what he saw as) a diversity of theoriesand criteria in SLA represents a problem that is should this diversity bereduced to one or a few theories Considering different approaches totheory building Beretta arrives at a clear conclusion in favor of fewrather than many theories viewing the former as the result of ldquorational-ityrdquo and the latter the outcome of ldquorelativismrdquo (p 495) Comparing SLAto the ldquoalready-successful sciencesrdquo (p 497 ie the so-called hardsciences) Beretta says that because these fields do not unlike SLA haveldquomultiple rival theoriesrdquo (p 497) it is not beneficial for SLA to havemany theories either He goes on to state that the ldquomost anarchiccriterion of allrdquo is that of ldquono criterionrdquo (p 501) Referring to what hecalls ldquoextreme relativismrdquo Berettarsquos nightmare scenario is one in whichphenomena are not independent of but ldquoalways relative to the values ofindividuals and communitiesrdquo (p 501) This ldquowhateverrdquo position (to usea current slang term) implies that ldquopoetry voodoo religion and non-sense are no less valid bases for belief than lsquosciencersquordquo (p 501) Clearlythen Beretta supports theory building only from a rationalistpositivist8

paradigm and certainly not from a relativist one He is not aloneAlthough Crookes (1992) does not address relativism his agreementwith Berretta is implicit in his adherence to a positivistic notion ofscience as the gold standard in considering theory construction9

The debate continued with the publication of a special issue of AppliedLinguistics in 1993 titled ldquoTheory Construction in SLArdquo which containspapers from a 1991 conference at Michigan State University titledldquoTheory Construction and Methodology in Second Language ResearchrdquoAlmost all of the contributors (ie Beretta Long Crookes Gregg)10 take

7 To follow the debate the reader should consult in this order Beretta (1991) Crookes(1992) Beretta (1993) Block (1996) Gregg Long Jordan amp Beretta (1997) Lantolf (1996)and Gregg (2000)

8 Though Beretta states that positivism is not a viable paradigm any longer he appears to bekeeping to positivism nevertheless taking perhaps a postpositivistic stance instead Forinformation on the two positions (which are within the same paradigm) see for example Gubaand Lincoln (1998) Because we see positivism and postpositivism as matters of degree ratherthan substance and because positivism is the better known term in the field we will use positivismto describe Berettarsquos and othersrsquo positions

9 Such a characterization of science (as equivalent to positivism) may be simplistic We thankone of the anonymous reviewers for pointing this out

10 The exception is Schumann (1993) who argues to oversimplify it that art and science arenot that different Because Schumannrsquos position is similar to that of the other relativists that wediscuss we will not focus on him here

48 TESOL QUARTERLY

a similar position that although it does not necessarily mention relativ-ism explicitly nevertheless implicitly opposes it by supporting positivismas the (sole) paradigm for cognitive research on SLA Beretta andCrookes (1993) dismiss the argument that the social can cause thecontent of theories they argue that social conditions are not only notsufficient but are not necessary ldquofor scientific discoveryrdquo(p 253) Gregg(1993) like Beretta and Crookes (1993) does not attack relativismdirectly Nevertheless it is clear that Gregg (1993) opposes relativism ldquoInSLA the overall explanandum is the acquisition (or non-acquisition)of L2 competence in the Chomskyan sense of the termrdquo (p 278) Andthe criteria that Gregg chooses for discussing theory constructiontransition theories and property theories come from psychology (ieCummins 1983) Thus in what becomes an ongoing metaphor in thedebate Greggrsquos ldquoLet a Couple of Flowers Bloomrdquo does not advocate arelativistrsquos acceptance of a multiplicity of theories but advocates ldquoacouplerdquo as opposed to many and within a cognitive and positivisticframework

Adapting Greggrsquos metaphor Lantolfrsquos (1996) article subtitled ldquoLet-ting All the Flowers Bloomrdquo not surprisingly supports relativism andopposes positivism Though Blockrsquos (1996) article is more wide-ranginghe too argues for relativism ldquoReality is a social and therefore multipleconstruction there is no tangible fragmentable reality on to whichscience can convergerdquo (p 69 citing Lincoln 1990) However that doesnot mean that everything is acceptable Block asserts Though heacknowledges that relativism and positivism are two fundamentallydifferent ontologies he argues again citing Lincoln (1990) that ratherthan throwing their hands up at the situation relativists attempt to findpatterns ldquoworking hypotheses or temporary time-and-place-bound knowl-edgerdquo (Block 1996 p 69) Coming from a similar position Lantolf(1996) provides a ldquopostmodernist critical analysisrdquo of the theory-buildingliterature of Gregg Long Crookes and others pointing out that theyare all clearly dedicated to the rationalistpositivist paradigm in the SLAfield and adding ironically that they ldquoshare a common fear of thedreaded lsquorelativismrsquordquo (p 715) In fact Lantolf coins a term for thiscondition relativaphobia (p 731) In a detailed set of points Lantolfargues against what he sees as the hegemony of the positivistic echoingBlockrsquos (1996) accusation of ldquoscience envyrdquo (p 64) in accusing Greggand the others of having ldquophysics envyrdquo (p 717) Where Gregg and theothers consider the existence within SLA of multiple and incommensu-rable theories an obstacle to the development and maturation of thefield Lantolf (1996) encourages ldquoLetting All the Flowers Bloomrdquowarning that otherwise ldquoonce theoretical hegemony is achieved alterna-tive metaphors are cut off or suffocated by the single official metaphor

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 49

subsequently those who espouse different world views cease to havea voicerdquo (p 739)

Both Block (1996) and Lantolf (1996) generated response articlesGregg Long Jordan and Beretta (1997) critiqued the Block articlewhile Gregg (2000) responded to Lantolf (1996) by presenting anegative summary of postmodernism Writing from within their positivistparadigm Gregg Long Jordan and Beretta (1997) accept Blockrsquoscriticism that they have ldquoscience envyrdquo

Let us grant that many or even all of us in the field have the occasional twingeof envy for the accomplishments of other sciences given the fairly feebleprogress made so far in SLA and the magnificent intellectual achievementsof the more successful sciences such envy would certainly be unsurprising(p 543)

Unfortunately their stance becomes both smug and naiumlve For exampleGregg and his colleagues (1997) declare a state of ldquodisbeliefrdquo in Blockrsquospoint that controlling for extraneous variables in SLA research isldquoprobably not even desirablerdquo (p 544 quoting Block 1996 p 74)Continuing they declare ldquoDo we actually need to point out thedisastrous consequences of Blockrsquos lsquostancersquo for SLA or indeed for anyintellectual inquiryrdquo (p 544) No one invoking a positivist paradigmwould disagree with their critique because one of the paradigmrsquosprinciples is indeed the manipulation of variables which includescontrolling wherever possible for extraneous variables However whatGregg and colleagues (1997) fail to recognize is that Blockrsquos statementcomes from a different (relativist) paradigm rendering their responseirrelevant

In his critique of Lantolf (1996) Gregg (2000) does not directlyreiterate the anti-relativist pro-positivist argument that he and hiscolleagues had already published elsewhere Instead he begins bysummarizing (negatively) postmodernism the approach that Lantolf(1996) takes in his article Describing postmodernism Gregg discussesits stance that among other things instead of written texts havingobjective meaningmdashthat of the textrsquos authormdashmeaning is generated asthe reader interacts with the text Greggrsquos response to this stance revealshis reluctance (or inability) to think outside of his paradigm ldquoSuch aperspective strikes me as nonsenserdquo (p 386) On the other hand hetakes ldquothe common-sense position that the meaning of sentences canusually be agreed upon and that there generally are correct andincorrect interpretations of (meaningful) sentencesrdquo (pp 386ndash387)

Concluding his discussion of postmodernism Gregg (2000) assertsagain from within his paradigm

50 TESOL QUARTERLY

It is no accident that postmodernism originated as a movement amongliterary critics and cultural philosophers It flourishes that is precisely inthose areas of intellectual activity where decisive evidence is extremely hard tofind Faced with a range of disciplines that are actually making progress the postmodernists tried to turn the tables on the sciences Ratherthan claiming that the grapes of science are sour the postmodernist assuresus that there are no grapes To put it a bit differently one can seepostmodernism as a sophisticated way for academics in the humanities toovercome their own ldquophysics envyrdquo (pp 389ndash390)

With that memorable point of view we will end our discussion of thetheory construction debate On the positive side we agree that debateslike this stimulate a field And debates being debates it is not necessaryor relevant to try to come to agreement After all (as we indicated indiscussing the debate about learning) the debate on theory constructionis occurring across very different paradigms with contradictory views ofreality Although the debate can be framed as occurring betweencognitivists and socioculturalists we have emphasized a more fundamen-tal difference Like Lantolf (1996) we view as positive a field in whichpossibly incommensurable theories proliferate and are debated ratherthan allowing one theory to dominate without being problematized Weare only sorry that so much energy has gone into some participantsrsquorefusal to admit (or understand) that these positions on theory areincommensurable because they stem from contradictory ontologies Andthe smug tone that some of the debate takes is therefore not only naiumlvebut unfair

Though we have discussed a debate whose outcome is incommensura-bility some argue for cognitive-sociocultural integration Authors takevarying approaches in making their argument For example Larsen-Freeman (2002) proposes chaoscomplexity theory as a means ofaccommodating both sociocultural and cognitive perspectives withinSLA Block (2003) cites several pieces of research that argue for thecomplementarity of cognitive and sociocultural views namely Ellis(2000) Swain and Lapkin (1998) Tarone and Liu (1995) and Teutsch-Dwyer (2001) However Block himself does not take a clear positionsupporting integration Instead he advocates a ldquomore multidisciplinaryand socially informed futurerdquo for those following the input-interactiontradition (p 139) Making a somewhat different argument Watson-Gegeo (2004) sees a possible new ldquosynthesisrdquo of the cognitive with thesociocultural because of developments in the field that view cognition asa phenomenon which ldquooriginates in social interaction and is shaped bycultural and sociopolitical processesrdquo (p 331) Thorne (2005) andLantolf (2000) envision Vygotskyan theory in particular as providing alens for viewing social context as central to the development of cognition(see also Johnson 2004)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 51

IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVESFOR CLASSROOM PRACTICE

Hall (2002) observes that traditional SLA approaches seek to identifygood pedagogical interventions that will most effectively ldquofacilitatelearnersrsquo assimilation of new systemic knowledge into known knowledgestructuresrdquo (p 48) However given their different understandings oflanguage learning socioculturally informed studies offer much differentrecommendations for improving classroom practice For example inseeing learning as participation as relational and interactive and asconstrained by unequal power relations Lave and Wengerrsquos perspectiveasks educators to consider how the practices of school relate to thoseoutside of school how schools and classrooms themselves are organizedinto communities of practice and what kinds of participation are madeaccessible to students

Other studies taking sociocultural perspectives have examined class-room interactions or discourse patterns with an eye toward identifyingthose that best facilitate student participation (Gutierrez Rymes ampLarsen 1995 Nassaji amp Wells 2000 Nystrand Gamoran Zeiser amp Long2003 Tharp amp Gallimore 1991) Still others have examined such topicsas the kinds of guided or scaffolded assistance from teachers (or otherexperts) that can move students along within their ZPD (Aljaafreh ampLantolf 1994 Anton 1999 McCormick amp Donato 2000 Nassaji ampCumming 2000) the effectiveness of goal-oriented dialogue betweenpeers to mediate learning (Donato 1994 Ohta 2000 Swain amp Lapkin1998) and the need for dialogic and contextually sensitive approachesto language assessment ( Johnson 2001 2004) These studies are only afew among many but they share the sociocultural awareness that highlysituated classroom participation promotes language learning

We acknowledge that we do not specify general recommendations fortransforming classroom practices primarily because we are aware of thelimits of what can be generalized across classroom contexts Hall (2000)speaks to the situatedness of learning processes in saying that ldquoeffectingchange in our classrooms will not result from imposing solutions fromoutside but from nurturing effectual practices that are indigenous to ourparticular contextsrdquo (p 295) Clearly this is no easy task for educators Itrequires ongoing and intense work with every group of students andreflective awareness of how the affective and political dimensions ofclassroom life affect individual studentsrsquo participation However with theincreased awareness and sensitivity to local contexts that socioculturalperspectives bring us we have reason to hope that we are closer tounderstanding and creating the kinds of classroom communities thatlearners need

52 TESOL QUARTERLY

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

Although it is difficult to make predictions about the next 15 years insuch a dynamic field we end our article by looking forward to somedevelopments we consider exciting and worth watching Among them iswork in conversation analysis investigating language learning as it occursin the turn-by-turn development of conversational processes (see egMarkee 2004) developments in discursive psychology (not yet emergentin SLA but relevant for researchers interested in learner positioningwithin social practices see eg Davies amp Harreacute 1990) a growth in workfocusing on postcolonial transnational and World Englishes (egCanagarajah 2000 Jenkins 2003 also this issue Kachru 2001 Pennycook1998 Rampton 1995) and explorations in the new kinds of discursivepractices that language learners engage when using new technologies(see especially Gee 2003 Kern this issue Lam 2000 Thorne 2003 andWarschauer 1997) We are eager to see what unfolds

THE AUTHORS

Jane Zuengler is a professor in the English Department at the University ofWisconsinndashMadison Her research and teaching interests include second languageacquisition and use classroom discourse analysis critical perspectives on languageand the global spread of English

Elizabeth R Miller is a doctoral candidate in the English Department at theUniversity of WisconsinndashMadison Her research interests include second languageacquisition and use microanalytic discourse analysis and critical and poststructuralperspectives on language pedagogy and ideology

REFERENCES

Adair-Hauck B amp Donato R (1994) Foreign language explanations within thezone of proximal development The Canadian Modern Language Review 50 532ndash555

Aljaafreh A amp Lantolf J P (1994) Negative feedback as regulation and secondlanguage learning in the zone of proximal development The Modern LanguageJournal 78 465ndash483

Anton M (1999) The discourse of a learner-centered classroom Socioculturalperspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second language classroom TheModern Language Journal 83 303ndash318

Anton M amp DiCamilla F (1998) Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborativeinteraction in the L2 classroom The Canadian Modern Language Review 54 314ndash342

Atkinson D (2002) Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisi-tion The Modern Language Journal 86 525ndash545

Atkinson D (2003) Language socialization and dys-socialization in a South Indiancollege In R Bayley amp S R Schechter (Eds) Language socialization in bilingualand multilingual societies (pp 147ndash168) Clevedon England Multilingual Matters

48 TESOL QUARTERLY

a similar position that although it does not necessarily mention relativ-ism explicitly nevertheless implicitly opposes it by supporting positivismas the (sole) paradigm for cognitive research on SLA Beretta andCrookes (1993) dismiss the argument that the social can cause thecontent of theories they argue that social conditions are not only notsufficient but are not necessary ldquofor scientific discoveryrdquo(p 253) Gregg(1993) like Beretta and Crookes (1993) does not attack relativismdirectly Nevertheless it is clear that Gregg (1993) opposes relativism ldquoInSLA the overall explanandum is the acquisition (or non-acquisition)of L2 competence in the Chomskyan sense of the termrdquo (p 278) Andthe criteria that Gregg chooses for discussing theory constructiontransition theories and property theories come from psychology (ieCummins 1983) Thus in what becomes an ongoing metaphor in thedebate Greggrsquos ldquoLet a Couple of Flowers Bloomrdquo does not advocate arelativistrsquos acceptance of a multiplicity of theories but advocates ldquoacouplerdquo as opposed to many and within a cognitive and positivisticframework

Adapting Greggrsquos metaphor Lantolfrsquos (1996) article subtitled ldquoLet-ting All the Flowers Bloomrdquo not surprisingly supports relativism andopposes positivism Though Blockrsquos (1996) article is more wide-ranginghe too argues for relativism ldquoReality is a social and therefore multipleconstruction there is no tangible fragmentable reality on to whichscience can convergerdquo (p 69 citing Lincoln 1990) However that doesnot mean that everything is acceptable Block asserts Though heacknowledges that relativism and positivism are two fundamentallydifferent ontologies he argues again citing Lincoln (1990) that ratherthan throwing their hands up at the situation relativists attempt to findpatterns ldquoworking hypotheses or temporary time-and-place-bound knowl-edgerdquo (Block 1996 p 69) Coming from a similar position Lantolf(1996) provides a ldquopostmodernist critical analysisrdquo of the theory-buildingliterature of Gregg Long Crookes and others pointing out that theyare all clearly dedicated to the rationalistpositivist paradigm in the SLAfield and adding ironically that they ldquoshare a common fear of thedreaded lsquorelativismrsquordquo (p 715) In fact Lantolf coins a term for thiscondition relativaphobia (p 731) In a detailed set of points Lantolfargues against what he sees as the hegemony of the positivistic echoingBlockrsquos (1996) accusation of ldquoscience envyrdquo (p 64) in accusing Greggand the others of having ldquophysics envyrdquo (p 717) Where Gregg and theothers consider the existence within SLA of multiple and incommensu-rable theories an obstacle to the development and maturation of thefield Lantolf (1996) encourages ldquoLetting All the Flowers Bloomrdquowarning that otherwise ldquoonce theoretical hegemony is achieved alterna-tive metaphors are cut off or suffocated by the single official metaphor

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 49

subsequently those who espouse different world views cease to havea voicerdquo (p 739)

Both Block (1996) and Lantolf (1996) generated response articlesGregg Long Jordan and Beretta (1997) critiqued the Block articlewhile Gregg (2000) responded to Lantolf (1996) by presenting anegative summary of postmodernism Writing from within their positivistparadigm Gregg Long Jordan and Beretta (1997) accept Blockrsquoscriticism that they have ldquoscience envyrdquo

Let us grant that many or even all of us in the field have the occasional twingeof envy for the accomplishments of other sciences given the fairly feebleprogress made so far in SLA and the magnificent intellectual achievementsof the more successful sciences such envy would certainly be unsurprising(p 543)

Unfortunately their stance becomes both smug and naiumlve For exampleGregg and his colleagues (1997) declare a state of ldquodisbeliefrdquo in Blockrsquospoint that controlling for extraneous variables in SLA research isldquoprobably not even desirablerdquo (p 544 quoting Block 1996 p 74)Continuing they declare ldquoDo we actually need to point out thedisastrous consequences of Blockrsquos lsquostancersquo for SLA or indeed for anyintellectual inquiryrdquo (p 544) No one invoking a positivist paradigmwould disagree with their critique because one of the paradigmrsquosprinciples is indeed the manipulation of variables which includescontrolling wherever possible for extraneous variables However whatGregg and colleagues (1997) fail to recognize is that Blockrsquos statementcomes from a different (relativist) paradigm rendering their responseirrelevant

In his critique of Lantolf (1996) Gregg (2000) does not directlyreiterate the anti-relativist pro-positivist argument that he and hiscolleagues had already published elsewhere Instead he begins bysummarizing (negatively) postmodernism the approach that Lantolf(1996) takes in his article Describing postmodernism Gregg discussesits stance that among other things instead of written texts havingobjective meaningmdashthat of the textrsquos authormdashmeaning is generated asthe reader interacts with the text Greggrsquos response to this stance revealshis reluctance (or inability) to think outside of his paradigm ldquoSuch aperspective strikes me as nonsenserdquo (p 386) On the other hand hetakes ldquothe common-sense position that the meaning of sentences canusually be agreed upon and that there generally are correct andincorrect interpretations of (meaningful) sentencesrdquo (pp 386ndash387)

Concluding his discussion of postmodernism Gregg (2000) assertsagain from within his paradigm

50 TESOL QUARTERLY

It is no accident that postmodernism originated as a movement amongliterary critics and cultural philosophers It flourishes that is precisely inthose areas of intellectual activity where decisive evidence is extremely hard tofind Faced with a range of disciplines that are actually making progress the postmodernists tried to turn the tables on the sciences Ratherthan claiming that the grapes of science are sour the postmodernist assuresus that there are no grapes To put it a bit differently one can seepostmodernism as a sophisticated way for academics in the humanities toovercome their own ldquophysics envyrdquo (pp 389ndash390)

With that memorable point of view we will end our discussion of thetheory construction debate On the positive side we agree that debateslike this stimulate a field And debates being debates it is not necessaryor relevant to try to come to agreement After all (as we indicated indiscussing the debate about learning) the debate on theory constructionis occurring across very different paradigms with contradictory views ofreality Although the debate can be framed as occurring betweencognitivists and socioculturalists we have emphasized a more fundamen-tal difference Like Lantolf (1996) we view as positive a field in whichpossibly incommensurable theories proliferate and are debated ratherthan allowing one theory to dominate without being problematized Weare only sorry that so much energy has gone into some participantsrsquorefusal to admit (or understand) that these positions on theory areincommensurable because they stem from contradictory ontologies Andthe smug tone that some of the debate takes is therefore not only naiumlvebut unfair

Though we have discussed a debate whose outcome is incommensura-bility some argue for cognitive-sociocultural integration Authors takevarying approaches in making their argument For example Larsen-Freeman (2002) proposes chaoscomplexity theory as a means ofaccommodating both sociocultural and cognitive perspectives withinSLA Block (2003) cites several pieces of research that argue for thecomplementarity of cognitive and sociocultural views namely Ellis(2000) Swain and Lapkin (1998) Tarone and Liu (1995) and Teutsch-Dwyer (2001) However Block himself does not take a clear positionsupporting integration Instead he advocates a ldquomore multidisciplinaryand socially informed futurerdquo for those following the input-interactiontradition (p 139) Making a somewhat different argument Watson-Gegeo (2004) sees a possible new ldquosynthesisrdquo of the cognitive with thesociocultural because of developments in the field that view cognition asa phenomenon which ldquooriginates in social interaction and is shaped bycultural and sociopolitical processesrdquo (p 331) Thorne (2005) andLantolf (2000) envision Vygotskyan theory in particular as providing alens for viewing social context as central to the development of cognition(see also Johnson 2004)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 51

IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVESFOR CLASSROOM PRACTICE

Hall (2002) observes that traditional SLA approaches seek to identifygood pedagogical interventions that will most effectively ldquofacilitatelearnersrsquo assimilation of new systemic knowledge into known knowledgestructuresrdquo (p 48) However given their different understandings oflanguage learning socioculturally informed studies offer much differentrecommendations for improving classroom practice For example inseeing learning as participation as relational and interactive and asconstrained by unequal power relations Lave and Wengerrsquos perspectiveasks educators to consider how the practices of school relate to thoseoutside of school how schools and classrooms themselves are organizedinto communities of practice and what kinds of participation are madeaccessible to students

Other studies taking sociocultural perspectives have examined class-room interactions or discourse patterns with an eye toward identifyingthose that best facilitate student participation (Gutierrez Rymes ampLarsen 1995 Nassaji amp Wells 2000 Nystrand Gamoran Zeiser amp Long2003 Tharp amp Gallimore 1991) Still others have examined such topicsas the kinds of guided or scaffolded assistance from teachers (or otherexperts) that can move students along within their ZPD (Aljaafreh ampLantolf 1994 Anton 1999 McCormick amp Donato 2000 Nassaji ampCumming 2000) the effectiveness of goal-oriented dialogue betweenpeers to mediate learning (Donato 1994 Ohta 2000 Swain amp Lapkin1998) and the need for dialogic and contextually sensitive approachesto language assessment ( Johnson 2001 2004) These studies are only afew among many but they share the sociocultural awareness that highlysituated classroom participation promotes language learning

We acknowledge that we do not specify general recommendations fortransforming classroom practices primarily because we are aware of thelimits of what can be generalized across classroom contexts Hall (2000)speaks to the situatedness of learning processes in saying that ldquoeffectingchange in our classrooms will not result from imposing solutions fromoutside but from nurturing effectual practices that are indigenous to ourparticular contextsrdquo (p 295) Clearly this is no easy task for educators Itrequires ongoing and intense work with every group of students andreflective awareness of how the affective and political dimensions ofclassroom life affect individual studentsrsquo participation However with theincreased awareness and sensitivity to local contexts that socioculturalperspectives bring us we have reason to hope that we are closer tounderstanding and creating the kinds of classroom communities thatlearners need

52 TESOL QUARTERLY

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

Although it is difficult to make predictions about the next 15 years insuch a dynamic field we end our article by looking forward to somedevelopments we consider exciting and worth watching Among them iswork in conversation analysis investigating language learning as it occursin the turn-by-turn development of conversational processes (see egMarkee 2004) developments in discursive psychology (not yet emergentin SLA but relevant for researchers interested in learner positioningwithin social practices see eg Davies amp Harreacute 1990) a growth in workfocusing on postcolonial transnational and World Englishes (egCanagarajah 2000 Jenkins 2003 also this issue Kachru 2001 Pennycook1998 Rampton 1995) and explorations in the new kinds of discursivepractices that language learners engage when using new technologies(see especially Gee 2003 Kern this issue Lam 2000 Thorne 2003 andWarschauer 1997) We are eager to see what unfolds

THE AUTHORS

Jane Zuengler is a professor in the English Department at the University ofWisconsinndashMadison Her research and teaching interests include second languageacquisition and use classroom discourse analysis critical perspectives on languageand the global spread of English

Elizabeth R Miller is a doctoral candidate in the English Department at theUniversity of WisconsinndashMadison Her research interests include second languageacquisition and use microanalytic discourse analysis and critical and poststructuralperspectives on language pedagogy and ideology

REFERENCES

Adair-Hauck B amp Donato R (1994) Foreign language explanations within thezone of proximal development The Canadian Modern Language Review 50 532ndash555

Aljaafreh A amp Lantolf J P (1994) Negative feedback as regulation and secondlanguage learning in the zone of proximal development The Modern LanguageJournal 78 465ndash483

Anton M (1999) The discourse of a learner-centered classroom Socioculturalperspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second language classroom TheModern Language Journal 83 303ndash318

Anton M amp DiCamilla F (1998) Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborativeinteraction in the L2 classroom The Canadian Modern Language Review 54 314ndash342

Atkinson D (2002) Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisi-tion The Modern Language Journal 86 525ndash545

Atkinson D (2003) Language socialization and dys-socialization in a South Indiancollege In R Bayley amp S R Schechter (Eds) Language socialization in bilingualand multilingual societies (pp 147ndash168) Clevedon England Multilingual Matters

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 49

subsequently those who espouse different world views cease to havea voicerdquo (p 739)

Both Block (1996) and Lantolf (1996) generated response articlesGregg Long Jordan and Beretta (1997) critiqued the Block articlewhile Gregg (2000) responded to Lantolf (1996) by presenting anegative summary of postmodernism Writing from within their positivistparadigm Gregg Long Jordan and Beretta (1997) accept Blockrsquoscriticism that they have ldquoscience envyrdquo

Let us grant that many or even all of us in the field have the occasional twingeof envy for the accomplishments of other sciences given the fairly feebleprogress made so far in SLA and the magnificent intellectual achievementsof the more successful sciences such envy would certainly be unsurprising(p 543)

Unfortunately their stance becomes both smug and naiumlve For exampleGregg and his colleagues (1997) declare a state of ldquodisbeliefrdquo in Blockrsquospoint that controlling for extraneous variables in SLA research isldquoprobably not even desirablerdquo (p 544 quoting Block 1996 p 74)Continuing they declare ldquoDo we actually need to point out thedisastrous consequences of Blockrsquos lsquostancersquo for SLA or indeed for anyintellectual inquiryrdquo (p 544) No one invoking a positivist paradigmwould disagree with their critique because one of the paradigmrsquosprinciples is indeed the manipulation of variables which includescontrolling wherever possible for extraneous variables However whatGregg and colleagues (1997) fail to recognize is that Blockrsquos statementcomes from a different (relativist) paradigm rendering their responseirrelevant

In his critique of Lantolf (1996) Gregg (2000) does not directlyreiterate the anti-relativist pro-positivist argument that he and hiscolleagues had already published elsewhere Instead he begins bysummarizing (negatively) postmodernism the approach that Lantolf(1996) takes in his article Describing postmodernism Gregg discussesits stance that among other things instead of written texts havingobjective meaningmdashthat of the textrsquos authormdashmeaning is generated asthe reader interacts with the text Greggrsquos response to this stance revealshis reluctance (or inability) to think outside of his paradigm ldquoSuch aperspective strikes me as nonsenserdquo (p 386) On the other hand hetakes ldquothe common-sense position that the meaning of sentences canusually be agreed upon and that there generally are correct andincorrect interpretations of (meaningful) sentencesrdquo (pp 386ndash387)

Concluding his discussion of postmodernism Gregg (2000) assertsagain from within his paradigm

50 TESOL QUARTERLY

It is no accident that postmodernism originated as a movement amongliterary critics and cultural philosophers It flourishes that is precisely inthose areas of intellectual activity where decisive evidence is extremely hard tofind Faced with a range of disciplines that are actually making progress the postmodernists tried to turn the tables on the sciences Ratherthan claiming that the grapes of science are sour the postmodernist assuresus that there are no grapes To put it a bit differently one can seepostmodernism as a sophisticated way for academics in the humanities toovercome their own ldquophysics envyrdquo (pp 389ndash390)

With that memorable point of view we will end our discussion of thetheory construction debate On the positive side we agree that debateslike this stimulate a field And debates being debates it is not necessaryor relevant to try to come to agreement After all (as we indicated indiscussing the debate about learning) the debate on theory constructionis occurring across very different paradigms with contradictory views ofreality Although the debate can be framed as occurring betweencognitivists and socioculturalists we have emphasized a more fundamen-tal difference Like Lantolf (1996) we view as positive a field in whichpossibly incommensurable theories proliferate and are debated ratherthan allowing one theory to dominate without being problematized Weare only sorry that so much energy has gone into some participantsrsquorefusal to admit (or understand) that these positions on theory areincommensurable because they stem from contradictory ontologies Andthe smug tone that some of the debate takes is therefore not only naiumlvebut unfair

Though we have discussed a debate whose outcome is incommensura-bility some argue for cognitive-sociocultural integration Authors takevarying approaches in making their argument For example Larsen-Freeman (2002) proposes chaoscomplexity theory as a means ofaccommodating both sociocultural and cognitive perspectives withinSLA Block (2003) cites several pieces of research that argue for thecomplementarity of cognitive and sociocultural views namely Ellis(2000) Swain and Lapkin (1998) Tarone and Liu (1995) and Teutsch-Dwyer (2001) However Block himself does not take a clear positionsupporting integration Instead he advocates a ldquomore multidisciplinaryand socially informed futurerdquo for those following the input-interactiontradition (p 139) Making a somewhat different argument Watson-Gegeo (2004) sees a possible new ldquosynthesisrdquo of the cognitive with thesociocultural because of developments in the field that view cognition asa phenomenon which ldquooriginates in social interaction and is shaped bycultural and sociopolitical processesrdquo (p 331) Thorne (2005) andLantolf (2000) envision Vygotskyan theory in particular as providing alens for viewing social context as central to the development of cognition(see also Johnson 2004)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 51

IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVESFOR CLASSROOM PRACTICE

Hall (2002) observes that traditional SLA approaches seek to identifygood pedagogical interventions that will most effectively ldquofacilitatelearnersrsquo assimilation of new systemic knowledge into known knowledgestructuresrdquo (p 48) However given their different understandings oflanguage learning socioculturally informed studies offer much differentrecommendations for improving classroom practice For example inseeing learning as participation as relational and interactive and asconstrained by unequal power relations Lave and Wengerrsquos perspectiveasks educators to consider how the practices of school relate to thoseoutside of school how schools and classrooms themselves are organizedinto communities of practice and what kinds of participation are madeaccessible to students

Other studies taking sociocultural perspectives have examined class-room interactions or discourse patterns with an eye toward identifyingthose that best facilitate student participation (Gutierrez Rymes ampLarsen 1995 Nassaji amp Wells 2000 Nystrand Gamoran Zeiser amp Long2003 Tharp amp Gallimore 1991) Still others have examined such topicsas the kinds of guided or scaffolded assistance from teachers (or otherexperts) that can move students along within their ZPD (Aljaafreh ampLantolf 1994 Anton 1999 McCormick amp Donato 2000 Nassaji ampCumming 2000) the effectiveness of goal-oriented dialogue betweenpeers to mediate learning (Donato 1994 Ohta 2000 Swain amp Lapkin1998) and the need for dialogic and contextually sensitive approachesto language assessment ( Johnson 2001 2004) These studies are only afew among many but they share the sociocultural awareness that highlysituated classroom participation promotes language learning

We acknowledge that we do not specify general recommendations fortransforming classroom practices primarily because we are aware of thelimits of what can be generalized across classroom contexts Hall (2000)speaks to the situatedness of learning processes in saying that ldquoeffectingchange in our classrooms will not result from imposing solutions fromoutside but from nurturing effectual practices that are indigenous to ourparticular contextsrdquo (p 295) Clearly this is no easy task for educators Itrequires ongoing and intense work with every group of students andreflective awareness of how the affective and political dimensions ofclassroom life affect individual studentsrsquo participation However with theincreased awareness and sensitivity to local contexts that socioculturalperspectives bring us we have reason to hope that we are closer tounderstanding and creating the kinds of classroom communities thatlearners need

52 TESOL QUARTERLY

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

Although it is difficult to make predictions about the next 15 years insuch a dynamic field we end our article by looking forward to somedevelopments we consider exciting and worth watching Among them iswork in conversation analysis investigating language learning as it occursin the turn-by-turn development of conversational processes (see egMarkee 2004) developments in discursive psychology (not yet emergentin SLA but relevant for researchers interested in learner positioningwithin social practices see eg Davies amp Harreacute 1990) a growth in workfocusing on postcolonial transnational and World Englishes (egCanagarajah 2000 Jenkins 2003 also this issue Kachru 2001 Pennycook1998 Rampton 1995) and explorations in the new kinds of discursivepractices that language learners engage when using new technologies(see especially Gee 2003 Kern this issue Lam 2000 Thorne 2003 andWarschauer 1997) We are eager to see what unfolds

THE AUTHORS

Jane Zuengler is a professor in the English Department at the University ofWisconsinndashMadison Her research and teaching interests include second languageacquisition and use classroom discourse analysis critical perspectives on languageand the global spread of English

Elizabeth R Miller is a doctoral candidate in the English Department at theUniversity of WisconsinndashMadison Her research interests include second languageacquisition and use microanalytic discourse analysis and critical and poststructuralperspectives on language pedagogy and ideology

REFERENCES

Adair-Hauck B amp Donato R (1994) Foreign language explanations within thezone of proximal development The Canadian Modern Language Review 50 532ndash555

Aljaafreh A amp Lantolf J P (1994) Negative feedback as regulation and secondlanguage learning in the zone of proximal development The Modern LanguageJournal 78 465ndash483

Anton M (1999) The discourse of a learner-centered classroom Socioculturalperspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second language classroom TheModern Language Journal 83 303ndash318

Anton M amp DiCamilla F (1998) Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborativeinteraction in the L2 classroom The Canadian Modern Language Review 54 314ndash342

Atkinson D (2002) Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisi-tion The Modern Language Journal 86 525ndash545

Atkinson D (2003) Language socialization and dys-socialization in a South Indiancollege In R Bayley amp S R Schechter (Eds) Language socialization in bilingualand multilingual societies (pp 147ndash168) Clevedon England Multilingual Matters

50 TESOL QUARTERLY

It is no accident that postmodernism originated as a movement amongliterary critics and cultural philosophers It flourishes that is precisely inthose areas of intellectual activity where decisive evidence is extremely hard tofind Faced with a range of disciplines that are actually making progress the postmodernists tried to turn the tables on the sciences Ratherthan claiming that the grapes of science are sour the postmodernist assuresus that there are no grapes To put it a bit differently one can seepostmodernism as a sophisticated way for academics in the humanities toovercome their own ldquophysics envyrdquo (pp 389ndash390)

With that memorable point of view we will end our discussion of thetheory construction debate On the positive side we agree that debateslike this stimulate a field And debates being debates it is not necessaryor relevant to try to come to agreement After all (as we indicated indiscussing the debate about learning) the debate on theory constructionis occurring across very different paradigms with contradictory views ofreality Although the debate can be framed as occurring betweencognitivists and socioculturalists we have emphasized a more fundamen-tal difference Like Lantolf (1996) we view as positive a field in whichpossibly incommensurable theories proliferate and are debated ratherthan allowing one theory to dominate without being problematized Weare only sorry that so much energy has gone into some participantsrsquorefusal to admit (or understand) that these positions on theory areincommensurable because they stem from contradictory ontologies Andthe smug tone that some of the debate takes is therefore not only naiumlvebut unfair

Though we have discussed a debate whose outcome is incommensura-bility some argue for cognitive-sociocultural integration Authors takevarying approaches in making their argument For example Larsen-Freeman (2002) proposes chaoscomplexity theory as a means ofaccommodating both sociocultural and cognitive perspectives withinSLA Block (2003) cites several pieces of research that argue for thecomplementarity of cognitive and sociocultural views namely Ellis(2000) Swain and Lapkin (1998) Tarone and Liu (1995) and Teutsch-Dwyer (2001) However Block himself does not take a clear positionsupporting integration Instead he advocates a ldquomore multidisciplinaryand socially informed futurerdquo for those following the input-interactiontradition (p 139) Making a somewhat different argument Watson-Gegeo (2004) sees a possible new ldquosynthesisrdquo of the cognitive with thesociocultural because of developments in the field that view cognition asa phenomenon which ldquooriginates in social interaction and is shaped bycultural and sociopolitical processesrdquo (p 331) Thorne (2005) andLantolf (2000) envision Vygotskyan theory in particular as providing alens for viewing social context as central to the development of cognition(see also Johnson 2004)

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 51

IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVESFOR CLASSROOM PRACTICE

Hall (2002) observes that traditional SLA approaches seek to identifygood pedagogical interventions that will most effectively ldquofacilitatelearnersrsquo assimilation of new systemic knowledge into known knowledgestructuresrdquo (p 48) However given their different understandings oflanguage learning socioculturally informed studies offer much differentrecommendations for improving classroom practice For example inseeing learning as participation as relational and interactive and asconstrained by unequal power relations Lave and Wengerrsquos perspectiveasks educators to consider how the practices of school relate to thoseoutside of school how schools and classrooms themselves are organizedinto communities of practice and what kinds of participation are madeaccessible to students

Other studies taking sociocultural perspectives have examined class-room interactions or discourse patterns with an eye toward identifyingthose that best facilitate student participation (Gutierrez Rymes ampLarsen 1995 Nassaji amp Wells 2000 Nystrand Gamoran Zeiser amp Long2003 Tharp amp Gallimore 1991) Still others have examined such topicsas the kinds of guided or scaffolded assistance from teachers (or otherexperts) that can move students along within their ZPD (Aljaafreh ampLantolf 1994 Anton 1999 McCormick amp Donato 2000 Nassaji ampCumming 2000) the effectiveness of goal-oriented dialogue betweenpeers to mediate learning (Donato 1994 Ohta 2000 Swain amp Lapkin1998) and the need for dialogic and contextually sensitive approachesto language assessment ( Johnson 2001 2004) These studies are only afew among many but they share the sociocultural awareness that highlysituated classroom participation promotes language learning

We acknowledge that we do not specify general recommendations fortransforming classroom practices primarily because we are aware of thelimits of what can be generalized across classroom contexts Hall (2000)speaks to the situatedness of learning processes in saying that ldquoeffectingchange in our classrooms will not result from imposing solutions fromoutside but from nurturing effectual practices that are indigenous to ourparticular contextsrdquo (p 295) Clearly this is no easy task for educators Itrequires ongoing and intense work with every group of students andreflective awareness of how the affective and political dimensions ofclassroom life affect individual studentsrsquo participation However with theincreased awareness and sensitivity to local contexts that socioculturalperspectives bring us we have reason to hope that we are closer tounderstanding and creating the kinds of classroom communities thatlearners need

52 TESOL QUARTERLY

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

Although it is difficult to make predictions about the next 15 years insuch a dynamic field we end our article by looking forward to somedevelopments we consider exciting and worth watching Among them iswork in conversation analysis investigating language learning as it occursin the turn-by-turn development of conversational processes (see egMarkee 2004) developments in discursive psychology (not yet emergentin SLA but relevant for researchers interested in learner positioningwithin social practices see eg Davies amp Harreacute 1990) a growth in workfocusing on postcolonial transnational and World Englishes (egCanagarajah 2000 Jenkins 2003 also this issue Kachru 2001 Pennycook1998 Rampton 1995) and explorations in the new kinds of discursivepractices that language learners engage when using new technologies(see especially Gee 2003 Kern this issue Lam 2000 Thorne 2003 andWarschauer 1997) We are eager to see what unfolds

THE AUTHORS

Jane Zuengler is a professor in the English Department at the University ofWisconsinndashMadison Her research and teaching interests include second languageacquisition and use classroom discourse analysis critical perspectives on languageand the global spread of English

Elizabeth R Miller is a doctoral candidate in the English Department at theUniversity of WisconsinndashMadison Her research interests include second languageacquisition and use microanalytic discourse analysis and critical and poststructuralperspectives on language pedagogy and ideology

REFERENCES

Adair-Hauck B amp Donato R (1994) Foreign language explanations within thezone of proximal development The Canadian Modern Language Review 50 532ndash555

Aljaafreh A amp Lantolf J P (1994) Negative feedback as regulation and secondlanguage learning in the zone of proximal development The Modern LanguageJournal 78 465ndash483

Anton M (1999) The discourse of a learner-centered classroom Socioculturalperspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second language classroom TheModern Language Journal 83 303ndash318

Anton M amp DiCamilla F (1998) Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborativeinteraction in the L2 classroom The Canadian Modern Language Review 54 314ndash342

Atkinson D (2002) Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisi-tion The Modern Language Journal 86 525ndash545

Atkinson D (2003) Language socialization and dys-socialization in a South Indiancollege In R Bayley amp S R Schechter (Eds) Language socialization in bilingualand multilingual societies (pp 147ndash168) Clevedon England Multilingual Matters

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 51

IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVESFOR CLASSROOM PRACTICE

Hall (2002) observes that traditional SLA approaches seek to identifygood pedagogical interventions that will most effectively ldquofacilitatelearnersrsquo assimilation of new systemic knowledge into known knowledgestructuresrdquo (p 48) However given their different understandings oflanguage learning socioculturally informed studies offer much differentrecommendations for improving classroom practice For example inseeing learning as participation as relational and interactive and asconstrained by unequal power relations Lave and Wengerrsquos perspectiveasks educators to consider how the practices of school relate to thoseoutside of school how schools and classrooms themselves are organizedinto communities of practice and what kinds of participation are madeaccessible to students

Other studies taking sociocultural perspectives have examined class-room interactions or discourse patterns with an eye toward identifyingthose that best facilitate student participation (Gutierrez Rymes ampLarsen 1995 Nassaji amp Wells 2000 Nystrand Gamoran Zeiser amp Long2003 Tharp amp Gallimore 1991) Still others have examined such topicsas the kinds of guided or scaffolded assistance from teachers (or otherexperts) that can move students along within their ZPD (Aljaafreh ampLantolf 1994 Anton 1999 McCormick amp Donato 2000 Nassaji ampCumming 2000) the effectiveness of goal-oriented dialogue betweenpeers to mediate learning (Donato 1994 Ohta 2000 Swain amp Lapkin1998) and the need for dialogic and contextually sensitive approachesto language assessment ( Johnson 2001 2004) These studies are only afew among many but they share the sociocultural awareness that highlysituated classroom participation promotes language learning

We acknowledge that we do not specify general recommendations fortransforming classroom practices primarily because we are aware of thelimits of what can be generalized across classroom contexts Hall (2000)speaks to the situatedness of learning processes in saying that ldquoeffectingchange in our classrooms will not result from imposing solutions fromoutside but from nurturing effectual practices that are indigenous to ourparticular contextsrdquo (p 295) Clearly this is no easy task for educators Itrequires ongoing and intense work with every group of students andreflective awareness of how the affective and political dimensions ofclassroom life affect individual studentsrsquo participation However with theincreased awareness and sensitivity to local contexts that socioculturalperspectives bring us we have reason to hope that we are closer tounderstanding and creating the kinds of classroom communities thatlearners need

52 TESOL QUARTERLY

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

Although it is difficult to make predictions about the next 15 years insuch a dynamic field we end our article by looking forward to somedevelopments we consider exciting and worth watching Among them iswork in conversation analysis investigating language learning as it occursin the turn-by-turn development of conversational processes (see egMarkee 2004) developments in discursive psychology (not yet emergentin SLA but relevant for researchers interested in learner positioningwithin social practices see eg Davies amp Harreacute 1990) a growth in workfocusing on postcolonial transnational and World Englishes (egCanagarajah 2000 Jenkins 2003 also this issue Kachru 2001 Pennycook1998 Rampton 1995) and explorations in the new kinds of discursivepractices that language learners engage when using new technologies(see especially Gee 2003 Kern this issue Lam 2000 Thorne 2003 andWarschauer 1997) We are eager to see what unfolds

THE AUTHORS

Jane Zuengler is a professor in the English Department at the University ofWisconsinndashMadison Her research and teaching interests include second languageacquisition and use classroom discourse analysis critical perspectives on languageand the global spread of English

Elizabeth R Miller is a doctoral candidate in the English Department at theUniversity of WisconsinndashMadison Her research interests include second languageacquisition and use microanalytic discourse analysis and critical and poststructuralperspectives on language pedagogy and ideology

REFERENCES

Adair-Hauck B amp Donato R (1994) Foreign language explanations within thezone of proximal development The Canadian Modern Language Review 50 532ndash555

Aljaafreh A amp Lantolf J P (1994) Negative feedback as regulation and secondlanguage learning in the zone of proximal development The Modern LanguageJournal 78 465ndash483

Anton M (1999) The discourse of a learner-centered classroom Socioculturalperspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second language classroom TheModern Language Journal 83 303ndash318

Anton M amp DiCamilla F (1998) Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborativeinteraction in the L2 classroom The Canadian Modern Language Review 54 314ndash342

Atkinson D (2002) Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisi-tion The Modern Language Journal 86 525ndash545

Atkinson D (2003) Language socialization and dys-socialization in a South Indiancollege In R Bayley amp S R Schechter (Eds) Language socialization in bilingualand multilingual societies (pp 147ndash168) Clevedon England Multilingual Matters

52 TESOL QUARTERLY

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

Although it is difficult to make predictions about the next 15 years insuch a dynamic field we end our article by looking forward to somedevelopments we consider exciting and worth watching Among them iswork in conversation analysis investigating language learning as it occursin the turn-by-turn development of conversational processes (see egMarkee 2004) developments in discursive psychology (not yet emergentin SLA but relevant for researchers interested in learner positioningwithin social practices see eg Davies amp Harreacute 1990) a growth in workfocusing on postcolonial transnational and World Englishes (egCanagarajah 2000 Jenkins 2003 also this issue Kachru 2001 Pennycook1998 Rampton 1995) and explorations in the new kinds of discursivepractices that language learners engage when using new technologies(see especially Gee 2003 Kern this issue Lam 2000 Thorne 2003 andWarschauer 1997) We are eager to see what unfolds

THE AUTHORS

Jane Zuengler is a professor in the English Department at the University ofWisconsinndashMadison Her research and teaching interests include second languageacquisition and use classroom discourse analysis critical perspectives on languageand the global spread of English

Elizabeth R Miller is a doctoral candidate in the English Department at theUniversity of WisconsinndashMadison Her research interests include second languageacquisition and use microanalytic discourse analysis and critical and poststructuralperspectives on language pedagogy and ideology

REFERENCES

Adair-Hauck B amp Donato R (1994) Foreign language explanations within thezone of proximal development The Canadian Modern Language Review 50 532ndash555

Aljaafreh A amp Lantolf J P (1994) Negative feedback as regulation and secondlanguage learning in the zone of proximal development The Modern LanguageJournal 78 465ndash483

Anton M (1999) The discourse of a learner-centered classroom Socioculturalperspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second language classroom TheModern Language Journal 83 303ndash318

Anton M amp DiCamilla F (1998) Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborativeinteraction in the L2 classroom The Canadian Modern Language Review 54 314ndash342

Atkinson D (2002) Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisi-tion The Modern Language Journal 86 525ndash545

Atkinson D (2003) Language socialization and dys-socialization in a South Indiancollege In R Bayley amp S R Schechter (Eds) Language socialization in bilingualand multilingual societies (pp 147ndash168) Clevedon England Multilingual Matters

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 53

Bakhtin M M (1981) The dialogic imagination (C Emerson amp M Holquist trans)Austin University of Texas Press

Beretta A (1991) Theory construction in SLA Complementarity and oppositionStudies in Second Language Acquisition 13 493ndash511

Beretta A (Ed) (1993) Theory construction in SLA [Special issue] AppliedLinguistics 14(3)

Beretta A amp Crookes G (1993) Cognitive and social determinants of discovery inSLA Applied Linguistics 14 250ndash275

Block D (1996) Not so fast Some thoughts on theory culling relativism acceptedfindings and the heart and soul of SLA Applied Linguistics 17 63ndash83

Block D (2003) The social turn in second language acquisition Washington DCGeorgetown University Press

Bremer K Roberts C Vasseur M-T Simonot M amp Broeder P (1996) Achievingunderstanding Discourse in intercultural encounters London Longman

Canagarajah A S (1993) Critical ethnography of a Sri Lankan classroom Ambigu-ities in student opposition to reproduction through ESOL TESOL Quarterly 27601ndash626

Canagarajah A S (1999) Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching OxfordEngland Oxford University Press

Canagarajah A S (2000) Negotiating ideologies through English Strategies fromthe periphery In T Ricento (Ed) Ideology politics and language policies Focus onEnglish (pp 121ndash131) Amsterdam John Benjamins

Canagarajah A S (2005) Critical pedagogy in L2 learning and teaching InE Hinkel (Ed) Handbook of research in second language teaching and research (pp931ndash949) Mahwah NJ Lawrence Erlbaum

Coughlan P amp Duff P A (1994) Same task different activities Analysis of an SLAtask from an activity theory perspective In J P Lantolf amp G Appel (Eds)Vygotskian approaches to second language learning (pp 173ndash94) Norwood NJ Ablex

Crago M B (1992) Communicative interaction and second language acquisitionAn Inuit example TESOL Quarterly 26 487ndash505

Crookes G (1992) Theory format and SLA theory Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition 14 425ndash449

Cummins R (1983) The nature of psychological explanation Cambridge MA MITPress

Davies B amp Harreacute R (1990) Positioning The discursive production of selvesJournal for the Theory of Social Behavior 20 43ndash63

Day E M (2002) Identity and the young English language learner Clevedon EnglandMultilingual Matters

De Guerrero M C M amp Villamil O (2000) Activating the ZPD Mutual scaffoldingin L2 peer revision The Modern Language Journal 84 51ndash68

DeKeyser R amp Juffs A (2005) Cognitive considerations in L2 learning InE Hinkel (Ed) Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp437ndash454) Mahwah NJ Lawrence Erlbaum

Denzin N K amp Lincoln Y S (Eds) (1998) Collecting and interpreting qualitativematerials Thousand Oaks CA Sage

DiCamilla F J amp Anton M (1997) Repetition in the collaborative discourse of L2learners A Vygotskian perspective The Canadian Modern Language Review 53609ndash633

Donato R (1994) Collective scaffolding in second language learning In J PLantolf amp G Appel (Eds) Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp 33ndash56) Norwood NJ Ablex

Doughty C J amp Long M H (Eds) (2003) The handbook of second languageacquisition Malden MA Blackwell

54 TESOL QUARTERLY

Duff P (1995) An ethnography of communication in immersion classrooms inHungary TESOL Quarterly 29 505ndash537

Duff P (2002) The discursive co-construction of knowledge identity and differ-ence An ethnography of communication in the high school mainstream AppliedLinguistics 23 289ndash322

Duff P amp Early M (1999 March) Language socialization in perspective Classroomdiscourse in high school humanities courses Paper presented at the AmericanAssociation of Applied Linguistics Conference Stamford CT

Ellis R (2000) Task-based research and language pedagogy Language TeachingResearch 4 193ndash220

Firth A amp Wagner J (1996 August) On discourse communication and (some)fundamental concepts in SLA research Paper presented at the annual meeting of theInternational Association of Applied Linguistics Jyvaumlskylauml Finland

Firth A amp Wagner J (1997) On discourse communication and (some) funda-mental concepts in SLA research The Modern Language Journal 81 285ndash300

Firth A amp Wagner J (1998) SLA property No trespassing The Modern LanguageJournal 82 91ndash94

Frawley W amp Lantolf J P (1984) Speaking as self-order A critique of orthodox L2research Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6 143ndash159

Frawley W amp Lantolf J P (1985) Second language discourse A Vygotskyanperspective Applied Linguistics 6 19ndash44

Gass S (1998) Apples and oranges Or why apples are not orange and donrsquot needto be The Modern Language Journal 82 83ndash90

Gee J P (2003) What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy New YorkPalgrave Macmillan

Gregg K R (1993) Taking explanation seriously or Let a couple of flowers bloomApplied Linguistics 14 276ndash294

Gregg K R (2000) A theory for every occasion Postmodernism and SLA SecondLanguage Research 16 383ndash399

Gregg K R Long M H Jordan G amp Beretta A (1997) Rationality and itsdiscontents in SLA Applied Linguistics 18 538ndash558

Guba E G amp Lincoln Y S (1998) Competing paradigms in qualitative research InN K Denzin amp Y S Lincoln (Eds) The landscape of qualitative research Theories andissues (pp 195ndash220) Thousand Oaks CA Sage

Guiora A Z (2005) The language sciencesmdashthe challenges ahead a farewelladdress Language Learning 55 183ndash189

Gutierrez K Rymes B amp Larson J (1995) Script counterscript and underlife inthe classroom James Brown versus Brown v Board of Education HarvardEducational Review 65 445ndash471

Hall J K (1995) (Re)creating our worlds with words A sociohistorical perspectiveof face-to-face interaction Applied Linguistics 16 206ndash232

Hall J K (1997) A consideration of SLA as a theory of practice The ModernLanguage Journal 81 301ndash306

Hall J K (2000) Classroom interaction and additional language learning Implica-tions for teaching and research In J K Hall amp L S Verplaetse (Eds) Second andforeign language learning through classroom interaction (pp 287ndash298) Mahwah NJLawrence Erlbaum

Hall J K (2002) Teaching and researching language and culture London PearsonEducation

Harklau L (1994) ESL versus mainstream classes Contrasting L2 learning environ-ments TESOL Quarterly 28 241ndash272

Jenkins J (2003) World Englishes A resource book for students London Routledge

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 55

Johnson M (2001) The art of nonconversation A reexamination of the oral proficiencyinterview New Haven CT Yale University Press

Johnson M (2004) A philosophy of second language education New Haven CT YaleUniversity Press

Jordon G (2004) Theory construction in second language acquisition Philadelphia JohnBenjamins

Kachru B B (1990) The alchemy of English The spread functions and models of non-native Englishes Urbana IL University of Illinois Press

Kanagy R (1999) Interactional routines as a mechanism for L2 acquisition andsocialization in an immersion context Journal of Pragmatics 31 1467ndash1492

Kasper G (1997) ldquoArdquo stands for acquisition The Modern Language Journal 81 307ndash312

Kramsch C (2002) Introduction How can we tell the dancer from the dance InC Kramsch (Ed) Language acquisition and language socialization Ecological perspec-tives (pp 1ndash30) London Continuum

Krashen S D (1982) Principles and practice in second language acquisition New YorkPergamon

Krashen S D (1985) The input hypothesis Issues and implications London LongmanLam W S E (2000) L2 literacy and the design of the self A case study of a teenager

writing on the Internet TESOL Quarterly 34 457ndash482Lantolf J P (Ed) (1994) Sociocultural theory and second language learning

[Special issue] The Modern Language Journal 78(4)Lantolf J P (1996) SLA theory building ldquoLetting all the flowers bloomrdquo Language

Learning 46 713ndash749Lantolf J P (2000) Second language learning as a mediated process Language

Teaching 33 79ndash86Lantolf J P (2005) Sociocultural and second language learning research An

exegesis In E Hinkel (Ed) Handbook of research in second language teaching andlearning (pp 335ndash354) Mahwah NJ Lawrence Erlbaum

Lantolf J P amp Appel G (Eds) (1994) Vygotskian approaches to second languageresearch Norwood NJ Ablex

Lantolf J P amp Pavlenko A (1995) Sociocultural theory and second languageacquisition Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 15 108ndash124

Larsen-Freeman D (1991) Second language acquisition research Staking out theterritory TESOL Quarterly 25 315ndash350

Larsen-Freeman D (2002) Language acquisition and language use from a chaoscomplexity theory perspective In C Kramsch (Ed) Language acquisition andlanguage socialization Ecological perspectives (pp 33ndash46) London Continuum

Lave J (1998) Cognition in practice Mind mathematics and culture in everyday lifeCambridge England Cambridge University Press

Lave J amp Wenger E (1991) Situated learning Legitimate peripheral participationCambridge England Cambridge University Press

Lazaraton A (2003) Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in applied linguis-tics Whose criteria and whose research Modern Language Journal 87 1ndash12

Liddicoat A (1997) Interaction social structure and second language use TheModern Language Journal 81 313ndash317

Lincoln Y (1990) The making of a constructivist A remembrance of transforma-tions past In E Guba (Ed) The paradigm dialog (pp 28ndash47) Newbury Park CASage

Long M H (1997) Construct validity in SLA research The Modern Language Journal81 318ndash323

Long M H amp Doughty C J (2003) SLA and cognitive science In C J Doughty amp

56 TESOL QUARTERLY

M H Long (Eds) The handbook of second language acquisition (pp 866ndash869)Malden MA Blackwell

Markee N (Ed) (2004) Classroom talks [Special issue] The Modern LanguageJournal 88(4)

McCafferty S (1994) Adult second language learnersrsquo use of private speech Areview of studies The Modern Language Journal 78 421ndash436

McCafferty S (Ed) (2004a) Private and inner forms of speech and gesture andsecond language learning [Special issue] International Journal of Applied Linguis-tics 14(1)

McCafferty S (2004b) Space for cognition Gesture and second language learningInternational Journal of Applied Linguistics 14 148ndash165

McCafferty S Roebuck R F amp Wayland R P (2001) Activity theory and theincidental learning of second-language vocabulary Language Awareness 10 289ndash294

McCormick D E amp Donato R (2000) Teacher questions as scaffolded assistance inan ESL classroom In J K Hall amp L S Verplaetse (Eds) Second and foreignlanguage learning through classroom interaction (pp 183ndash201) Mahwah NJ LawrenceErlbaum

McGroarty M (1998) Constructive and constructivist challenges for applied linguis-tics Language Learning 48 591ndash622

McGroarty M (Ed) (2005) A survey of applied linguistics Annual Review of AppliedLinguistics 25

Moore L C (1999) Language socialization research and French language educa-tion in Africa A Cameroonian case study The Canadian Modern Language Review56 329ndash350

Morgan B (1998) The ESL classroom Teaching critical practice and community develop-ment Toronto Ontario Canada University of Toronto Press

Nassaji H amp Cumming A (2000) Whatrsquos in a ZPD A case study of a young ESLstudent and teacher interacting through dialogue journals Language TeachingResearch 4 95ndash121

Nassaji H amp Wells G (2000) Whatrsquos the use of ldquotriadic dialoguerdquo An investigationof teacher-student interaction Applied Linguistics 21 376ndash406

Norton B (Ed) (1997a) Language and identity [Special issue] TESOL Quarterly31(3)

Norton B (1997b) Language identity and the ownership of English TESOLQuarterly 31 409ndash429

Norton B (2000) Identity and language learning Gender ethnicity and educationalchange Harlow England Pearson Education

Norton Peirce B (1995) Social identity investment and language learning TESOLQuarterly 29 9ndash31

Nystrand M Wu L L Gamoran A Zeiser S amp Long D A (2003) Questions intime Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourseDiscourse Processes 35 135ndash198

Ochs E (1988) Culture and language development New York Cambridge UniversityPress

Ochs E (1991) Socialization through language and interaction A theoreticalintroduction Issues in Applied Linguistics 2 143ndash147

Ohta A (1999) Interactional routines and the socialization of interactional style inadult learners of Japanese Journal of Pragmatics 31 1493ndash1512

Ohta A S (2000) Re-thinking interaction in SLA Developmentally appropriateassistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2grammar In J P Lantolf (Ed) Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp53ndash80) Oxford England Oxford University Press

COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 57

Ortega L (2005) Methodology epistemology and ethics in instructed SLA re-search An introduction Modern Language Journal 89 317ndash327

Parks S (2000) Same task different activities Issues of investment identity and useof strategy TESL Canada Journal 17 64ndash88

Pennycook A (1990) Towards a critical applied linguistics for the 1990s Issues inApplied Linguistics 1 8ndash28

Pennycook A (1998) English and the discourses of colonialism New York RoutledgePennycook A (1999) Introduction Critical approaches to TESOL TESOL Quarterly

33 329ndash348Pennycook A (2001) Critical applied linguistics A critical introduction Mahwah NJ

Lawrence ErlbaumPoole D (1992) Language socialization in the second language classroom Language

Learning 42 593ndash616Poulisse N (1997) Some words in defense of the psycholinguistic approach The

Modern Language Journal 81 324ndash328Rampton B (1987) Stylistic variability and not speaking ldquonormalrdquo English Some

post-Labovian approaches and their implications for the study of interlanguageIn R Ellis (Ed) Second language acquisition in context (pp 47ndash58) EnglewoodCliffs NJ Prentice-Hall

Rampton B (1995) Crossing Language and ethnicity among adolescents LondonLongman

Rampton B Roberts C Leung C amp Harris R (2002) Methodology in the analysisof classroom discourse Applied Linguistics 23 373ndash392

Rymes B (1997) Second language socialization A new approach to secondlanguage acquisition research Journal of Intensive English Studies 11 143ndash155

Schieffelin B amp Ochs E (Eds) (1986) Language socialization across culturesCambridge England Cambridge University Press

Schumann J H (1993) Some problems with falsification An illustration from SLAresearch Applied Linguistics 14 295ndash306

Sealey A amp Carter B (2004) Applied linguistics as social science London ContinuumSeidlhofer B (2003) Controversies in applied linguistics Oxford England Oxford

University PressSharwood Smith M (1991 FebruaryndashMarch) Plenary given at the Second Language

Research Forum University of California Los AngelesStorch N (2004)Using activity theory to explain differences in patterns of dyadic

interactions in an ESL class The Canadian Modern Language Review 60 457ndash480Swain M amp Lapkin S (1998) Interaction and second language learning Two

adolescent French immersion students working together The Modern LanguageJournal 82 320ndash337

Tarone E amp Liu G-Q (1995) Situational context variation and second languageacquisition theory In G Cook amp B Seidlhofer (Eds) Principle and practice inapplied linguistics (107ndash124) Oxford England Oxford University Press

Teutsch-Dwyer M (2001) (Re)constructing masculinity in a new linguistic reality InA Pavlenko (Ed) Multilingualism second language acquisition and gender (pp 175ndash198) New York Mouton de Gruyter

Tharp R amp Gallimore R (1991)The instructional conversation Teaching and learningin social activity Washington DC Office of Educational Research and Improve-ment

Thorne S L (2000) Second language acquisition theory and the truth(s) aboutrelativity In J P Lantolf (Ed) Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp219ndash244) Oxford England Oxford University Press

Thorne S (2003) Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communicationLanguage Learning and Technology 7 38ndash67

58 TESOL QUARTERLY

Thorne S (2005) Epistemology politics and ethics in sociocultural theory ModernLanguage Journal 89 393ndash409

Toohey K (1999) Comments on Kelleen Tooheyrsquos ldquolsquoBreaking them up taking themawayrsquo ESL students in Grade 1rdquo The author responds TESOL Quarterly 33 132ndash136

Toohey K (2000) Learning English at school Identity social relations and classroompractice Clevedon England Multilingual Matters

van Lier L (1991) Doing applied linguistics Towards a theory of practice Issues inApplied Linguistics 28 78ndash81

Vygotsky L S (1979) Consciousness as a problem in the psychology of behaviorSoviet Psychology 17 3ndash35

Warschauer M (1997) Computer-mediated collaborative learning Theory andpractice The Modern Language Journal 81 470ndash481

Watson-Gegeo K (1992) Thick explanation in the ethnographic study of childsocialization and development In W A Corsaro amp P J Miller (Eds) Theproduction and reproduction of childrenrsquos worlds Interpretive methodologies for the study ofchildhood socialization (pp 51ndash66) San Francisco Jossey-Bass

Watson-Gegeo K A (2004) Mind language and epistemology Toward a languagesocialization paradigm for SLA The Modern Language Journal 88 331ndash350

Watson-Gegeo K A amp Nielsen S E (2003) Language socialization in SLA InC Doughty amp M Long (Eds) Handbook of second language acquisition (pp 155ndash177) Malden MA Blackwell

Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice Learning meaning and identity CambridgeEngland Cambridge University Press

Willet J (1995) Becoming first graders in an L2 An ethnographic study of L2socialization TESOL Quarterly 29 473ndash503

Zuengler J amp Cole K (2004 May) Problematizing and pluralizing ldquosocioculturaltheoryrdquo Colloquium convened at the American Association for Applied LinguisticsConference Portland OR

Zuengler J amp Cole K (2005) Language socialization and second languagelearning In E Hinkel (Ed) Handbook of research in second language teaching andlearning (pp 301ndash16) Mahwah NJ Lawrence Erlbaum