Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-frp75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T09:01:38.866Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Saying what we mean: Making a case for ‘language acquisition’ to become ‘language development’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2014

Diane Larsen-Freeman
Diane Larsen-Freeman*
Affiliation:
University of Michigandianelf@umich.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As applied linguists know very well, how we use language both constructs and reflects our understanding. It is therefore important that we use terms that do justice to our concerns. In this presentation, I suggest that a more apt designation than multilingual or second language acquisition (SLA) is multilingual or second language development (SLD). I give a number of reasons for why I think SLD is more appropriate. Some of the reasons that I point to are well known. Others are more current, resting on a view of language from a complex systems perspective. Such a perspective rejects the commodification of language implied by the term ‘acquisition’, instead imbuing language with a more dynamic quality, implied by the term ‘development’, because it sees language as an ever-developing resource. It also acknowledges the mutable and interdependent norms of bilinguals and multilinguals. In addition, this perspective respects the fact that from a target-language vantage point, regress in learner performance is as characteristic of development as progress. Finally, and most appropriately for AILA 2011, the term second language development fits well with the theme of the congress – harmony in diversity – because it recognizes that there is no common endpoint at which all learners arrive. For, after all, learners actively transform their linguistic world; they do not merely conform to it.

Information

Type
Plenary Speech
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 48 , Issue 4 , October 2015 , pp. 491 - 505
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Agar, M. (1995). Language shock: Understanding the culture of conversation. New York: William Morrow.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1983). The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning 33, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A. & Gullberg, M. (2008). Bidirectional crosslinguistic influence in L1-L2 encoding of manner in speech and gesture: A study of Japanese speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 30, 225–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). Globalization of English and changing pedagogical priorities: The postmodern turn. In Beaven, B. (ed.), IATEFL 2005 Cardiff conference selections. Canterbury, UK: IATEFL, 15–25.Google Scholar
Caspi, T. (2010). A dynamic perspective on second language development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Cazden, C., Cancino, H., Rosansky, E. & Schumann, J. (1975). Second language acquisition sequences in children, adolescents, and adults. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Graduate School of Education.Google Scholar
Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B. & Jessner, U. (2001). Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, V. (1969). The analogy between first and second language learning. IRAL VII (3), 207–216.Google Scholar
Cook, V. (1991). The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multicompetence. Second Language Research 7, 103–117.Google Scholar
Cook, V. (ed.) (2003). Effects of the second language on the first. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics 5, 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Bot, K. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011). Researching second language development from a dynamic systems theory perspective. In Verspoor, M., de Bot, K. & Lowie, W. (eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 5–24.Google Scholar
de Bot, K., Lowie, W. & Verspoor, M. (2005). Second language acquisition: An advanced resource book. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Bot, K., Lowie, W. & Verspoor, M. (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism, Language and Cognition 10.1, 7–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, M. (2009). English as a lingua franca: Heightened variability and theoretical implications. English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 60–83.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics. Introduction to the special issue. Applied Linguistics 27.4, 558–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elman, J. (2003). Development: It's about time. Developmental Science 6, 430–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitch, W. T. (2011). ‘Deep homology’ in the biology and evolution of language. In Di Sciullo, A. M. & Boeckx, C. (eds.), The biolinguistic enterprise: New perspectives on the evolution and nature of the human language faculty. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 135–166.Google Scholar
Flege, J. (1987). The production of ‘new’ and ‘similar’ phones in a foreign language: Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal of Phonetics 15, 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1992). Another view of bilingualism. In Harris, R. (ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 91–103.Google Scholar
Hakuta, K. (1974). A preliminary report on the development of grammatical morphemes in a Japanese girl learning English as a second language. Working Papers on Bilingualism 3, 18–43.Google Scholar
Harris, R. (1996). Signs, language, and communication. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hebb, D. (1949). The organization of behavior. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Herdina, P. & Jessner, U. (2002). A dynamic model of multilingualism. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heylighen, F. (1989). Self-organization, emergence and the architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on System Science, AFCET, Paris, 23–32.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S. & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramsch, C. (ed.) (2002). Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Kramsch, C. & Whiteside, A. (2008). Language ecology in multilingual settings: Towards a theory of symbolic competence. Applied Linguistics 29.4, 645–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Gerfen, C. & Dussias, P. E. (2008). Laboratory designs and paradigms: Words, sounds, and sentences. In Wei, L. & Moyer, M. (eds.), The Blackwell guide to research methods in bilingualism and multilingualism. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 108–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubota, R. (1998). An investigation of L1-L2 transfer in writing among Japanese university students: Implications for contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing 7, 69–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1982). Building on empirical foundations. In Lehman, W. P. & Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 17–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 18.2, 141–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston, MA: Heinle/Thomson.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006a). Second language acquisition and the issue of fossilization: There is no end, and there is no state. In Han, Z.-H. & Odlin, T. (eds.), Studies of fossilization in second language acquisition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 189–200.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006b). On the need for a new understanding of language and its development. Journal of Applied Linguistics 3l.3, 281–304.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2010). Having and doing: Learning from a complexity theory perspective. In Seedhouse, P., Walsh, S. & Jenks, C. (eds.), Conceptualising learning in applied linguistics. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 52–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2009). Methodological principles for language teaching. In Long, M. H. & Doughty, C. J. (eds.), Handbook of language teaching. Oxford: Blackwell, 373–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, J. (2002). The power of Babel: A natural history of language. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. & Milroy, L. (1999). Authority in language (3rd edn). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2010). The bilingual turn in SLA. Plenary address delivered at the Annual Conference of the American Association for Applied Linguistics. Atlanta, Georgia, March 6–9.Google Scholar
Oyama, S., Griffiths, P. & Gray, R. (eds.) (2001). Cycles of contingency, development systems and evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. & Jarvis, S. (2002). Bidirectional transfer. Applied Linguistics 23, 190–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10.3, 209–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher 27, 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanker, S. & King, B. (2002). The emergence of a new paradigm in ape language research: Target article. Behavioral & Brain Sciences 25, 605–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thelen, E. & Bates, E. (2003). Connectionism and dynamic systems: Are they really different? Developmental Science 6, 378–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thelen, E. & Corbetta, D. (2002). Microdevelopment and dynamic systems: Applications to infant motor development. In Granott, N. & Parziale, J. (eds.), Microdevelopment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 59–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thelen, E. & Smith, L. (1998). Dynamic systems theories. In Damon, W. & Lerner, R. (eds.), Handbook of child psychology Volume 1: Theoretical models of human development (5th edn). New York: Wiley, 563–634.Google Scholar
Todeva, E. (2009). Multilingualism as a kaleidoscopic experience: The mini-universes within. In Todeva, E. & Cenoz, J. (eds.), The multiple realities of multingualism. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Geert, P. & Fischer, F. W. (2009). Dynamic systems and the quest for individual-based models of change and development. In Spencer, J. P., Thomas, M. S. C. & McClelland, J. (eds.), Toward a new grand theory of development? Connectionism and dynamic systems theory reconsidered. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 313–336.Google Scholar
van Geert, P. & Steenbeek, H. (2005). Explaining after by before: Basic aspects of a dynamic systems approach to the study of development. Developmental Review 25, 408–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, R. (2010). Teaching the pronunciation of English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar