Skip to main content Accessibility help

Is the Second Language Acquisition discipline disintegrating?

  • Jan H. Hulstijn (a1)

After characterizing the study of second language acquisition (SLA) from three viewpoints, I try to answer the question, raised by DeKeyser (2010), of whether the SLA field is disintegrating. In answering this question, I first propose a distinction between SLA as the relatively fundamental academic discipline and SLA as the relatively applied field of language education. Instead of portraying the field in terms of quantitative or laboratory studies on the one hand, and qualitative or anthropological studies on the other, I will look at SLA in terms of theories that differ in their empirical basis. All scientific disciplines must create room for ideas or theories that do not yet lend themselves to empirical testing, but for a discipline to develop fruitfully it is crucial that nonempirical ideas do not outnumber the empirical. The fact that the number of empirical SLA theories is large is not in itself a problem: through the practices of rational ‘normal science’ (Kuhn 1962), the best theories (in terms of coherence, testability and scope) will rightfully come out on top.

Hide All
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learner errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics 5, 161169.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2010). Where is our field going? Comments from the outgoing editor of Language Learning. The Modern Language Journal 94, 646647.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jordan, G. (2004). Theory construction in second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Krashen, S. D. (1977). The Monitor Model for second language performance. In Burt, M., Dulay, H. & Finocchiaro, M. (eds.), Viewpoints on English as a second language. New York: Regents, 152161.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Long, M. H. (1993). Assessment strategies for SLA theories. Applied Linguistics 14, 225249.
McLaughlin, B. (1978). The Monitor Model: Some methodological considerations. Language Learning 28, 309332.
Mitchell, R. & Myles, F. (1998). Second language learning theories. London: Arnold.
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Education.
Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.
Spada, N. (2010). Review of Ortega (2009). Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32, 651652.
Squire, L. R. & Knowlton, B. J. (2000). The medial temporal lobe, the hippocampus, and the memory systems of the brain. In Gazzaniga, M. S. (ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 765779.
Towell, R. & Hawkins, R. (1994). Approaches to second language acquisition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.) (2007a). Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (2007b). Introduction: The nature of theories. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), 1–16.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Language Teaching
  • ISSN: 0261-4448
  • EISSN: 1475-3049
  • URL: /core/journals/language-teaching
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed