Abstract:In this article I discuss the contributions to this Special Issue of Language Learning on orders and sequences in second language (L2) development. Using a list of questions, I attempt to characterize what I see as the strengths, limitations, and unresolved issues in the approaches to L2 development represented in this Special Issue. I include short commentaries I solicited from the authors of the contributions, cited as personal communications. I conclude by arguing that, while it is completely legitimate to … Show more
“…There is now a substantial body of research supporting the kind of multi-factor model we outline here. It gives a unifying and forest view of this interdisciplinary field (see Hulstijn, 2013Hulstijn, , 2015 for insightful discussion of the plethora of perspectives in SLA research alone).…”
Section: Some Background: Why This Model Is Neededmentioning
Aims and objectives/purpose/research question:We propose a model that captures general patterns in bilingual language processing, based on empirical evidence elicited in a variety of experimental studies. We begin by considering what linguistic outputs are logically possible when bilingual speakers communicate based on the typological features of two languages in the bilingual mind. Our aim is to explain why some outputs are more frequent or more likely than others in bilingual language use. Design/methodology/approach: Our empirically derived multi-factor model combines insights from various empirical studies of different bilingual populations and it includes a variety of methodologies and approaches, such as lexical categorisation, lexical priming, syntactic priming, event verbalisation and memory, historical language change, grammaticality judgments and observational reports. Data and analysis: We critically discuss both lexical and syntactic processing data, as well as data that reflect bilingual type differences and different communicative situations (i.e. who the bilingual speakers are talking to and for what purpose). Crucially, we explain when the relevant factors collaborate and when they compete. Originality: There are three main reasons why this paper can be deemed original: 1) it offers a unified model for understanding bilingual language processing that is not focused on a single factor or a single linguistic level, as has most often been the case in the past; 2) it brings together the study of bilingualism from both psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives and in a unifying fashion, which is rare in the literature; and 3) it creates a platform for testing numerous predictions that are not dependent on any one theory. Significance/implications: This new model opens up new avenues for research into bilingual language processing for all types of bilingual speakers and in different communicative situations. It captures and explains the variety of outputs in bilingual communication and enables us to make predictions about communicative outcomes.
“…There is now a substantial body of research supporting the kind of multi-factor model we outline here. It gives a unifying and forest view of this interdisciplinary field (see Hulstijn, 2013Hulstijn, , 2015 for insightful discussion of the plethora of perspectives in SLA research alone).…”
Section: Some Background: Why This Model Is Neededmentioning
Aims and objectives/purpose/research question:We propose a model that captures general patterns in bilingual language processing, based on empirical evidence elicited in a variety of experimental studies. We begin by considering what linguistic outputs are logically possible when bilingual speakers communicate based on the typological features of two languages in the bilingual mind. Our aim is to explain why some outputs are more frequent or more likely than others in bilingual language use. Design/methodology/approach: Our empirically derived multi-factor model combines insights from various empirical studies of different bilingual populations and it includes a variety of methodologies and approaches, such as lexical categorisation, lexical priming, syntactic priming, event verbalisation and memory, historical language change, grammaticality judgments and observational reports. Data and analysis: We critically discuss both lexical and syntactic processing data, as well as data that reflect bilingual type differences and different communicative situations (i.e. who the bilingual speakers are talking to and for what purpose). Crucially, we explain when the relevant factors collaborate and when they compete. Originality: There are three main reasons why this paper can be deemed original: 1) it offers a unified model for understanding bilingual language processing that is not focused on a single factor or a single linguistic level, as has most often been the case in the past; 2) it brings together the study of bilingualism from both psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives and in a unifying fashion, which is rare in the literature; and 3) it creates a platform for testing numerous predictions that are not dependent on any one theory. Significance/implications: This new model opens up new avenues for research into bilingual language processing for all types of bilingual speakers and in different communicative situations. It captures and explains the variety of outputs in bilingual communication and enables us to make predictions about communicative outcomes.
“…Hulstijn () advocates a different approach to the analysis of interlanguage data: A good example of the type of research I advocate is the study conducted by Klein Gunnewiek () […] Using multilevel analyses (distinguishing target structure, time of task, type of task, and individual learners as independent variables), the researcher was able to investigate the question of whether a common developmental pattern could be observed despite minor individual differences. The development of the five structures hardly seemed interdependent and no stage‐like theory was supported by the data.…”
Section: Pt As a Framework For Dynamic Linguistic Systemsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The development of the five structures hardly seemed interdependent and no stage-like theory was supported by the data. (2015, p. 226) As Hulstijn (2015) indicates, Klein Gunnewiek (2000) was unable to identify developmental patterns using quantitative methods based on average correctness scores and group mean scores. As I argued above, this demonstrates the weakness of the analytical approach rather than constituting empirical evidence of the absence of developmental patterns.…”
Section: Pt As a Framework For Dynamic Linguistic Systemsmentioning
In this article I make the point that there has been a continuous focus on second language development in second language acquisition research for over 40 years and that there is clear empirical evidence for generalizable developmental patterns. I will both summarize some of the core assumptions of Processability Theory (PT) as an approach to explaining developmental patterns and learner variation and compare the position assumed by PT with the Dynamic Systems Theory approach proposed by de Bot, Lowie, and Verspoor and with O'Grady's processing‐based approach to Emergentism. In addition, I will summarize the Teachability Hypothesis and describe its limited relationship to PT in order to respond briefly to the article on the same issue by Zhang and Lantolf in this Special Issue.
“…For example, Lowie, Verspoor and de Bot (2009), basing their modal of DST on the usage-based school in opposition to the generative school of L2 development (Hulstijn, 2015), hold that 'changes in the [L2] system are the result of changes in language use, and the other way around: use is change and change is use' (p.125). For dialectical DST, in contrast, language use and the orderly configuration of the L2 system do not exist in a vacuum and independently of the L2 learner's subjective and intentional embodied agency.…”
Section: Arrow Of Causality In L2 Development: One-way or Two-way?mentioning
1To cite this article, please use the following bibliographic specifics: Karimi-Aghdam, S. (2016). A dialectical reading of dynamic systems theory:Transcending socialized cognition and cognized social dualism in L2 studies.
Language and Sociocultural
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
