Essentials of a Theory of Language Cognition

Abstract

Cognition is not just ‘in the head’; it extends well beyond the skull and the skin. Non‐Cartesian Cognitive Science views cognition as being embodied, environmentally embedded, enacted, encultured, and socially distributed. The Douglas Fir Group (2016) likewise recognizes languages as emergent, social, integrated phenomena. Language is the quintessence of distributed cognition. Language cognition is shared across naturally occurring, culturally constituted, communicative activities. Usage affects learning and it affects languages, too. These are essential components of a theory of language cognition. This article summarizes these developments within cognitive science before considering implications for language research and teaching, especially as these concern usage‐based language learning and cognition in second language and multilingual contexts. Here, I prioritize research involving corpus‐, computational‐, and psycho‐linguistics, and cognitive psychological, complex adaptive system, and network science investigations of learner–language interactions. But there are many other implications. Looking at languages through any one single lens does not do the phenomena justice. Taking the social turn does not entail restricting our research focus to the social. Nor does it obviate more traditional approaches to second language acquisition. Instead it calls for greater transdisciplinarity, diversity, and collaborative work.

SLA and the Study of Equitable Multilingualism

“…I do not believe linguistic–cognitive SLA researchers must give up doing the research that they do. I agree with Ellis (, this issue) that “Taking the social turn does not entail restricting our research focus to the social” (p. 39); there is space for linguistic–cognitive work as well as sociocultural and sociocognitive work. But I will argue that considering multilingualism as the central object of inquiry and embracing social justice as an explicit disciplinary goal are two moves that can provide the necessary sustainable support for the kind of transdisciplinary SLA the DFG envisioned.…”

Beyond the Brain: Intercorporeality and Co‐Operative Action for SLA Studies

“…Atkinson () and Ellis () provide introductions to 4E cognition for SLA studies. Let me quibble with them here .…”

The Douglas Fir Group Framework as a Resource Map for Language Teacher Education

“…The collection of studies in this issue can be approached from different perspectives, but as a language teacher educator I believe that they highlight at least four challenges for teacher educators in the preparation of language teachers: (a) the deficit discourses about language learners associated with the monolingualism bias in SLA research (Ortega, , this issue), (b) integrating a broadened theorization of cognition in teaching (Ellis, , this issue), (c) taking a usage‐based approach to linguistics to inform pedagogical decisions (Hall, , this issue; LaScotte & Tarone, , this issue), and (d) becoming fully empowered agents in the pedagogical process (Larsen–Freeman, , this issue). The first three challenges raise critical questions about why language teachers teach, how language learners learn (and hence how language can be taught), and what is to be taught.…”

“…With regard to language pedagogy development, these perspectives on language learning imply the necessity for language teachers to draw on what language learners are exposed to outside the classroom in order to develop meaningful pedagogical activities in the classroom, which will prepare them well for the task of using the language in real life. In other words, language teachers need to consider “frequent and rich participation in the second‐language life worlds into which the learner ‘bricolages’ his or her way” (Ellis, , this issue, p. 52) as both the starting and end points for language teaching activities within the classroom toward language learning and use. Considering the fact that many language learners (particularly those in low‐resource situations) have few opportunities to use the language outside the classroom, it remains a critical task for language teachers to develop, create, and sustain learners’ meaningful access to these “second‐language life worlds,” not least because doing so may help reduce inequity among language learners in the learning process.…”