Not so Fast: Some Thoughts on Theory Culling, Relativism, Accepted Findings and the Heart and Soul of SLA

The disciplinary constraints of SLA and TESOL: Additive bilingualism and second language acquisition, teaching and learning

“…15 However, both approaches rest on the notion that language can be constituted as an autonomous and homogeneous object, amenable to linguistic study (Thompson, 1991). 16 The notion of 'language' as autonomous and homogeneous is not solely the product of a cognitivist construction of the discipline of linguistics and a related attempt to raise its 'scientific status' -a process that Block (1996Block ( , 2003 accurately describes as 'science envy'. It is also a historical product of the wider politics of nationalism and nation-building over the last few centuries (Auer, 2007;Makoni & Pennycook, 2007;May, 2011May, , 2012.…”

Learnables in Action : The Embodied Achievement of Opportunities for Teaching and Learning in Swedish as a Second Language Classrooms

“…Revisiting the assumptions behind the theories of learning (Block, 1996) may be done through a balance between theories and methodologies (Firth & Wagner, 1997), and it is only possible through the collection of empirical real data from various settings and interactivities. Firth and Wagner (1997) accordingly invited researchers in the second language area to be more concerned with the context and interactional particulars of language use, not merely to rely on a priori theories, but instead, to take an emic perspective (Pike, 1954: 8;cf.…”

“…Even though challenged by traditional views on language learning, especially in cognitivist traditions (see Seedhouse, 1998;He, 2004), the call for attention to the context and circumstances of language learning procedures (see Block, 1996;Firth & Wagner, 1997), and to EM/CA and its conversation analytic principles found their ways also in second language research (see e.g. Markee & Kasper, 2004;Young & Miller, 2004;Firth & Wagner, 2007;Kasper & Wagner, 2011, inter alia).…”

Learner interaction using email: the effects of task modification

“…(Chapelle, 1998: 26) Chapelle's 1998 paper acted as a spur to the debate about CALL and SLA and encouraged a response from Salaberry (1999), where amongst other points he questioned whether only interactionist models should be considered. While it is true that there is no single agreed model of SLA, it has been well argued that the diversity of models within SLA should be seen as a strength of the discipline, not a weakness (Block, 1996). The decision to focus on one particular model of SLA in this paper is not to suggest that other models have nothing to offer CALL development, and developments within other models of SLA and the synthesis of existing models are eagerly awaited by the author.…”