Diane Larsen-Freeman

An ESL Index of Development

This paper is a report on the progress we are making in an attempt to establish a second language acquisition index of development. Such an index would be a developmental yardstick by which researchers could expediently and reliably gauge a learners proficiency in a second language. Encouraged by the findings of an earlier pilot study, a more ambitious project involving the analysis of 212 compositions was undertaken. These compositions, written by university ESL students, were analyzed using several measures based on Kellogg Hunts T-unit performance variable. Two measures applied in the analysis, the percentage of error-free T-units and the average length of error-free T-units, proved to be the best discriminators among the five levels of ESL proficiency represented in this population. In addition to a discussion of these results, included in this paper is a survey of L2 acquisition studies which have also employed T-unit length as a proficiency measure. Finally, an outline is offered of the studies currently being conducted in an attempt to further refine these measures.

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND APPLIED LINGUISTICS

Just as applied linguistics (AL) may be said to be an emerging discipline, so too is one of its sub-fields, second language acquisition (SLA). The parallelism may not be surprising; after all, a difference of only about twenty years separates the points at which the two were identified as autonomous fields of inquiry. Then, too, the two share central defining concepts. AL draws on multidisciplinary theoretical and empirical perspectives to address real-world issues and problems in which language is central (Brumfit 1997). SLA draws on multidisciplinary theoretical and empirical perspectives to address the specific issue of how people acquire a second language and the specific problem of why everyone does not do so successfully. Furthermore, the two share something else: At this juncture in the evolution of AL and SLA, both are grappling with fundamental definitional issues, ones even extending to the nature of language itself. (See Larsen-Freeman 1997a for how this is true of AL.) Should AL and SLA deal successfully with these challenges, both will have much to contribute in the decade to come. Should they instead succumb to internecine feuding and fragmentation, the future will not be as bright.

Complex, dynamic systems: A new transdisciplinary theme for applied linguistics?

In this plenary address, I suggest that Complexity Theory has the potential to contribute a transdisciplinary theme to applied linguistics. Transdisciplinary themes supersede disciplines and spur new kinds of creative activity (Halliday 2001 [1990]). Investigating complex systems requires researchers to pay attention to system dynamics. Since applied linguists study language systems that change (for example, as they develop in learners, this is a useful perspective to bring to bear on many of our concerns. To introduce Complexity Theory, I list twelve principles undergirding this perspective and elaborate on three of them: those to do with dynamism, complexity, and the role of context. I then discuss several studies of L2 development that have been informed by the perspective. I conclude by suggesting that the ultimate promise of Complexity Theory is the help it provides in humanizing science.

On the complementarity of Chaos/Complexity Theory and Dynamic Systems Theory in understanding the second language acquisition process

In the late 1980s, I reviewed what was known about the field of second language acquisition (SLA), first with a co-author in a book (Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991) and then in a highly condensed form for a 25th anniversary issue of the TESOL Quarterly (Larsen-Freeman, 1991). Stock-taking activities can be very useful, and I was grateful for these opportunities.

Making Sense of Frequency.

Nick Elliss article is impressive for its breadth of scholarship and the cogent case made for frequency as an important factor in second language acquisition (SLA). This response begins with a brief historical sketch, which aims to contextualize the frequency factor in terms of the evolution of SLA research. Although researchers have known about a frequency effect for some time, until recently, we have lacked neurologically plausible models and technologically convenient means of measuring and testing frequency effects in input. Still, as relevant and important as a frequency factor is, it requires greater definition and qualification. For instance, L2 learners are agents of their own learning process. They do not merely record frequency; they categorize frequently occurring patterns, abstract, and generalize from them. Higher level generalizations emerge from interactions, impose top-down expectancies on future data, and, in turn, are altered by the data in a perpetually dynamic interplay. In a similar fashion, it is incumbent on SLA researchers not to be satisfied with a frequency explanation, but to interpret it—in short, to make sense of frequency.

Research into practice: Grammar learning and teaching

This selective review of the second language acquisition and applied linguistics research literature on grammar learning and teaching falls into three categories: where research has had little impact (the non-interface position), modest impact (form-focused instruction), and where it potentially can have a large impact (reconceiving grammar). Overall, I argue that not much second language acquisition or applied linguistics research on grammar has made its way into the classroom. At the conclusion of the discussion of each of the three categories, I speculate on why this is so. I also find misguided the notion that research should be applied to teaching in an unmediated manner. This is not to say that research should have no impact on pedagogy. In concluding, I offer some ways that I believe it could and should.

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

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.

Language Teacher Educators Collaborative Conversations

Hawkins, E. (1984). Awareness of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. James, C., & Garrett, P. (Eds.). (1991). Language awareness in the classroom. Harlow, England: Longman. Knowles, J. G. (1991). Life-history accounts as mirrors: A practical avenue for the conceptualization of reflection in teacher education. In J. Calderhead & P. Gates (Eds.), Conceptualizing reflection in teacher development (pp. 70-92). London: Falmer Press.

Pedagogical Descriptions of Language: Grammar

For hundreds of years, language educators have alternated between favoring language teaching approaches which focus on language form and those which emphasize language use or which focus on the message (Celce-Murcia 1979). For the greater part of this past decade, it has been the latter which have been fashionable. As a consequence, language teachers have been discouraged from teaching grammar. In fact, during the 1980s explicit grammer instruction has even been proscribed by certain methodologists (Krashen 1982; 1985, Krashen and Terrell 1983, Prabhu 1987). Although this position has been repeatedly assailed (Higgs and Clifford 1982, Long 1983; 1988, Harley and Swain 1984, Pienemann 1984), the proscribers persist. Only as recently as June 1988, Van Patten concluded that “…research evidence to date does not suggest that a focus on form is either necessary or beneficial to early stage learners’ (1988:243). Undeniable is the fact that research has pointed to a difference in learner performance (e.g., type of errors made) depending on whether there is a focus on form or not (Pica 1983, Spada 1987); still to be resolved, and surely an issue which will motivate much research in the next decade, is the extent to which a focus on form versus on a focus on message affects the rate of target language attainment. Such research will hopefully be conducted in a way which disambiguates “focus on form” (Larsen-Freeman and Long 1988, Beretta 1989).

Recent Innovations in Language Teaching Methodology

Five innovative methodologies currently practiced in the teaching of foreign languages are discussed: the Silent Way, Suggestopedia, Community Language Learning, the Comprehension Approach, and the Communicative Approach. In order to understand how these methodologies are innovative, a discussion of teaching practices during the first half of the twentieth century is offered. Following the historical perspective, the five innovative methodologies are analyzed in terms of their goals, features of the teaching and learning process, characteristics of teachers and learners, and their views of language and culture. Then a summary of what they have in common is provided. The article concludes with the identification of questions concerning methodologies that need to be addressed in the field and with some specific recommendations for a national agenda for foreign language instruction.