Can a sociolinguistic perspective of Second Language Acquisition solve ‘the longstanding human curiosity’ of learning languages?

Isabelle Sophie Thaler University of Cambridge ist28@cam.ac.uk Published in Training, Language and Culture Vol 3 Issue 3 (2019) pp. 36-55 doi: 10.29366/2019tlc.3.3.3 Recommended citation format: Thaler, I. S (2019). Can a sociolinguistic perspective of Second Language Acquisition solve ‘the longstanding human curiosity’ of learning languages? Training, Language and Culture, 3(3), 36-55. doi: 10.29366/2019tlc.3.3.3

diversity is appreciated by some researchers (Larsen-Freeman, 2000;Ellis, 2008), it was already criticised by Long (1993) 25 years ago who cautioned against eclecticism and thus argued for a reduction based on a 'rational approach for theory assessment' (Long, 1993, p. 228).
According to Ortega (2013), this diversity arouses different feelings among scholars. Whereas some criticise it as theory proliferation, others appreciate it as 'intellectual ethos', and yet others see the need for reconceptualising the field (Ortega, 2013, p. 4). The number of theories has not dwindled, and therefore Myles (2013) seeks to group them into three 'main theoretical families', each highlighting a different focus: the linguistic theory with its focus on the formal system of learner language; the cognitive theory centring around the mental processes and psychological composition of individuals; and the interactionist, sociolinguistic and sociocultural theories focusing on the interactional and social context in which the learning of an L2 occurs (Myles, 2013, p. 52-70).
This classification contrasts slightly with the one put forward by Lightbown and Spada (2006), which lists behaviourist, innatist, cognitive/ developmental and sociocultural perspectives. Yet, although any classification might run the risk of being too artificial, too simplistic, and not encompassing the whole picture, it allows a certain degree of orientation within the research field of SLA (Myles, 2013, p. 53).
Given the fact that many researchers have been grappling with this conundrum of SLA and the multitude of competing theories, it could be plausible that none of them alone can explain the complex issue to a satisfying extent. Instead, each approach might have a certain right to exist and together they should rather try to complement than compete with each other. Notably, there are also SLA theories which are 'oppositional', not 'complementary' due to different domains or choice of variables, for instance (Long, 1993, p. 226).
Following the search for complementarity, this study seeks not to swing the pendulum of theories into the sociolinguistic area for good, but to show how a sociolinguistic approach contributes to the understanding of SLA, by pointing to gains as well as to limitations of applying only such an approach. As part of the search for complementarity, one also needs to be aware of the need for reconceptualising dated concepts and narrow terminology, of constant development of new theories and of the potentially detrimental dichotomy between cognitive and socially-situated theories.
In terms of future SLA research directions, Lafford (2007) calls for an enhancement of using sociolinguistic as well as socio-cognitive theories. This paper will pursue this endeavour by critically analysing a sociolinguistic approach and zooming in on research on two articles -by Soltani (2018) and Anderson (2017) -about study abroad in Anglophone countries. Within this context, both studies are grounded within the broad framework of language socialisation, but the authors develop new adaptations of it by combining it with philosophical concepts. The underlying explanation is that language socialisation is the 'overarching theoretical paradigm' and that it will be 'interpreted from a social space perspective' (Soltani, 2018, p. 21). Thus, Anderson (2017) coins the term the doctoral gaze, drawing on Foucault's (1995) notion of panopticism, whereas Soltani (2018) invents the phrase the academic social space, inspired by Lefebvre's (1991) production of space.
In these two articles, in short, different developments of the same sociolinguistic framework are applied to roughly the same target group, i.e. postgraduate students at Master's and PhD levels in similar research and practice sites (Anglophone universities, but in different continents). This promises more depth in the analysis of their common aim, i.e. shedding light on international students' varying success in second language socialisation at Anglophone universities. This analysis of insights into language learner, language learning, target language and context is embedded in the social turn and in two of the latest social developments, i.e. ongoing globalisation, which is the 'intensification of Furthermore, research in the field of language socialisation within study abroad settings is still a new and infrequent enterprise (Kinginger, 2017). Study abroad is defined as 'a temporary sojourn of pre-defined duration, undertaken for educational purposes' (Kinginger, 2009, p. 11). These sojourns thus highlight academic objectives (Duff & May, 2017) and are by and large considered one of the major means of producing foreign language speakers and enhancing foreign language learning, which goes hand in hand with the focus of field of SLA, i.e. learning and learners (VanPatten & Benati, 2015

Limits of sociolinguistic approaches
What is sociolinguistic theory of/in/to SLA? Which preposition is more appropriate: of, in or to?
Theories in SLA might stress the variety of theories, whereas of SLA could sound more exclusive and prescriptive, and to SLA might stress the process of the language acquisition. But these are only personal perceptions and ideas, and in the following, they will be used interchangeably. The adjective 'sociolinguistic' is a derivation of adding the prefix 'socio-' to the noun 'linguistics', thus, appending a semantic modification and specification to the vast field of linguistics. As a result, sociolinguistics is concerned with the 'relations between the use of language and the social structure in which the language users live' (Zhang & Wang, 2016, p. 830). But what exactly is the intersection of SLA and sociolinguistics?
In his article Sociolinguistic Approaches to SLA, Young (1999) encapsulates the problem. Although a certain popularity of sociolinguistic approaches to SLA in the last couple of years can be seen, which has led to researchers adopting 'by and large the methods of mainstream sociolinguists' (Young, 1999, p. 106), these sociolinguistic approaches lack an all-embracing, coherent and explicit theory. This ties in with what Ellis (2008) says almost ten years later. He concludes that sociolinguistic SLA does not possess 'a single, homogenous line of enquiry' but rather numerous various approaches (Ellis, 2008, p. 280). Some of them are variability in second language use, power relations, second language socialisation, communities of practice and situated L2 learning, learning and the (re)construction of identity, and the impact of affect and emotions (Mitchell & Myles, 2004;Mitchell et al., 2013). In spite of the different foci of interest, their common denominator is the social context in which learners learn a new language, hence the prefix. In the book Second Language Learning Theories (Mitchell et al., 2013), the chapter Sociolinguistic Perspectives -note the use of 'perspectives' instead of 'theory' and the choice of plural -also fails to provide a definition. It only refers to it as 'the relationship between sociolinguistics and second language learning theory' (Mitchell et al., 2013, p. 250).
In sum, due to the lack of one overarching theory and the occurrence of a plenitude of approaches with different foci, it might be more appropriateeven almost 20 years after Young's (1999) analysis -to use the plural as in perspectives, approaches or theories.

Framing the context for perceived imbalance
The expression 'perceived imbalance' is taken from Larsen-Freeman's (2007) review of Firth and Wagner's (1997) -Freeman, 2007, p. 773). Yet, it must be noted that it is rather unclear what Larsen-Freeman means by saying 'entirely different approach'. The adverb 'entirely' could also hint at a theory not yet seen in the field of SLA.

Language socialisation as theoretical framework
Both studies I chose draw upon language socialisation (LS) as their overarching theoretical framework. According to Watson-Gegeo and Nielsen (2003), LS adds 'the most to an understanding of the cognitive, cultural, social, and political complexity of language learning' (Watson-Gegeo & Nielsen, 2003, p. 155). This citation already hints at the variety of issues LS deals with. This paper will especially stress the last three complexities as they are highlighted in the studies, but it will also demonstrate the necessity of considering the cognitive aspect.
LS is best summarised by the quite poststructuralist phrase 'socialisation through the use of language and socialisation to use language' (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986, p. 163), which rejects a purely cognitive approach to language learning and highlights the inextricably intertwined nexus of sociocultural and linguistic knowledge and practices. It is closely linked with Communities of Practice (CoP) described by Lave and Wenger (1991), which stresses the fact that the process of language learning is socially situated in communities sharing a common interest. Ellis (2008) remarks that these concepts cannot be clearly distinguished from each other. Lave and Wenger (1991) argue that by participating in typical routine activities of the community novices have increased possibilities to use the language of the community and by using language they become familiar with these practices. As a result, they not only acquire communicative competence, but also legitimacy and membership in this group (Duff, 2007). This is the desired case, however. The worst case is that either the experts are reluctant to socialise the newcomers and confront the learners with gatekeepers, or the latter group is not fully invested in the process. When successful, this process leads to re-conceptualising identities, hierarchies and cultures and is thus a constant site of struggle and development.

Coining new sociolinguistic concepts
In the following, the two previously mentioned studies from the same journal Linguistics and Education will be presented. First, they will be compared across some very basic categories, and the different interpretations of language socialisation theory will be elucidated. In a second step, these findings will be discussed within a broader context as to how they contribute to new insights or confirm old insights into the learning of L2, language learners, target language and context through the lenses of a sociolinguistic approach.
The following table serves as an overview to compare the key features of the studies (Table 1) repercussions, but has in fact contributed to our understanding of the learning of second languages viewing it through sociolinguistic studies.
In the following, the two studies will be analysed and discussed -not necessarily in equal measurealong four specific lenses that I have called: language learner, language learning, target language and context. I acknowledge that these four areas are sometimes hard to separate from each other, which, however, results from their interrelatedness. These thematic units will serve as tools through which the thinking behind sociolinguistic theories is portrayed. They will also allow me to try to develop insights into second language learning further.
For the purposes of this analysis, Kevin will always refer to Soltani's (2018) study, while the other first names (e.g. Sissy, Qui, A-Ming, Polar Bear) refer to Anderson's (2017) participants. Playing devil's advocate, the following question has to be asked: is not everyone unique and individual? Yes, but this has not come to the fore for a long time within cognitive theories. Therefore, sociolinguistic theories or scholars might seek to distance themselves from cognitive theory by putting even more emphasis on the uniqueness of the individual and removing other foci. In this way, Soltani's sentence could be seen as an example of a Firth-and-Wagner-led paradigm shift.
Another aspect in common is their focus on the active part of the learner who does not only react, but also acts. Kevin initiates discussions or seeks ideas from his classmates (Soltani, 2018, p. 25).
Therefore, the learner shapes himself and is shaped by others and social space. He is influenced by social context (indirectly and directly). A-Ming also demonstrated a high amount of agency, which facilitated his self-socialisation into categories that prove beneficial for overcoming problems and increasing academic success (Anderson, 2017, p. 8).
The studies acknowledge that learners are affective social beings and possess emotions, feelings and perceptions which impact their learning process positively as well as negatively. Jojo felt happy and valued when a researcher was interested in her work, which boosted her confidence and encouragement (Anderson, 2017, p. 5). This hints at motivation, one of several individual learner differences. Polar Bear, for instance, suffered enormously from imagined pressure that is exerted upon him by his colleagues (Anderson, 2017, p. 9). When Kevin had language problems and did not have friends in his mainstream programme, he lacked confidence and became silent which contrasts with his feelings in his EAP course (Soltani, 2018, p. 26).
This view of language learners contrasts starkly with cognitive theory, which portrays them as, using deliberately my very provocative description, identity-free computers, automatically internalising linguistic knowledge without negotiating meaning or considering context.

Language learning
Language learning is using the language with interlocutors, and thus, it is not an individual, but an 'interactive' endeavour, which can be dialogic or polylogic (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986, p. 165). It may take place between Qui's and her supervisor 'Language learning is using the language with interlocutors, and thus, it is not an individual, but an 'interactive' endeavour, which can be dialogic or polylogic' (Anderson, 2017, p. 7) or between Kevin and his classmates (Soltani, 2018, p. 25), which shows that it is not only between novices and experts but also between non-native novices. Also within the CoP of novices, there is socialisation where one helps the other and a new hierarchy is established.
As Soltani points out, Kevin 'constructed himself as a more knowledgeable member of his classroom' (Soltani, 2018, p. 25).
Language use is seen as the 'driver of language development' (Myles, 2013, p. 67). Kevin used English as a means to communicate even 'during breaks' (Soltani, 2018, p. 25) and consequently increased his output.
It is considered a process, rather than a product, which can be inhibited by social factors, context or linguistic difficulties. Kevin struggles to understand the New Zealand accent and to communicate 'with the locals' (Soltani, 2018, p. 25). This prevents him from accessing language exposure and learning possibilities. Thus, he misses on the culture being transmitted through local practices and language. As Véronique (2013) puts it, as soon as second language learners are 'estranged from the target society', they are confronted with 'gate-keeping procedures' (Véronique, 2013, p. 261). Also 'unfamiliarity' with the academic discourse can impede the process and thus, motivation is not sufficient anymore (Soltani, 2018, p. 27 (Soltani, 2018, p. 28  learning. This is also true for Anderson -both stress the fact that learners encounter problems when embarking on their language journey in studies abroad.

Target language
Both studies explain that English has many faces due to diatopic, diastratic or diaphasic variation, which can be best studied from a sociolinguistic and with the increasing early study abroad in countries like Singapore the norm will get blurred.
The demystification of the homogenous nativespeaker-norm is essential.

Context
Context encompasses many aspects. Of course, it refers to the dichotomy instructed vs. noninstructed setting or to instances of blurring which can be seen in the two studies that are set within studies abroad. But it also includes human and non-human aspects.
The quality of relationships with people in the class and the resulting atmosphere can either boost or hamper language learning, performance and identity construction. When Kevin felt comfortable among his classmates, who were his 'friends', he was perceived as an effective member (Soltani, 2018, p. 25) and felt confident. Yet, in his mainstream programme he was not able to bond with the other students who he described as 'them' and had language difficulties which led to negative effects on his performance. Furthermore, native speakers are not a warrant for successful language learning if they do not nurture the newcomers properly. They may even be hindering the L2 learners through the doctoral gaze, the omnipresent disciplinary control that leads Sasha to her 'obsession' with writing English texts without any errors (Anderson, 2017, p. 9).
Soltani (2018)  also, course material belongs to this space. Kevin admits that 'facilities make people more willing to study' (Soltani, 2018, p. 26 (Soltani, 2018, p. 24 International students also feel as if they have to perform a particular role and show constantly good performance. They have internalised the pressure and expectations of the conceived space. The university expects its students to adopt the Western way (Soltani, 2018, p. 24 Soltani's third concept of space is lived space, which centres around students' lived experiences in which they negotiate their identities and aspirations while being surrounded by 'complex and often unequal social relationships' (Soltani, 2018, p. 24). To sum up, 'asymmetrical distribution of knowledge and power influence the interactions in particular ways' (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986, p. 166). Anderson's (2017) study portrays this, as international students feel inferior to their domestic colleagues due to their lack of language proficiency, and thus power -language is (still and will always be) power. Anderson's doctoral gaze can be analysed within Soltani's concept of lived space.
The context of pursuing a degree at a foreign university might not be fitting for improving one's grammar skills (Soltani, 2018, p. 25) since the interactions in this setting focus on meaning instead of form. Yet, this is a bit contradictory as having a proper grammatical knowledge often helps in becoming a legitimate member of the community, especially in academia.

SYNTHESIS: NEW FRAMEWORK?
These two studies offer rich and holistic views of international graduate and PhD students at learning. Nevertheless, it has also been shown that sociolinguistic approaches cannot really account for internal processes of learning and should therefore engage with cognitive-oriented scholars and theories. Furthermore, it has been illustrated that reconceptualising old concepts can make them more fitting for present and future developments.
Yet, caution is advised. The two studies are not the first to illustrate that researchers tend to create new models and theories -by building on and combining previous concepts -in order to advance the field as well as to advance their own status within the research field. However, theories are not written for researchers but to meet the demands of language learners and to improve their language learning. Nevertheless, this theory proliferation and coinage of new models illustrates that the field of SLA in general and of sociolinguistic theories in particular will always be (and need to be) reconceptualised. Soltani (2018) and Anderson (2017) have shown with their studies, which have clearly engaged in the social turn and reacted to Firth and Wagner's (1997) requests, that sociolinguistic theories are able to describe as well as explain second language learning and that sociolinguistic theories could thus, according to the definition of Myles et al. (2013), be entitled to be theories. They illustrate that social contexts may offer a wide range of learning opportunities that can or cannot be seized by social agents. This reciprocity of social context and social beings, summarised as 'socio-', is negotiated through the target language (i.e. 'linguistic') and can lead to linguistic as well as non-linguistic outcomes. These negotiations ultimately and consistently influence the context, the interlocutors and the outcome as well as vice versa -they are invariably interrelated and interdependent.
To conclude, I will not propose a new model but come back to the beginning. If sociolinguistic approaches seek a holistic account of the complexities of second language learning, then they should adapt to new developments and collaborate with cognitive theories -otherwise, they might not be able to satisfy 'the longstanding human curiosity'.