Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Wiley and National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
Towarda SociocognitiveApproach to
Second Language Acquisition
DWIGHT ATKINSON
Graduate School ofEducation
TempleUniversity
Japan
2-8-12 Minami Azabu
Minato-ku
Tokyo106-0047
Japan
Email: dwightatki@aol.com
526
TheModernLanguageJournal86 (2002)
ineveryday
interaction
wayinwhichlanguagefigures
andcognition.
In thisview,theinvolvement
ofgrammarin suchotherorganizations
as thoseofculture,
actionandinteraction
hasas a consequence
thatmattersofgreatmoment
are missedifgrammar's
order
is exploredas entirely
contained
within
a single,selfenclosedorganization.
Grammar's
andeffiintegrity
cacyareboundup withitsplaceinlargerschemesof
ofhumanconduct,and withsocialinorganization
teraction
in particular.3
(p. 3)
DwightAtkinson
527
528
TheModernLanguageJournal86 (2002)
ritualized.
Rituals"freeze"
forthelearner's
meaning
observation.
(p. 336)
Thepublic
The meanings
ofthepartsofnew
principle:
whether
words,visualsymbols,
actions,or
systems,
be rendered
objectsmustinitially
publicandovert,
so
thatthelearnercan see theconnection
between
the
Andthisis done,in
signsand theirinterpretations.
first
and otherformsof learnlanguageacquisition
ing,bythewaysin whichwords,actions,and social
interaction
areintegrally
intertwined.
(p. 337)
Thecontext-variability
In learning
thepartsof
principle:
a newsystem,
thelearnerwillinitially
tiemeanings
to
contexts
or experiences.
specific
wider
Appreciating
ofhavingmultiple
meaningis a matter
experiences,
not (just)learning"generalrules,"and mastery
reatvarying
so as to
quirespractice
aspectsofmeaning
fitthemto thecontextof use. Peoplewho
actively
knowonly"general
andcannotvarythese
meanings"
in contextneitherknowthe system,
nor are they
itin a usefulway.(p. 346)
acquiring
A substantialliteratureon child language socialization now exists that details the manifold,
diversewaysin whichlanguage is shaped forand
byacquirersinto the dynamic,creativesocial signifyingsystemthat it is. The basic assumption
underlyingsocializationin general is that "children come to share the world view [and social
practices] of their communitythroughthe arrangementsand interactionsin which theyare
involved,whetheror not such arrangementsand
interactionsare intended to instructthem" (Rogoff,1990, p. 98). Consequently,earlylanguage
socializationstudiesfocus on language learned
"throughintensive. . . contactunder conditions
allowingmaximumfeedback such as we find in
home and peer settings"(Gumperz, 1982, p.
139). Giventhehighlyactivestimulus-seeking
natureofchildren,thismakesthe "conservative
[ly]"
estimated12,000-15,000hours of intensivecontactbetweenaveragecaregiversand childrenover
theirfirstyearstogether(Larsen-Freeman,1991,
p. 336; forsimilarestimatessee N. C. Ellis, 1998;
McLaughlin,1987) a period in whicha seemingly
can
impossible amount of learning-in-context
takeplace.
Theinsertion
Efficacious
principle:
learningof a new
Althoughlanguage is clearlyinternalizedin a
is a processinvolving
complexsystem
sociallysup- sense during L1 acquisition,however,it never
insertion
intoan activity
that
portedand scaffolded
ceases to be part of the learner-as-socialmemone doesnotyetunderstand.
(p. 336)
ber's set of interactively
constructedsocial tools,
Gee (1995) also described additional princi- practices,and experiences,and, in thiswayand
ples by which L1 acquisitiontakes place vis-a-vis others,continuesto be held jointlywiththe social world. In fact,I will argue below that too
itsrichsocial environment.Among themare:
much has been made of the internal/external
Theroutine
intoan activity opposition-the divisionbetween the cognizing
principle:
Earlyinsertion
onedoesnotyetunderstand
thattheactivity individualand the social (or socially-mediated)
requires
be to a certainextentrepeatedand routinized
or
world.
DwightAtkinson
529
530
TheModernLanguageJournal86 (2002)
DwightAtkinson
531
approachingeach other),neithercognitionitself
nor the resultingspeech eventcould have taken
place. Puta bitmoremetaphorically,
perhaps,the
acts of cognitiondescribed in this example are
substantially continuous with the social
world-they do not startin the head, although
the head is certainlyinvolved,nor do theyend in
the head, because the outputis social action.Nor
do the social (signifying)
practicesinvolvedsimplytakeon theirmeaningonce theyarrivein the
head; instead,theycome withmeaning already,
in a sense,builtin-just as language carrieswith
it meaning that is only "borrowed" (Bakhtin,
1990) in specificinstancesof language use. The
pointhere, then,is thatcognitionis not a private
thatoccurs exclusivelyin the confinesof
activity
an independent, isolated cerebral space, but
ratherthatit is at least a semipublicactivity,
produced as part of a substantiallyopen system.
Wheneverwe participatein social activity,
we participatein conventionalwaysof actingand being
that are already deeply saturated with significance.
Gee (1992, p. 12) gave the followingexample
of how cognition(or at least knowledge)is both
"in the head" and "in the world":
Considerthewaypeoplemovearounda city.Some
havequiteimpressive
peopleundoubtedly
"maps"of
the cityin theirheads,othershave less complete
ones, and some people have quite impoverished
ones.However,
peopledo notneedtohaveanyvery
fullrepresentations
intheirminds... sincethestructureofthecity,
outintheworldas itis,determines
a
. . . People's"knowlgood deal of theirmovement.
ingoodpart,outinthecity
edge"ofthecityisstored,
itself.
Their"city
schema"... is notjustmadeup of
in theirheads,itisalsocomposedofthestructhings
turesin thecityitself,
as wellas physical
maps(and
likepublictransportation
things
schedules)thatpeople can read.(p. 12)
Thus, meaning resides (partway) in social
products(e.g., cities,maps,countryroads, cars),
social practices (e.g., greetingsomebody,reading,bakinga cake, playingthe role of teacheror
studentin a classroom), and social tools (e.g.,
language, literacy,computerprograms,methods
of navigation),even as it resides (partway)in the
head.
A second, slightly
different
aspect of the countryroad greetingexample thatI wantto highlight
is the profoundlyintegrative
natureof the socioand its
cognitiveevent.That is, language activity
cognitivecorrelatesalwaysoccur as integralparts
of larger sociocognitivewholes. Thus, without
each of the followingoccurringand being cognized in relationto one another-socially signify-
TheModernLanguageJournal86 (2002)
532
LANGUAGEACQUISITIONAS A
SOCIOCOGNITIVEPHENOMENON
forthesociocognitive
Equallygoodarguments
natureoflanguagecomefromthecircumstances
ofitsacquisition.
A well-established
in L1
finding
research
is thatexternal
context
acquisition
plays
a crucialroleearlyon. In earlyacquisition
ofthe
lexicon,forinstance,it is vitalthatchildrenbe
abletolinkparticular
andphrases
sounds,words,
to the appearanceof particular
obrepetitively
or
to
the
occurrence
of
actions
jects
particular
1995;see also Gee,1995,described
(Barrett,
preformis simply
viously).To say thatlinguistic
being "input"into an autonomouslanguage
atthispointwouldbe inaccurate;
learningsystem
at minimum,
boththeformand theobject/actionare beingcognitively
in some
represented
kindof associative
The widelyacrelationship.
cepted notionof eventrepresentation
(e.g., Barrett,
havecognitively
well-developed,
organizedassociationsofactivity
sequences,actors,and objects
(alongwithopen slotsbywhichsomeactorsand
forbyothers)onto
objectsmaybe substituted
which different
words are initiallymapped, and
withinwhichtheythereafter
become substantially
integrated.
Nor is itjust anyexternalcontextthatearly
sociallanguagedevelopment
dependson.Rather,
interactional
routines(e.g., Barrett, 1995; Gee,
DwightAtkinson
533
nitionvia connectionismmore closelyto the social and culturalworld (e.g., Gee, 1992; Shore,
1996; Strauss& Quinn, 1997) mighttake exception to the implicationsof the Vygotskianclaim
thatlanguage is, to some degree, graduallyloosened during developmentfromits mooringsin
social life.Rather,fromthisnewerperspective,it
mightbe more accurate to say thatsocial life is
now becoming articulatedat a cognitivelevel in
the developmentof culturalmodels(Gee, 1992;
Holland & Quinn, 1987; Shore, 1996)-models
thatowe both theiroriginsand theircontinued
activationand use directlyto their social existence-and thatin thisimportantsense thecognitive and the social are growing progressively
closer together.
If this version of connectionismis even approximatelycorrect,then the notion of "decontextualizedlanguage"-so importantin descriptionsof laterlanguage and literacylearningand
earlysuccessand failurein schooling-is perhaps
neitherusefulnor accurate.That is, ifcontextis
takento be onlythe immediatesocial and physical settingof language behaviorin the here and
now-the contextof situationfirstdescribed by
Malinowski(1923) and laterelaboratedbyHalliday (in Halliday & Hasan, 1989, chap. 1)-such
language behavior mightwell be seen as thoroughlydecontextualized.But if contextis more
widelyconstruedas context
ofculture(Halliday &
Hasan, 1989; Malinowski,1923; Ochs, 1990)-involvingthe increasingcognitiveinterarticulation
of cultural models with social practices,social
products,and social tools (including,crucially,
how to deploythemeffectively)
-then to thinkof
more deconlanguage as becomingprogressively
textualizedand autonomous in the course of its
acquisitionmaybe fundamentally
misguided.
Event representationsin earlyLi acquisition,
temalthoughsometimesclaimed to be relatively
porary and evanescent, suggestivelyresemble
early and relativelyunarticulated schemas or
mental models (or, in connectionistterms,networksof neural associationsout of which such
schemas/models are formed basically online).
Whetheror not theyprovidea skeletalbase for
the laterarticulationof socioculturalknowledge
in the formof culturalmodels,schemas,frames,
or scripts(Cole, 1985), theirearlyexistencedoes
of sociocognitiveprosuggesta sortof continuity
cesses-the progressive"thickening"of "knowledge in the head" by "knowledge in the
world"-the basic outside-indynamicdescribed
by Shore (1996) and alluded to above. Put yet
anotherway,any organism'sprogressiveadaptation to itsenvironmentis a hallmarkof develop-
TheModernLanguageJournal86 (2002)
534
C. J.Fillmore,1985). Althoughthisformulation
maystillassume somethingof the traditionaldivide betweenthe social and the cognitiveI have
been arguingagainst,it also capturessome of the
and connectivity
I am tryingto
interpenetration
portray.9
SLA AS A SOCIOCOGNITIVE PHENOMENON
Let me summarizethe main argumentof the
article as developed to this point: Neither language acquisition nor language use-nor even
cognized linguisticknowledge-can be properly
understood without taking into account their
fundamentalintegrationinto a socially-mediated
world. Beyond simplysayingthat the cognitive
and the social interact,I use recent researchin
linguistics,anthropology,language acquisition,
and cognitivescience-work I have necessarily
had to relyon, because so littleof itskindhas yet
been done in thefieldofSLA-to argue thatthey
are mutuallyconstituted.It is commonplace for
and socially-orientedlancognitively-oriented
guage researchersto assume (at leastforworking
purposes) the separabilityof theirdomains.I argue instead that these two domains cannot usefullybe separated:The coinage "sociocognitive"
(e.g., Ochs, 1988b) is adopted to representthis
distinctperspective.
Withitsbeginningsin thecognitivepsychology
revolutionof the 1960s (e.g., Brown,1973; Corder, 1967), the fieldof SLA has adopted, by and
viewofsecond language
large,a highlycognitivist
Breen,
1985;
Crookes,1997; Firth
learning (e.g.,
& Wagner,1997). By cognitivist,
I mean a perspective that places SLA mainly within individual
heads and thatsees individualsthereforeas radically autonomous language acquirers (Pennycook, 1997). Even where social variablesappear
to enterin, fromthisperspective,theydo so only
as indirectinfluenceson theacquisitionalprocess
(R. Ellis, 1994).10
Althoughthisshared perspectivehas provided
a (very)roughlycommon ground forinquiryin
SLA, itcomes at thecostof denaturingreduction.
If the developmentof "languaging"depends on
greaterengagementwithand adaptation to the
(socially-mediated)world--or,more accurately,
on the progressiveinterarticulation
of the social
and the cognitive-then a SLA based substantiallyon such masterconceptsas input,the (idealized) learner,and a "lonely"versionof cognition is an impoverishedendeavor.
Others have, of course, made similarpoints
from time to time, and in recent years mainstreamSLA has been increasinglycriticizedfor
DwightAtkinson
535
Input
As dramatizedat the beginningof thispaper,I
see the notion of input in mainstreamSLA as
coming fairlyclose to thatof a switchor trigger,
whetherone adopts a UniversalGrammarperspectiveor not. At least one can saythatinputis
of interestin thisapproach mainlyas a stimulus
activatingan autonomous cognitivelearningapparatus, which is assumed to performcertain
(often unclearly-specified)processing operations. In thisway,the stimulusis convertedinto
some kind of internal grammatical representation,whichfinds,over time,itsproperrelationship with other such representationsin a
rule-governedstructuralist
systemthatis virtually
immune to nonlinguisticinfluence. Even SLA
studiesofinputmodificationand interaction(see
below), which focus nominallyon language-inuse, seem to adopt thisscenario-or something
quite likeit-as theirunderlying"centraldogma"
(Crick,1988).
Much of this characterizationis problematic
froma sociocognitiveperspective.If knowledge
of the world,including linguisticknowledge,is
organized in the form of "actional wholes"
(Hanks, 1996, p. 245, where actionalrefersto the
fundamentalpurpose of language to contribute
to the carryingout of action in the world), it is
hard to imagine how such knowledgewould develop via decontextualizedinternalization.The
developing grammaticalsystemas I have describeditfurthermore
lacksanymotivationother
than perhaps a purelygeneticone, whichis why
itsdescriptionis oftenpervadedbyan odd sortof
anomie, in myopinion-it just is because it is. As
I have triedto make clear,any approach to language and its acquisition which ignores or dismissesthe basic functionality
of language forhuman beingsin societyis lackingin descriptiveand
theoreticaladequacy.
Interaction
Most SLA researcherswho study"interaction"
do so mainlyfor the sake of understandingits
conditioningeffecton input.This is made clear
byGass (1998):
The goalofmywork(and theworkofotherswithin
theinput/interaction
hasneverbeen
framework...)
to understand
languageuse perse ... butratherto
understand
whattypesof interaction
mightbring
aboutwhattypesofchangesinlinguistic
knowledge.
(p. 84)
This is trulya pale reflectionof the studyof
authentichuman (linguistic)interaction,as Liddicoat (1997) noted:
Whatismissing...[in]thestudy
ofinteraction
inL2
contexts
is interaction
betweenpeoplewhohavea
whoare interacting
forthe
preexisting
relationship,
and who
purposeof engagingin thatrelationship,
are engagedin interaction
inwhichtheiroptionsfor
are not constrained
participating
by institutional
roles.12
(p. 314)
In other words,what is missingin mainstream
SLA is any concernwhatsoeverforthe dominant
formsof interactionin the world,and forthose
interactionsqua interactions.
The termtherefore
seems to be a misnomer,given the factthatthe
focus of workthat purportedlystudiesit is still
language-in-the-head.
Again in the wordsof Liddicoat: "Essentially,
what is happening here [in
the contrivedinteractionalsettingsfavored in
mainstreamSLA] is an interaction
toallow
designed
the NNS to producea language sample [italics
added]" (p. 315). Froma sociocognitiveperspectivethisis hardlyinteractionat all.
TheLanguageLearner
To put itbluntly,
the language learnerin mainstreamSLA is somethinglike an automaton,interestingonlyin thesense thatithouses a discrete
language learning system.This view is well attestedin writingon the goals of SLA; to restate
thewordsof Long (1997), cited at thebeginning
of this article: "Most SLA researchersview the
object of inquiry as in large part an internal,
mental process" (p. 319). If SLA is about language-learninghumanbeings,theyare therefore
human only in a derivativesense-analogous,
more or less, to the attenuatedmannerin which
languageis considered"creative"byChomskyans.
As noted previously,
I frequently
findthe reading of SLA researchto be almostan exercise in
surrealism-based, I believe, in the just-mentionedcontradictory
"presentabsence" ofhuman
536
TheModernLanguageJournal86 (2002)
Cognition
In mainstreamSLA cognitionis a "lonely"process takingplace withinan autonomouslanguage
learningorganism.Its forteis the processingof
input/constructionof linguisticknowledge. It
servesas a bank of internallinguisticknowledge,
or competence, which most often has only an
indirect connection to language performance.
Even non-mainstream
areas of SLA thatfocuson
language performance,such as interlanguage
pragmatics,sometimesseem to assume thisview
(e.g., Kasper,1997).
Language
Where language is reduced substantiallyto
grammar,and its use largelyto the provisionof
input, there existsa reductivenessapproaching
thatofChomksy'sinfluentialvision.Froma sociocognitiveperspective,however,language is an
abundantlyrich resource for gettingon in the
world-for performingsocial action.Language is
intricatelybut dynamicallyinterwovenwith humans' othermeans of ecological adaptationand
and removingitfromthatcontextcomes
activity,
at a real cost.
Beyond simplydefininga sociocognitiveapSLA orthoproach to SLA negatively
bycriticizing
doxy,however,I would also like to providea view
ofwhatit is,or,more accurately,
whatit could be.
One thingis clear: Such a perspectivedoes not
yetexistin SLA. For thisreason,itwillbe possible
to go just so farin conjuringup itsimage.
First,a sociocognitiveapproach to SLA would
take the social dimensionsof language and its
in sociocognitive
acquisitionseriously.Interaction
SLA would have its full sociocognitivesignificance and constitutea foundational concept.
Language is learned in interaction,oftenwith
more capable social members.Classroomteachersare partof thisgroupwheresecond languages
are concerned,but onlya part-peers, mentors,
role models,friends,familymembers,and significant others can also fall into this category.Although interactionmightnot include conversationin all cases,itwould certainlyentailthedeep,
holisticinvestmentof learnersin learningactivities,and would see thoselearnersas activeagents,
not passiverecipients.
Second, language and itsacquisitionwould be
fullyintegratedinto otheractivities,
people, and
thingsin a sociocognitiveapproach to SLA. They
would be seen as integralpartsoflargersociocognitivewholes,or,in Gee's (1992) term,Discourses:
"Discourses are composed of people, of ob-
DwightAtkinson
537
538
TheModernLanguageJournal86 (2002)
CONCLUSION
What,then,are some of the implicationsof a
sociocognitiveviewof SLA? Here I willspeculate
because, as I have alreadypointed out, no such
coherentviewyetexists.In theinterim,I willtake
my cues largelyfrompedagogically-oriented
L1i
researchon situatedcognition,social linguistics,
and learning-as-participation
(e.g., Gee, 1990,
1992; Kirshner& Whitson,1997; Lave & Wenger,
1991; Rogoff,1990, 1998;Wenger,1998; cf.Atkinson, 1997). I should also note thatalthoughseveral of the implicationsdescribed below are in
areas thatare alreadyreceivingattentionin sec-
DwightAtkinson
539
1The sociocognitive
approachdevelopedheretakes
its lead from a wide varietyof disciplines and approaches: cognitiveand cultural anthropology(e.g.,
Hanks, 1996; Shore, 1996; Strauss& Quinn, 1997); sociology (e.g., Berger& Luckmann,1966; Goffman,1959;
Sacks et al., 1974); social linguistics(Gee, 1990, 1992);
and language socializationstudies(e.g.,
sociolinguistics
Hymes, 1972; Ochs, 1988a, 1988b, 1990, 1992, 1996;
Schieffelin& Ochs, 1986); neo-Vygotskian
sociocultural
theory(e.g., Lantolf,2000; Lantolf& Appel, 1994; Vygotsky,1981; Wertsch,1985, 1998); studiesof situated
cognition/learningand communitiesof practice(e.g.,
Brown,Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Kirshner& Whitson,
in socialpractice. . . suggests
a very 1997; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Rogoff,1990; Wenger,
Participation
focuson theperson,
butperson-in-the-world,
explicit
1998); cognitive science and connectionism (e.g.,
as memberofa sociocultural
Thisfocus Churchland,1996; A. Clark, 1997; Elman et al., 1996;
community.
in turnpromotesa viewof knowing
Rumelhart& McClellan, 1986; Seidenberg,1996); L1
as activity
by
circumstances.
specific
peoplein specific
acquisition (e.g., Bates et al., 1995; Foster, 1990;
Asan aspectofsocialpractice,
involves
the
Plunkett,1995); SLA (e.g.,Breen,1985;Firth& Wagner,
learning
wholeperson:itimpliesnotonlya relation
tospecific 1997; Peirce, 1995); and studies of conversationand
buta relation
tosocialcommunities-it
activities,
im- interaction(e.g., Goodwin, 1986, 1987, 2000; Lerner,
a fullparticipant,
a member,
pliesbecoming
a kindof
1993, 1996; Ochs et al., 1996).
person... . Activities,
and undertasks,functions,
The termsociocognitive
has been used in a varietyof
540
DwightAtkinson
541
TheModernLanguageJournal86 (2002)
542
tion: From sensationto cognition(Vol. 2, pp.
193-231). New York:Academic Press.
Ellis, N. C. (1998). Emergentism,connectionism,and
language learning. Language Learning, 48,
631-664.
Ellis, R. (1994). Thestudyofsecondlanguageacquisition.
Press.
Oxford:OxfordUniversity
Ellis,R. (1997). SLA and languagepedagogy:An educationalperspective.Studiesin SecondLanguageAcquisition,19, 69-92.
Elman,J. L. (1992). Learningand developmentin neuThe importanceof startingsmall.In
ral networks:
and
C. Umilta & M. Moscovitch(Eds.), Attention
IX: Consciousand nonconscious
informaperformance
tion processing(pp. 861-889). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Elman, J. L., Bates, E. A., Johnson,M. H., KarmiloffSmith,A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett,K. (1996). Reon deA connectionist
innateness:
perspective
thinking
Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.
velopment.
Fairclough,N. (1992). Discourseand socialchange.Cambridge,UK Polity.
Fillmore,C. J. (1975). An alternativeto checklisttheories of meaning. In Proceedings
oftheFirstAnnual
Meetingof the BerkeleyLinguisticsSociety(pp.
of California.
123-131). Berkeley,CA: University
Fillmore,C. J. (1985). Frames and the semanticsof
6, 222-253.
understanding.Quadernidi Semantica,
Fillmore,C.J.,Kay,P.,& O'Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularityand idiomaticityin grammaticalconstructions.Language,64, 501-538.
in second
Fillmore,L. W. (1979). Individualdifferences
Fillmore
In
C.
Indi(Ed.),
J.
language acquisition.
in languageability
and languagebevidualdifferences
havior(pp. 203-228). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Firth,A., & Wagner,J. (1997). On discourse,communication, and (some) fundamentalconcepts in
SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81,
285-300.
Foster,S. H. (1990). The communicative
of
competence
London: Longman.
youngchildren.
Gass,S. (1998). Apples and oranges:Or,whyapples are
not orange and don't need to be: A response to
Firthand Wagner.ModernLanguageJournal,82,
83-90.
and literacies:
in
Gee,J. P. (1990). Sociallinguistics
Ideology
discourses.
London: FalmerPress.
Gee, J. P. (1992). The social mind.London: Bergin &
Garvey.
Gee, J. P. (1995). Firstlanguage acquisitionas a guide
fortheoriesof learningand pedagogy.Linguistics
and Education,6, 331-354.
Gergen, K. (1985). The social constructionistmovementin modernpsychology.
American
Psychologist,
40, 266-275.
in socialtheory:
AcGiddens,A. (1979). Centralproblems
and contradiction
in social analysis.
tion,structure
of CaliforniaPress.
Berkeley,CA: University
Gilbert,G. N., & Mulkay,M. (1984). OpeningPandora's
Camdiscourse.
box:A sociological
analysisofscientific
Press.
bridge:CambridgeUniversity
Goffman,E. (1959). Thepresentation
life.
ofselfin everyday
New York:Anchor/Doubleday.
InteracGoodwin,C. (1981). Conversational
organization:
tion between
speakersand hearers.New York:Academic Press.
Goodwin, C. (1986). Audience diversity,
participation
and interpretation.
Text,6, 283-316.
Goodwin,C. (1987). Unilateraldeparture.In G. Button
& J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talkand socialorganization
(pp. 206-216). Clevedon, UK- MultilingualMatters.
Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodimentwithin
situatedhuman interaction.
JournalofPragmatics,
32, 1489-1522.
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1992). Assessments
and the constructionof context.In A. Duranti&
context:
C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking
Languageas
an interactive
phenomenon
(pp. 147-189). CamPress.
bridge:CambridgeUniversity
Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure
ofman.New York:
Norton.
Gregg,K. (1988). Second language acquisitiontheory:
The case for a generativeperspective.In S. M.
on
Gass & J. Schachter(Eds.), Linguistic
perspectives
secondlanguageacquisition
(pp. 15-40). New York:
Press.
CambridgeUniversity
Gruendel,J. (1977). Referentialextensionin earlylanguage development.ChildLanguage,48, 567-576.
Gumperz,J. J. (1982). Discoursestrategies.
Cambridge:
Press.
CambridgeUniversity
and intervening.
CamHacking, I. (1981). Representing
Press.
bridge:CambridgeUniversity
Hall,J. K. (1997). A considerationofSLA as a theoryof
practice:A responseto Firthand Wagner.Modern
LanguageJournal,81, 301-306.
The
Halliday,M. A. K. (1978). Languageas socialsemiotic:
social interpretation
and
Lonof language
meaning.
don: EdwardArnold.
Halliday,M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language,context,
and text:
oflanguagein a social-semioticperspecAspects
tive.Oxford:OxfordUniversity
Press.
Hanks, W. F. (1996). Language formand communicativepractices.In J.J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson
(Eds.), Rethinking
linguistic
relativity
(pp. 232-270).
Press.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Hawkins,M. (1998). Forum response to DwightAtkinson's "A criticalapproach to criticalthinkingin
TESOL." TESOL Quarterly,
32, 127-132.
Holland, D., & Quinn, N. (1987). Culturalmodelsin
languageand thought.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniPress.
versity
in socialconHolliday,A. (1994). Appropriate
methodology
text.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Holliday,A. (1996). Developinga sociologicalimagination: Expanding ethnographyin international
English language education. AppliedLinguistics,
17, 234-255.
Hopper, P. (1988). Emergentgrammarand the a priori
grammaticalpostulate.In D. Tannen (Ed.), Lin-
DwightAtkinson
543
observation
and underguisticsin context:
Connecting
Advancesin discourse
(Vol. 29, pp.
standing.
processes
117-134). Norwood,NJ:Ablex.
in thewild.Cambridge,
Hutchins,E. (1995). Cognition
MA: MIT Press.
Hymes,D. (1972). On communicativecompetence.In
SeJ.B. Pride & J.Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics:
lectedreadings(pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth,
UK: Penguin.
Kasper,G. (1997). "A"standsforacquisition:A response
to Firthand Wagner.ModernLanguageJournal,
81,
307-312.
Kemper,S. (1987). Life-spanchanges in syntacticcom42, 323-328.
plexity.
JournalofGerontology,
Kendon, A. (1992). The negotiationof contextin faceto-faceinteraction.In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin
context:
(Eds.), Rethinking
Languageas an interactive
phenomenon(pp. 323-334). Cambridge: CamPress.
bridgeUniversity
Kirshner,D., & Whitson,J. A. (Eds.). (1997). Situated
and semiotic
Social,neurological,
cognition
theory:
perMahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
spectives.
and culture
in languageteachKramsch,C. (1993). Context
Press.
ing.Oxford:OxfordUniversity
Langacker,R. W. (1987). Foundationsof cognitive
gramVol. 1. Stanford,CA: Stanford University
mar,
Press.
Lantolf,J. P. (1996). SLA theorybuilding: "Lettingall
the flowers bloom!" Language Learning, 46,
713-749.
Lantolf,J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural
and second
theory
language learning.Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
to
Lantolf,J.P.,& Appel,G. (1994). Vygotskian
approaches
secondlanguageresearch.
Norwood,NJ:Ablex.
Lantolf,J.P. (withPavlenko,A.). (1995). Sociocultural
theoryand second language acquisition.Annual
ReviewofAppliedLinguistics,
15, 108-124.
Larsen-Freeman,D. (1991). Second language acquisition research: Staking out the territory.
TESOL
25, 315-350.
Quarterly,
Larsen-Freeman,D. (1997). Chaos/complexityscience
and second language acquisition.AppliedLinguistics,18, 141-165.
Latour, B., & Woolgar,S. (1986). Laboratory
life:The
construction
ofscientific
facts(2nd ed.). Princeton,
Press.
NJ:PrincetonUniversity
Lave,J.,& Wenger,E. (1991). Situatedlearning:
Legitimate
peripheralparticipation.Cambridge: Cambridge
Press.
University
Lazaraton, A., & Davis, K. (Eds.). (1995). Qualitative
research in ESOL [Special issue]. TESOL Quar29 (4).
terly,
Leonard, L. B. (1995). Phonological impairment.In P.
Fletcher& B. MacWhinney(Eds.), Thehandbook
of
childlanguage(pp. 573-602). Oxford,UK: Blackwell.
Lerner,G. (1993). Collectivitiesin action: Establishing
the relevanceof conjoined participationin conversation.Text,13, 213-245.
Lerner,G. (1996). On the "semi-permeable"
character
ofgrammaticalunitsin conversation:Conditional
entryintothe turnspace ofanotherspeaker.In E.
Ochs, E. A. Schegloff,& S. A. Thompson (Eds.),
Interactionand grammar(pp. 238-276). Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Liddicoat,A. (1997). Interaction,social structure,and
second language use: A response to Firth and
Wagner.ModernLanguageJournal,81, 313-317.
Locke, J. L. (1993). The child'spath to spokenlanguage.
Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity
Press.
Locke, J. L. (1995). Development of the capacityfor
spokenlanguage.In P. Fletcher& B. MacWhinney
(Eds.), The handbookof child language (pp.
278-302). Oxford,UK: Blackwell.
Long, M. L. (1997). Constructvalidityin SLA research:
A responseto Firthand Wagner.ModernLanguage
Journal,81, 318-323.
Malinowski,B. (1923). The problem of meaning in
primitivelanguages. In C. A. Ogden & I. A.
Richards(Eds.), Themeaningofmeaning:
A studyof
theinfluence
and ofthescioflanguageuponthought
enceof symbolism
(pp. 296-336). New York: Harcourt,Brace & World.
in conMandelbaum,J.(1987). Recipient-driven
storytelling
versation.
Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,
UniofTexas,Austin.
versity
Marchman,V., & Bates,E. (1994). Continuityin lexical
and morphologicaldevelopment:A test of the
criticalmass hypothesis.
JournalofChildLanguage,
21, 339-366.
McDermott,R. (1988). Inarticulateness.In D. Tannen
in context:
(Ed.), Linguistics
observation
Connecting
and understanding.
Advancesin discourse
processes
(Vol. 29, pp. 37-68). Norwood,NJ:Ablex.
McLaughlin,B. (1987). Theories
ofsecond-language
learning.London: Arnold.
McNeill, D. (Ed.). (2000). Languageand gesture.
CamPress.
bridge:CambridgeUniversity
Mitchell,R., & Myles,F. (1998). Secondlanguagelearning
theories.
London: Arnold.
Nelson,K. (1973). Structureand strategy
in learningto
talk [Monograph]. Monographs
oftheSociety
forResearchin ChildDevelopment,
38.
Nelson, K. (Ed.). (1986). Eventknowledge:
Structure
and
in development.
function
Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
Newson, J. (1979). The growth of shared understandingsbetweeninfantand caregiver.In M. Bulspeech:The beginning
Iowa (Ed.), Before
of interpersonal communication
(pp. 207-222). Cambridge:
Press.
CambridgeUniversity
Ninio, A., & Bruner,J. (1978). The achievementsand
antecedentsoflabelling.JournalofChildLanguage,
5,1-15.
TheModernLanguageJournal86 (2002)
544
Herdt, R. Shweder,& J. Stigler (Eds.), Cultural
humandevelopment
Essayson comparative
psychology:
(pp. 287-308). Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing gender.In A. Duranti & C.
Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking
context:
Languageas an
interactive
phenomenon
(pp. 335-358). Cambridge:
Press.
CambridgeUniversity
Ochs, E. (1996). Linguisticresourcesforsocializinghumanity.In J.J. Gumperz& S. C. Levinson (Eds.),
Rethinking
linguistic
(pp. 407-437). Camrelativity
Press.
bridge:CambridgeUniversity
Ochs, E., Schegloff,E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.).
and grammarCambridge:Cam(1996). Interaction
Press.
bridgeUniversity
B. B., & Platt,M. L. (1979). PropoOchs, E., Schieffelin,
sitionsacrossutterancesand speakers.In E. Ochs
& B. B. Schieffelin(Eds.), Developmental
pragmatics
(pp. 251-268). New York:Academic Press.
Peirce, B. N. (1995). Social identity,investment,and
29, 9-31.
language learning.TESOL Quarterly,
Pennycook,A. (1994). Thecultural
politics
ofEnglishas an
international
language.London: Longman.
Pennycook,A. (1997). Culturalalternativesand autonand
omy.In P. Benson & P. Voller(Eds.), Autonomy
in languagelearning(pp. 35-53). Lonindependence
don: Longman.
Pennycook,A. (1998). Englishand thediscourses
ofcolonialism.London: Routledge.
culture:
Communication
Philips,S. U. (1983). Theinvisible
in classroom
and community
on theWarmSpringsIndian Reservation.
New York:Longman.
Oxford:OxPhillipson,R. (1992). Linguistic
imperialism.
fordUniversity
Press.
Plunkett,K. (1995). Connectionistapproaches to language acquisition.In P. Fletcher& B. MacWhinney (Eds.), The handbookof childlanguage(pp.
36--72).Oxford,UK: Blackwell.
Plunkett,K, & Marchman,V. (1993). From rote learning to systembuilding:Acquiringverb morphologyin childrenand connectionistnets. Cognition,
48, 21-69.
Poole, D. (1992). Language socializationin the second
language classroom. Language Learning, 42,
593-616.
Porter,T. M. (1995). Trustin numbers:The pursuitof
in scienceand publiclife.Princeton,NJ:
objectivity
PrincetonUniversity
Press.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik,
J.
(1985). A comprehensive
grammar
oftheEnglishlanguage.London: Longman.
Ramanathan,V., & Atkinson,D. (1999). Ethnographic
approachesand methodsin L2 writingresearch:A
criticalguide and review.AppliedLinguistics,
20,
44-70.
in thinking:
Rogoff,B. (1990). Apprenticeship
Cognitive
in socialcontext.
NewYork:OxfordUnidevelopment
Press.
versity
Rogoff,B. (1998). Cognitionas a collaborativeprocess.
In D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler(Eds.), Handbookofchild
DwightAtkinson
545
culturalmeaning.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
and practice.CamStreet,B. (1984). Literacyin theory
Press.
bridge:CambridgeUniversity
toliterStreet,B. (Ed.). (1993). Cross-cultural
approaches
Press.
acy.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Stubbs,M. (1996). Textand corpusanalysis.Oxford,UK:
Blackwell.
Tannen, D. (1986). That'snotwhatI meant:Howconversationalstylemakesorbreaks
withothyourrelationships
ers.New York:Ballantine.
and conversational
interTannen,D. (Ed.). (1993). Gender
action.New York:OxfordUniversity
Press.
Tannen, D., & Saville-Troike,
M. (Eds.). (1985). Perspectiveson silence.
Norwood,NJ:Ablex.
and lifetimes:
Theworldof
Traweek,S. (1988). Beamtimes
high energyphysicists.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Press.
University
L. S. (1978). Mind in society:
Thedevelopment
Vygotsky,
of
higher
psychological
processes.
Cambridge,MA: Harvard University
Press.
L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental
Vygostky,
fuctions.In J. V. Wertsch(Ed. & Trans.), Thecon-
in Sovietpsychology
ceptof activity
(pp. 144-188).
Armonk,NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Wenger,E. (1998). Communities
of practice:Learning,
and identity.
meaning,
Cambridge:CambridgeUniPress.
versity
Wertsch,
communication
J. V. (Ed.). (1985). Culture,
and
cognition:
Vygotskian
perspectives.
Cambridge:CamPress.
bridgeUniversity
Wertsch,J. V. (1998). Mind as action.Oxford: Oxford
Press.
University
Wertsch,J. V., & Stone, C. A. (1985). The concept of
internalizationin Vygotsky's
account of the genesisofhighermentalfunctions.InJ.Wertsch(Ed.),
communication
Culture,
and cognition:
Vygotskian
perspectives(pp. 162-179). Cambridge: Cambridge
Press.
University
P., & Ferko,K R. (1994). An ecologiZukow-Goldring,
cal approach to the emergence of the lexicon:
C. P. PanSocializingattention.In V.John-Steiner,
& L. W. Smith(Eds.), Sociocultural
ofsky,
approaches
to languageand literacy:
An interactionist
perspective
(pp. 170-190). Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.