This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Thomas, M. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Theories of second language acquisition: three sides, three angles, three points

Boston College, thomasm{at}bc.edu

Three recent books take up different positions in the on-going debate about how, and out of what, to construct a theory of second language (L2) acquisition. Johnson (2004) advocates a ‘dialogically based approach’, inspired by Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and Bakhtin’s ‘dialogized heteroglossia’, with which she would replace what she views as a prevailing ‘cognitive bias’ in the field. Block (2003) similarly supports a ‘more interdisciplinary and socially informed orientation’ to second language acquisition. But Block wants to reform rather than replace certain assumptions of what he represents as the best existing theory of second language acquisition, namely, Susan Gass’ Input-Interaction-Output model (IIO model). Jordan (2004), on the other hand, argues forcefully that theorizing about second language acquisition must be based on a rationalist epistemology. He provides a set of ‘Guidelines’ for theory construction, including six assumptions foundational to rationalist inquiry in general, and a five-point evaluation metric against which rival theories can be judged. He also passes on a list of six ‘practices to be avoided’. Jordan encourages the cultivation of many, varied, theories so long as they observe the rationalist Guidelines. He goes on to criticize a broad sample of L2 research, commenting on whether specific proposals do or do not adhere to the Guidelines. This article reviews all three scholars’ positions in this important debate, which has the potential to sharpen second language theorists’ sense of what they are doing and how they should do it.

Second Language Research, Vol. 21, No. 4, 393-414 (2005)
DOI: 10.1191/0267658305sr258ra


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?