Conceptualizing ‘Communication’ in Second Language Acquisition

Abstract

Overviewing how the field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) conceptualizes ‘communication’ is a complex task. First, researchers differ in their interpretations of the nature of the object of inquiry and the goals of their research, based on different philosophical assumptions about the nature of language and the processes involved in language learning. Second, the concept ‘communication’ is generally taken as widely understood and is seldom defined. This paper uses the definitions of SLA in three paradigms within the field to explore how each paradigm conceptualizes ‘communication’ and its role in the development of the linguistic system of the second language.

Keywords:

• Communication
• Interaction
• Conversation
• Second Language Acquisition

Notes

¹The lively discussions that followed the publication of Firth and Wagner's (1997) position paper on the boundaries of SLA provide an excellent repertoire of views that characterize the field.

²‘Comprehensible input’ is defined as input that is a little beyond the learner's present ‘level’. Krashen defined the present ‘level’ as i and the ideal level of input as i+1.

³The terms ‘interaction’ and ‘communication’ seem to be used as synonyms in this literature.

⁴A thorough discussion of this approach can be found in Long (1980), Varonis and Gass (1985), Pica (1998) and Gass and Mackey (2006).

⁵Note that Long (1980) argued for the need for interaction in language learning. He did not specify that interaction needs to be conducted with native speakers. Varonis and Gass (1985) argued that non-native speaker–non-native speaker interactions might have greater benefit for learners than native speaker–non-native speaker interactions.

⁶Similarly, Poulisse argued, ‘You first need to describe the basic processes of learning and using language, and then discuss the contextual factors that may influence these processes’ (1997: 324).

⁷Firth and Wagner (1998) conclude that these assumptions render the notion of competence—as opposed to performance—obsolete, as one cannot be separated unproblematically from the other.

⁸In his response to Firth and Wagner (1997), Long (1997) expresses scepticism as to whether greater insights into second language use will necessarily have much to say about second language acquisition. Similarly, Gass (1998) makes the point that some aspects of our knowledge of language, such as grammaticality, cannot arise from social interaction.

⁹This focus would be (or is) more consistent with the psycholinguistic paradigm which, ironically, is not concerned with classroom instruction.

¹⁰Some programmes tried to remedy these limitations and create opportunities outside the classroom for further interaction (Eisenchlas & Hortiguera 1999; Montgomery & Eisenstein 1985). The organization of these programmes is too complex and therefore tends to be restricted to courses with small student intakes.

¹¹See Devos (2003) and Clyne (2005) for interesting discussions.