Language and language learning

The interpretations of language and language learning also differ in the three schools of thoughts on SLA: the cognitive, the social, and the ecological. Table 2.2 summarises the main points of interpretation from different perspectives.

Table 2.2: Interpreting language learning from different perspectives Cognitive

orientation

Social orientation Ecological orientation Interpreting language learning Language learning process Individual mental process based on human memory Collaborative social process through the use of the language

Adds to the social orientation and stresses that language use and learning are emergent in real-life contexts Language learning outcomes Focusing on the mastery of linguistic structures Focusing on becoming a competent member of the community through the use of the language

Focusing on the awareness of language variability and talking analytically about language

As Ellis (2010) points out, SLA with a cognitive orientation considers language as either a set of formalist rules or a network of form-function mapping. Language learning occurs inside the mind of the learner as an outcome of input that activates universal processes of cognition. In the field of study abroad in China, studies with a cognitive orientation can be found

investigating program participants’ language gains, using pre- and post-program tests or standardised exams (e.g., SAT Chinese scores, HSK test, Oral Proficiency Interview) to

23

assess students’ language skills (Liu, 2010; Taguchi, Xiao, & Li, 2016b; Kim et al., 2015; Du, 2013; Hayden, 1998). These studies generally report positive findings and provide evidence that students make gains through the ICS in different domains of language skills (e.g., speaking, reading, fluency, vocabulary, etc.). However, they are limited by their narrowed scope on language. Whether gaining higher scores in standardised language tests can reflect better competence in using the language in real-life remains a question.

SLA with a social orientation acknowledges that language use in real-world situations is fundamental, not ancillary, to learning (Jane Zuengler & Miller, 2006). With social orientation, the focus of language learning is not on the cognitive process based on memory, but on the use of the target language to become a competent member of the socioculturally constructed communities (e.g., Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986). Following a social orientation, some studies in the field of study abroad in China examine the amount of students’ target language use in the study abroad context. For example, Taguchi, Xiao, and Li (2016a) developed a Language Contact Questionnaire (LCQ) to measure participants’ amount of Chinese use in different social activities and found that students had more opportunities to use the target language in interpersonal interaction (compared to “non-interactional” contact such as reading books) during the sojourn. Other studies attempt to explore whether students use the language appropriately. Quantitative-based studies adopted the Discourse Completion Task (DCT) to capture pragmatic aspects of students’ language production (e.g., speech acts, appropriateness, etc.), and results are generally positive (S. Li, 2014; Taguchi, Li, & Xiao, 2013). Qualitative-based studies have uncovered highly individualised trajectories in the development of pragmatic aspects in real-life contexts during study abroad (Diao, 2016; Jin, 2015). Although socially oriented research is insightful in understanding language as social practices, the language learning goal in this line of research is still limited to what is

approximate or appropriate for oneself in another language, which is deemed insufficient from the ecological perspective.

The ecological perspective challenges such concepts as “target language”, “native speaker” and “standard norm” which are some of the common ideas in traditional cognitive and social SLA. The ecological perspective offers a lens through which the systems of language are viewed holistically (Halliday, 1993; Wells, 1994) and explores “how languages reciprocally reflect and constitute the life-worlds of people in the increasingly plurilingual and pluricultural contexts of our contemporary world” (Scarino, 2010, p.327). In this view, language is not just a string of syntactic units but also a resource to accomplish and perform things in real-life social settings (Jenks, 2017). Language learning is an emergent, complex,

24

non-linear and dynamic process in which the learner uses and creates the language, “both purposefully and incidentally, on the basis of their perceptions of, interactions with and action upon affordances found in their learning and language environment” (Hoven & Palalas, 2011, p.702). Language learning from this perspective, is shaped by and emergent from real-life events (e.g., health and weather, see Casanave, 2012), involving the creation of incentives and learning resources to use the language. In this sense, the ecological perspective pays more attention to the authenticity of language use and learning and the engagement with the experience of language variability in order to experience the world (Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013).

The expected language learning outcomes through the use of language in life-worlds involve two critical aspects (see Table 2.2 above). The first aspect is an awareness of language variability. Shohamy (2007) contends that variability within language makes it creative and a living expression of self, which should not be reduced through education.The second aspect involves learning to “talk about talk” (Kramsch, 1993a: p. 264, cited in Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013). Language learning should promote ongoing investigation of learners by talking analytically about language. Then learners are involved in active learning that facilitates exploration and discovery rather than being passive recipients of knowledge transmitted to them (Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013). These two critical aspects will also be examined in this study.

Informed by these discussions, language learning in this research will be examined at three levels: first, the amount of language use during the program; second, using language authentically; and third, students’ mental process of critical thinking on language variability and talking analytically about language.