S OCIALIZATION INTO LEARNERHOOD AND THE EVOLUTION OF INTERLANGUAGE

The above model of socialization into learnerhood, whereby input affects an evolving internal representation, out of which is generated, output which is then subject to feedback, is parallel to how language acquisition is conceptualized in many SLA theories. Most second language acquisition theories (VanPatten & Williams 2007) include at least the following three components in their acquisition model, as depicted in Figure 3.2: L2 input (which can vary in modality, comprehensibility, frequency, complexity), mental representations of the L2 grammar (called an interlanguage), and L2 output (which can vary in targetlikeness of phonology, grammaticality, pragmatic appropriateness).

FIGURE 3.2: Input, mental representation (interlanguage) and output in SLA theory

In SLA theory then, the input consists of linguistic structures, incorporated by learners into an evolving interlanguage grammar. That interlanguage grammar is used to generate output, output which is subject to feedback, feedback which revises the interlanguage grammar (Gass & Mackey 2007). Although this process is structurally similar to my model of learnerhood, in that input, internal representation and output all play a role, there are key differences. In socialization into learnerhood, as opposed to the evolution of interlanguage, the relevant data are not language forms per se, but metalanguage- language about using the L2 and being an L2 learner.

L2 input _{representation of L2} Learner’s mental L2 output

REINFORCES REPRESENTATION

72

In most generative and cognitive approaches, the ongoing elaboration of the L2 interlanguage is fed by L2 input, and results in (while being reinforced by) L2 output. Those SLA theories which frame adult L2 learning as being parallel to children’s L1 learning tend to be primarily a theory of mind, of an evolving mental grammar, and not communication. They abstract the mind from the person or individual. Examples would be cognitive theories (Ellis 2008a) and theories that posit Universal Grammar as an organizing mechanism for adult language acquisition (White 2003), which focus their attention on input’s role in the evolving L2 interlanguage grammar which constrains output. However, second language acquisition as experienced by individuals is not merely a cognitive process whereby data is processed, constructed into a system and then reproduced, and attention only to the structural properties of the interlanguage ignores a learner’s lifeworld (Husserl 1970) or trajectory through cultural situations. While cognitive and generative theories are powerful in modeling interlanguage structures, input, output and feedback are not purely mental constructs; rather, all three depend on the learner’s sense of self and interactional context.

My emphasis on socialization’s role in the construction of second language learnerhood also parallels work that has analyzed the role socialization plays in the acquisition of second language proficiency. In contrast to the dominant universal grammar-based approaches to child language acquisition rooted in Noam Chomsky’s work, community-centered approaches to language acquisition draw heavily from Michael Halliday’s functionalism (Halliday and Webster 2006) and Lev Vygotsky’s (1978) ideas of apprenticeship. Vygotsky analyzed how “experts” apprentice “novices” into the appropriate ways of interacting with artifacts that exist in the social world, over

73

different time scales in the developmental sequences. In this case the relevant artifacts are utterances (from the word level to the discourse level) used by communities to accomplish social actions. Crucially, language learning is negotiated and situated in communities and is a by-product of social interaction. Early work in sociolinguistics (Labov 1972, Hymes 1972, Sacks 1989) also reflected this focus on language use in communities, demonstrating that speaking is not merely producing grammatical sentences, but using language in a pragmatically appropriate way for a given task, audience and (in later sociolinguistic work) persona.

Deborah Poole (1992) pioneered extending language socialization theory to SLA, while Karen Watson-Gegeo (2004) has even called for language socialization to even replace the cognitive focus as the dominant paradigm in studying SLA. Michael Agar (1994, 2008) advocated the term “second languaculture acquisition”, as language learning cannot be divorced from cultural learning. “Languaculture acquisition” is a process arrived at through authentic socialization and awareness (Roberts et al.2001, Scarino 2009, Shi 2006). Vygotskian-influenced applied linguists have applied language socialization theory to the ESL enterprise (Canagarajah 2005, 2006a), second language classroom interaction (Gregg 2006, Hall 2010, Lantolf 2000, Lantolf and Thorne 2006), study-abroad immersion settings (Kinginger 2009) and language learning methodologies (Graves 2008). Greg Thomson’s Growing Participator Approach (Thomson 2007, Lomen 2007), which will be described in more detail in the following chapter, is a language learning methodology with deep roots in socialization-based model of SLA, and is of special interest as the key paradigm for language acquisition within the organization, Love the World.

74

Sociocultural theories of second language acquisition, are those which focus on the roles which observation, analysis, and modeling of socially-sanctioned ways of speaking play in the development of language competence, the most “natural” way of using linguistic forms within a given community, as opposed to focusing on automatic, grammar-forming mental processes (Lantolf & Thorne 2006). The cognitivist theory that SLA depends on cognitive strategies sensitive to individual variation (such as memory, metalinguistic awareness, analytical ability, motivation, and noticing input) were at odds with the NATURAL APPROACH (Krashen & Terrell 1983) an approach which posited a stronger analogy between L1 and L2 acquisition. This position, rooted in Krashen’s (1982) work, hypothesized relatively effortless acquisition as long as learners are exposed to naturalistic L2 input, at a level of difficulty a little above their competence, embodied in real communicative tasks.

Communicative approaches, such as the “Natural Approach” (Krashen and Terrell 1983) then, use minimal manipulation of or overt attention to second language grammar and assume that language acquisition will occur as long as learners are exposed to naturalistic input at a level of difficulty a little above their competency. Sociocultural second language studies (Lantolf 2000, Lantolf 2006, Lantolf & Thorne 2006) hold that input alone is insufficient to bootstrap language proficiency. Instead, interactions with other speakers “apprentice” (in the Vygotskian sense) second language learners into being full-fledged members of a language’s community of speakers (Byrnes 2006). Apprenticeship involves development of integrative motivation as well as attention to and repetition of language chunks and phrases, and pragmatic competency is a key value.

75

While Krashen's Natural Approach was at odds with cognitivist approaches in claiming that overt cognitive strategies were less important to acquisition than comprehensible input, and at odds with generativist approaches in claiming that adult language acquisition would be more complete if it mimicked the conditions of child language acquisition, the Natural Approach shared with these two other approaches the fact it is a theory of mind-internal language learning. Sociocultural theory is in opposition to all these approaches in that is a theory of mind-external language learning. For Krashen communication is in service of language learning- a learner communicates in order to learn the language. For sociocultural theorists like Lantolf and Thorne, language learning is in service of communication- an apprentice hones in on language behaviors in order to communicate.

Two linguists have already specifically applied language socialization theory to classrooms where missionary language learners are trained in L2 language proficiency (and indirectly into beliefs about L2 proficiency). Carla Stoneberg (1995) looked at socialization into beliefs about and practices of missionary learners of Spanish in a Central American classroom, focusing on obstacles to ultimate attainment of proficiency, such as self-identification and beliefs about the language learning process. Ikeda (2008) studied a language preparation program for adult field workers to Japan, attending to their beliefs about language proficiency and Japanese use, and how these intersected with the learners’ religious identities. Since the first activities and relationships which field workers engaged in are often related explicitly to language learning, Ikeda argues that the linguistic and interactive practices exhibited in language classes reinforce or counteract institutional goals about the types of relationships that field workers should establish with

76

host nationals. My study adopts this focus on field-based expatriate language learners but changes the scope. Rather than focusing on one geographical classroom and cohort, I am interested in how socialization creates beliefs about language learning in general, and shapes learners practices in the field over time. This interest includes the pre-field classroom, but goes beyond it, examining learnerhoods encountered in a variety of settings, across the entire length of field workers' service.