Beyond paradigm: The ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of classroom research

Abstract

This article reviews studies in second language classroom research from a cross-theoretic perspective, arguing that the classroom holds the potential for bringing together researchers from opposing theoretical orientations. It shows how generative and general cognitive approaches share a view of language that implicates both implicit and explicit knowledge, and that holds a bias towards implicit knowledge. Arguing that it is implicit knowledge that should be the object of research, it proposes that classroom research would benefit from incorporating insights from a generative understanding of language. Specifically, there is a need for a more nuanced view of the complexity of language in terms of linguistic domain, and the interaction between those domains. Generative second language acquisition research that shows developmental differences in terms of both linguistic domain and interface is reviewed. The core argument is a call for more attention to the ‘what’ of language development in classroom research and, by implication, teaching practice. As such, the language classroom is seen to offer potential for research that goes beyond paradigm to address both the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of language development.

What’s in the Textbook and What’s in the Mind

“…Slabakova (2002) interprets her findings as evidence against the no interface position, whereas Rothman (2008) argues that his add support for such a position. These opposing conclusions about the epistemological status of L2 knowledge in the generative tradition have been argued to mirror similar debates about the relationship between implicit and explicit L2 knowledge in the cognitive tradition (Whong, Gil, & Marsden, 2014). Building on such debates, we ask how classroom input affects the development of L2 knowledge, with the question of the relationship between different types of knowledge deserving particular attention.…”

“…However, a small number of generative L2 acquisition researchers have continued to engage with the relationship between classroom instruction and the development of L2 knowledge, including Slabakova (2002) and Rothman (2008), with some beginning to explore classroom intervention (Whong, Gil, & Marsden, 2013). Slabakova (2002) investigated acquisition of several properties associated with a proposed compounding parameter (Snyder, 1995), in the L2 Spanish of L1-English speakers.…”

Instructed second language acquisition (ISLA)

“…It is that for the great majority of the world's learners, who need a functional command of their L2, the relevant goal for instruction is implicit learning, resulting in implicit L2 knowledge. In an article on classroom research, Whong, Gil, and Marsden (2014) noted that while generativists and general cognitivists disagree over the viability of inductive learning as a substitute for innate linguistic knowledge, both camps consider implicit learning more basic and more important than explicit learning, and superior. This is because access to implicit knowledge is automatic and fast, and is what underlies listening comprehension, spontaneous speech, and fluency.…”

“…It is the result of deeper processing and is more durable as a result, and it obviates the need for explicit knowledge, freeing up attentional resources for a speaker to focus on message content. Many (not all) members of both camps, Whong, Gil, and Marsden (2014) note, also subscribe to some version of the non-interface position. They conclude:…”

The meaning of negation in the second language classroom: Evidence from ‘any’

“…This is followed by an overview of Arabic-speaking learners' knowledge of the NPI any (Marsden et al, 2017), followed by new data on Chinese-speaking learners' knowledge of any, and an analysis of the presentation of negation and any in English language textbooks. We bring the 2 See Whong et al (2014) for a criticism of the conceptualization of linguistic properties in the metaanalysis by Spada and Tomita (2010).…”