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.

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in EFL Context in Asia

“…This paper aims to examine how CLT, a language teaching approach originated and developed in ESL (English as a Second Language) context, has been implemented in the EFL (English as a Foreign Language) context in Asia, and China in particular. Many EFL educators and researchers have dedicated to exploring the application of CLT in EFL countries (Criado & Sanchez, 2009;Eisenchlas, 2010;Feryok, 2008;Hiep, 2007;Hu, 2005a). As the world's lingua franca, English is being learned by more and more people globally.…”

“…However, the fact is that the pedagogical practices in numerous classrooms do not seem to be much different from the past. "It has argued that, despite the espoused adoption of a communicative rhetoric, many of the practices implemented in classrooms are still guided by grammar-driven agendas" (Eisenchlas, 2010).…”

Critical perspectives in intercultural language learning.

“…In many conceptualisations of language in language education, the emphasis very rarely moves beyond a focus on the structural system of the language; that is, grammar and vocabulary, or a view of language as a tool for communication as represented through the four macro-skills of speaking, listening, reading and writing. The view of communication found in such formulations is however often weak (Eisenchlas, 2009) and takes the form of pseudocommunication that is in reality little more than language practice (Ghosn, 2004). Such views of language focus on languages as autonomous entities and construct languages as separable and discrete phenomena.…”

Bridging Transcultural Divides

“…Language has also been understood in languages education as a human communication system (Davies 2005). This again can be seen as a labelling -in this case of the purpose of language -rather than a theorisation of the nature of language or the nature of communication, and this too has tended to be seen as unproblematic and unproblematised (Haugh and Liddicoat 2009;Eisenchlas 2009). In fact, communication-oriented views of language may not differ much from code-based views.…”

“…Furthermore, it has been noted that this special bond with NSs in the learning environment creates room for the learners to converse voluntarily (Kurtz & Luna 1983;Long 1997). Ingram (1978bIngram ( , 1980 and Eisenchlas andHortiguera (1999-2000) noticed that students were more willing to converse and participate than before, because of the possibility of changing their perceptions and attitudes through regular interaction with native speakers. Imura's (2006) 'Community Involvement Project' clearly demonstrates the effectiveness of such interaction in terms of developing oral communication skills and increasing L2 confidence.…”