Summary on the Block’s text: The social turn in second language Acquisition
5.1 Introduction
The text will discuss the “A” for acquisition’ in SLA. First it will make reference to the imbalance in the amount of attention to the context (second, foreign and naturalistic) that many researchers have looked at. Second, it will make reference to the distinction proposed by Krashen between Acquisition and Learning and also discuss the importance of this theory. Third, the text will discuss the way in which the authors moving beyond Krashen’s theory and also state the way that they will use the terms ‘leaning’ and ‘acquisition’.
5.2 Krashen and the acquisiton/learning dicotonomy
This part talks about the difference between acquisition/learning drawed in the Krashen’s theory. The differences are: acquisition is a subconscious process developed in an informal context and the focus is on the meaniful communication. Acquisition is also related to the process that a child has in the first language acquisition. On the other hand, leaning is a conscious process developed in a formal context, such as a classroom and the focus is on the form (Grammar). Learning is a process followed by language learners who are attending lessons.
5.3 Acquisition as information processing in the IIO framework
This part points out the information processing in Grass. Gass’s framework for SLA links together the key elements of input, interaction and output. The process points out that first you have an input ( in the target language), then you have an apperception, that is when the concepts such as attencion , noticing and parcing of input are introduced. After apperception is the comprehended input, that is when cognitive processes come into play. The next stage is intake, that is when you have to assimilate the new information with the previous knowledge. Finally, we have integration, that is when the learners restructure the existing knowledge systems. There are two sub-process proposed by McLaughlin: Automatisation ( allows the mind to process new information in a controlled manner) and Restructuring ( involves two- way process of assimilation and accommodation).
5.4. Critique of information processing.
The behaviorism has developmented along the years some of importants characteristics. Firstly, we can consider that it divided s the behaviorism a Cartesian mind-body dualism based in two human life systems: one material and one mental. Secondly, dualism trough the inner and outer can be shared and each part of this can be study independently. Moreover, another important characteristics by both of them are the tendency to carry out research in laboratory settings.
5.5. Firth and Vagner (1997)
Firth and Vagner, in their debate-opening piece arise the question that the individual can be analyzed by psychologistic bias in the work of many SLA researches, and they present another view which they perceive the individual in a psycholinguistic bias in the work of many SLA researches, which they focus more the collective and sociolinguistic point of view of what language learning heritage.
5.6 – SOCIAL-CULTURAL THEORY
The task of sociocultural approach is to understand how mental functioning is related to cultural, institutional, and historical context (Wertsch 1991:6)
Vygotsky termed a ‘genetic’ approach to the study of mental activity, taking into account changes taking place at four different levels:
The first is philogenesis , which refers to development of species though time.
The second is the sociohistorical, which is relative and explains the observation that while all human beings engage in cultural mediation, they have different ways of doing so.
The third is called octogenesis and refers to the individual development over a lifetime.
The fourth is called microgenesis, and this refers to changes occurring in mental functioning over the span of weeks, days, hours or even seconds.
Another conceptualization in sociohistorical development is the dichotomy of other-regulation x self-regulation.
5.7 – ACTIVITY THEORY
Activity is not simply doing things. It is something more complex which encompasses three levels:
Activity, which is something of a misnomer, as it actually refers to the general motive or driving force behind actions of any kind.
Action, which is a crucial stage because, is only in “action” that an activity is translated into reality.
Is at the third level, operation that the set of concepts (regulation and scaffolding) comes into play, under the specific constraints and conditions of the particular setting where the action is being carried out.
Motive is about why something is done; action is about what is done; and operation is about how something is done.
The term most used for the Sociocultural/Activity Theory counterpart to ‘internalization’ in cognitive science is ‘appropriation’.
5.8 Appropriation
Mitchell and Myles and Wertsch differently define the concept of appropriation. The former define this concept as ‘how learners eventually take over… new knowledge or skills into their individual consciousness’. The latter defines it as ‘the process of taking something that belongs to others and making it one’s own’. Thus, the author maintains that appropriation is not just passing of the external to internal; it is the meeting of the external and the internal to form a synthesized new state. Besides, researchers argue that appropriation is to be seen more as transformational ongoing process, involving multiple cycles. However, Rogoff rejects some dichotomies such as group/individual, outside/inside and gives us a key concept: participation, which when combined with the concept of development, produces what Rogoff calls ‘participatory appropriation’. This new concept can be defined as ‘the personal process by which, thought engagement in an activity, individuals change and handle a later situation in ways prepared by their own participation in the previous situation’. The author argues that this participation metaphor is presented as a mean of dealing with aspects of knowledge and learning that the acquisition metaphor cannot and does not address.
5.9 Towards a Broader Conceptualization of Acquisition
The author argues that the constellation formed by Sociocultural Theory, Activity Theory and variations on the participation metaphor has provided the basis for an ever-increasing amount of SLA research in recent years. Thus, the author discusses these two approaches making a review of some authors and evaluating their point of view toward the ‘A’ of Acquisition in SLA. It was concluded, “What we have at the moment is an increase in the amount of research being carried out under the general rubric of Sociocultural/Activity Theory to go along with the already substantial amount of work that has been done, and continues to be done, following the IIO model and the acquisition metaphor. Thus, we have researchers who continue to consider themselves SLA researchers, but in actual fact might want to change the acronym to SLP (P for Participation) or to change the ‘A’ in SLA from Acquisition to Activity”.
5. 10 Acquisition as Activity (And Agency)
Block presents five of the major tenets in a Sociocultural/ Activity perspective of learning and learners:
1. Learners are not a box where the teacher puts a lot of information. They are active agents. Learners need time and have his/her own historically and sociologically knowledge.
2. Acquire linguistic form is not learn a language in itself; they (students) have to use these forms to develop them.
3. Learner can have success or fail in learning a language. A non – participation in class can be a demonstration of failure.
4. The process of learning is not an individual phenomenon. A student does not learn alone. He/she needs to interact with others.
5. Citing Giddens 1991 Block says that learning is part of the ongoing construction of self-identity.
In his study, Block shows how learners, via weekly face-to-face interviews, reconstructed and evaluated their lessons. The study showed that learning a language is about more than the acquisition of linguistic form; it is about how we actively mediates ourselves and our relationships to others in communities of practice. So, we can see again that agency is not an individual phenomenon.
5. 11 Conclusion
Blocks have tried to show with notion associated with Lantolf and Pavlenko’s model of SLA activity that learning is not just an information processing and acquisition. Language is an association of linguistic, communication as negotiation for meaning and learning acquisition.