LINGUIST List 15.1864

Sat Jun 19 2004

Review: Psycholing/Ling Theories: Jordan (2004)

Editor for this issue: Naomi Ogasawara <naomilinguistlist.org>

What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially invited to join in.

If you are interested in leading a book discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available for review." Then contact Sheila Dooley Collberg at collberglinguistlist.org.

Directory

  • Karen Roehr, Theory Construction in Second Language Acquisition

    Message 1: Theory Construction in Second Language Acquisition

     Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 14:32:27 -0400 (EDT)
    From: Karen Roehr <KarenRoehr.freeserve.co.uk>
    Subject: Theory Construction in Second Language Acquisition


    AUTHOR: Jordan, Geoff TITLE: Theory Construction in Second Language Acquisition PUBLISHER: John Benjamins YEAR: 2004 Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/15/15-547.html

    Karen Roehr, Lancaster University.

    SYNOPSIS

    Jordan's book is a defence of a rationalist approach to the construction of theories in the field of second language acquisition (SLA). The first part of the book takes a historical perspective and gives a general outline of the philosophy of science; examples are drawn from theory building in the natural and social sciences. Based on an evaluation of the merits and shortcomings of various epistemological approaches, Jordan formulates his own guidelines for theory construction in the area of second language research. The second part of the book provides a comprehensive overview of influential theories in the field of SLA, which are summarised and then assessed against the author's criteria. Jordan draws on his critical rationalist guidelines not only to identify the strengths and weaknesses of existing theoretical approaches, but also to sketch the way forward for researchers concerned with constructing explanatory models of SLA.

    GENERAL EVALUATION

    Overall, Jordan offers a very knowledgeable and well- written account of theory construction in general and theorising in the field of second language research in particular, which should be of interest to virtually everyone in the diverse SLA community, from postgraduate students to senior scholars. The broad scope of the book makes it a valuable source of information not only for researchers interested in the epistemology of their subject area, but also for students new to the field of SLA who seek an up-to-date outline of second language theories past and present. Unlike the volumes specifically devoted to providing such an overview (e.g. R. Ellis, 1994; Mitchell & Myles, 1998), Jordan's book is -- intentionally -- less exhaustive; however, it offers the added bonus of a critical appraisal against a fascinating historical backdrop. The epistemological chapters do not require any prior knowledge in the area of philosophy. Whether Darwin or Derrida, Pavlov or Popper -- Jordan's treatment of what might appear to be daunting subject matter is always accessible and often highly entertaining. Jordan's lucid writing gives us a very useful insight into an essentially complex topic, allowing the reader to see the field of second language research within the bigger picture of philosophy and science, and to locate his/her own position, views, and beliefs in relation to the history of theory construction.

    SUMMARY AND EVALUATION OF PART 1

    The first part of the book is concerned with questions of epistemology, that is, the nature of knowledge and how knowledge is attained. The issue of scientific methodology is addressed from a general historical angle and is then linked in with second language research.

    Jordan notes that there is no true consensus among academics on the fundamental questions SLA research should explain, nor on what counts as an adequate explanation. In order to tackle this problem from the root, Jordan sets out to define key terms such as 'phenomena', 'data', and 'explanation'. The discussion of what exactly we might mean by the L ('language') and the A ('acquisition') in SLA is particularly enlightening and serves to remind us of how important it is to be clear about and make explicit our basic assumptions before engaging in any research, applied or theoretical. This point may be obvious, but it is certainly not trivial. Jordan's terminological review leads to the conclusion that, whilst a proliferation of (complementary) theories is not a problem in itself, researchers need to agree on the objectives of and domain to be covered by a satisfactory theory of SLA. To this end, Jordan aims to formulate a minimal set of guidelines that can provide the SLA community with a common basis for theory construction.

    The following historical overview of research methods used in the natural and social sciences effectively illustrates how Jordan arrives at the premises underlying his guidelines. The author traces the methodology of and challenges levelled against rationalist, empiricist and positivist approaches to scientific discovery. Jordan's lively exposition spans several centuries and makes for an altogether enjoyable read; examples cover a lot of ground and range from astronomy to classical conditioning. The critique of the scientific method brought forward by various philosophers is outlined in a clear and concise manner. Within fifty-odd pages, the reader is not only made familiar with the main arguments of the moderate critics of rationalism such as Kuhn and Feyerabend, but also with the more radical relativism of postmodernists such as Foucault. It is probably fair to say that this kind of epistemological background knowledge is not necessarily at the fingertips of every SLA researcher. Yet, Jordan's argument is not only informative in its own right, but also highly relevant. Once again, we are reminded of the origin of assumptions we may take for granted, and of the need to be aware of our most basic beliefs about what constitutes knowledge and how it can be arrived at.

    Jordan then launches his defence of an essentially rationalist approach to research methodology and theory construction. Jordan's own brand of 'critical rationalism' can be described as moderate and inclusive in that both scepticist and positivist extremes are carefully avoided. Jordan argues against the necessity of a common paradigm that informs all avenues of research. While there is no single correct scientific method, the radically relativist maxim that 'anything goes' is likewise seen as inappropriate. Jordan acknowledges the importance of relativist criticism with respect to political analysis and educational policy; he further concedes that science is a social institution and that our perceptions of the world and thus scientific inquiries involve an element of subjectivity. However, Jordan rejects a solipsistic view which rules out the possibility of data collection, empirical tests, and explanatory theorising. The author adopts a realist rationale when he posits, first, that there is an objective external world about which discoveries can be made; second, that it is the business of science to solve problems by proposing explanatory theories; and third, that informed judgements can be made to decide between opposing theories.

    Jordan proceeds to link his epistemological overview to theory construction in SLA. He outlines and evaluates the theoretical debate among second language researchers as to whether the application of a scientific methodology is justified in a field concerned with human behaviour. Jordan arrives at the constructive conclusion that SLA is a viable scientific discipline as long as its practitioners insist on the use of rational argument and empirical testing. According to the author, it is the purpose of theories to explain phenomena, while observational data are used to support and test those theories. In the spirit of these premises, Jordan then offers a set of guidelines that critically rationalist theories of SLA should satisfy.

    In accordance with Jordan's views as outlined above, the guidelines seem eminently reasonable and are ostensibly aimed at establishing a broad consensual basis. Jordan's guidelines consist of six fundamental epistemological assumptions as well as five criteria against which SLA theories can be evaluated. I would imagine that the vast majority of academics working in the field of SLA would agree quite readily with Jordan's forward-looking, inclusive, but certainly not uncritical views.

    SUMMARY AND EVALUATION OF PART 2

    In the second part of the book, Jordan assesses various hypotheses, models and theories of SLA against his critical rationalist guidelines. He examines whether approaches violate his epistemological assumptions and to what extent they provide satisfactory explanations of the phenomena they seek to unravel. Not surprisingly perhaps, this undertaking leads to a somewhat more controversial argument than the general treatment of theory construction in part 1. Even though part 2 is not billed as an exhaustive overview of SLA theories, it can almost be regarded as such. Jordan provides a wealth of information, presented by means of an interesting and overall convincingly argued discussion.

    Perhaps inevitably, part 2 of the book starts out with a critical evaluation of generative grammar. Jordan acknowledges the immense impact Chomsky's theories have had on the discipline of linguistics as well as the sub-field of SLA, which mostly draws on the notion of universal grammar. The arguments brought forward by Chomsky's main critics are considered and, more often than not, Jordan effectively defends Chomsky's corner. This does not prevent him, however, from concluding that the applicability of universal grammar to SLA is severely limited. Jordan's main concern is Chomsky's narrow definition of linguistic competence, which clashes with the explanatory aim of second language research. In other words, a description of core grammar is quite different not only from a broader theory of language that extends beyond syntax, but also, and more crucially, from a theory of learning.

    The subsequent chapters are devoted to a critical appraisal of a large variety of SLA methods, hypotheses, models, and theories. Jordan provides an insightful discussion of, among others, early approaches such as contrastive analysis and error analysis, classic cognitive theories broadly falling within an information-processing account, and more recent developments such as the competition model and the emergentist approach. The author assesses each account against the guidelines he has set forth for SLA theory construction. Depending on how well a theory matches the criteria, it is either considered as offending the guidelines or as a promising sign of progress.

    While the critical review of Chomskian linguistics and its relevance to SLA theorising is very even-handed, Jordan's treatment of approaches that are viewed as offending his guidelines might spark some debate. Although the author points out that he does not wish to argue that ''sociolinguistics is 'bad' and psycholinguistics is 'good''' (p.168), I could not help getting the impression that, on occasion, Jordan seems to have little patience with certain sociologically-oriented approaches, whilst being more inclined to tolerate shortcomings in other, usually cognitively-oriented models.

    Jordan's discussion of ethnography may serve as an illustration. The author duly acknowledges that the selection and critique of a single ethnographic study, no matter how representative it may be, is clearly a limitation. He further emphasises that ''there is no necessary reason why ethnographic, longitudinal studies should not be carried out'' within his critical rationalist framework (p.172). Yet, the reader is only presented with an instance of ethnography that falls hopelessly short of the guidelines. By the same token, Jordan's critique of Krashen's hypotheses sometimes seems quite harsh if compared with the more generous discussion of various other flawed theories. For instance, like Krashen's monitor model, the morpheme order studies score poorly on several of Jordan's criteria. Yet, unlike Krashen's account, the morpheme order studies are recognised as having made a valuable contribution to the discipline and thus earn a place in the 'signs of progress' chapter.

    I believe that the occasional hint of bias, whether intended or not, can be explained by the fact that it is not immediately apparent to the reader exactly which or how many guidelines need to be satisfied for a theory to be seen as promising rather than to be dismissed. Clearly, theories which violate Jordan's epistemological assumptions are not accepted. Yet, the remaining five evaluation criteria appear to be applied much more loosely. This approach may have been necessitated by Jordan's decision to include a wide range of SLA accounts. Elaborate theories such as Pienemann's processability theory, individual constructs such as Carroll's language learning aptitude, and more specific models such as Schmidt's noticing hypothesis are all judged by the same criteria. However, one might argue that not all of the accounts Jordan evaluates purport to be complete theories in the first place. This appears to be particularly true of research concerned with individual learner differences. To my knowledge, SLA researchers do not typically claim independent theory status for supplementary notions such as motivation or aptitude; instead, they aim for the incorporation of their constructs into a fully-fledged theoretical framework, as recognised by Jordan himself (p.192).

    Given this all-inclusive approach, Jordan's decision to strictly subdivide accounts of SLA into 'losing' theories (chapter 8) and 'winning' theories (chapter 9) without exactly specifying the number of criteria a theory needs to meet in order to be categorised as a sign of progress seems a little unfortunate to me, especially as none of the approaches reviewed satisfies all the guidelines. However, this somewhat forced classification should not distract from the fact that the author's evaluation in terms of individual guidelines is meticulous and differentiated; what is more, his praise and his criticisms are certainly justified in themselves. In this sense, Jordan's book exemplifies the stance of critical rationalism he is advocating throughout, whilst the value judgement attached to specific theoretical approaches may well serve as the starting point for a more fruitful debate in the SLA community.

    REFERENCES

    Ellis, R. (1994). The study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (1998). Second Language Learning Theories. London: Arnold.

    ABOUT THE REVIEWER

    Karen Roehr is studying for her PhD in second language acquisition in the Department of Linguistics and Modern English Language at Lancaster University. Her areas of interest are language acquisition, psycholinguistics generally, and language education.