Second Language Aqcuisation
Language Learning 46:4, December 1996, pp. 713-749
Review Article
SLA Theory Building: “Letting All the Flowers Bloom!”
James P. Lantolf
Cornell University This article presents a postmodernist critical analysis of the SLA theory building-literature as primarily represented in the writings of Beretta, Crookes, Eubank, Gregg, Long, and t o some extent Schumann. I argue that there is no foundational reason to grant privileged status to the modernist view of SLA theory these scholars espouse. Scientific theories are metaphorical constructs that are elevated to theoretical status because they are “taken seriously”by their developers. All of which argues against cutting off any would-be SLA theory before it has the opportunity to be taken seriously (i.e., to bloom). Scholars concerned with the problem of second language acquisition (SLA) have recently begun to focus their energies on the question of SLA theory and theory building (e.g., Beretta,
An earlier version of this paper was presented as a plenary address to the annual meeting of the British Association ofApplied Linguistics, University of Southampton, September 1995. I thank all those who provided important feedback, suggestions, and criticisms on earlier versions of this article. I am especially grateful to Merrill Swain, John Schumann, Elaine Tarone, and Leo van Lier. Any shortcomings, and there are no doubt many, are my responsibility alone. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to James P. Lantolf, Department of Modern Languages, 314 Morrill Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853 USA. Internet: JPL5Qcornell.edu
713
714
Language Learning
Vol. 46, No. 4
1991, 1993; Beretta & Crookes, 1993; Crookes, 1992; Eubank & Gregg, 1995; Gregg, 1989, 1993; Klein, 1990, 1991; Long, 1985, 1990, 1993; Spolsky 1985, 1989, 1990). Presumably, this indicates that the field has attained sufficient maturity, empirical richness, and sophistication that in order t o legitimize
Review Article
SLA Theory Building: “Letting All the Flowers Bloom!”
James P. Lantolf
Cornell University This article presents a postmodernist critical analysis of the SLA theory building-literature as primarily represented in the writings of Beretta, Crookes, Eubank, Gregg, Long, and t o some extent Schumann. I argue that there is no foundational reason to grant privileged status to the modernist view of SLA theory these scholars espouse. Scientific theories are metaphorical constructs that are elevated to theoretical status because they are “taken seriously”by their developers. All of which argues against cutting off any would-be SLA theory before it has the opportunity to be taken seriously (i.e., to bloom). Scholars concerned with the problem of second language acquisition (SLA) have recently begun to focus their energies on the question of SLA theory and theory building (e.g., Beretta,
An earlier version of this paper was presented as a plenary address to the annual meeting of the British Association ofApplied Linguistics, University of Southampton, September 1995. I thank all those who provided important feedback, suggestions, and criticisms on earlier versions of this article. I am especially grateful to Merrill Swain, John Schumann, Elaine Tarone, and Leo van Lier. Any shortcomings, and there are no doubt many, are my responsibility alone. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to James P. Lantolf, Department of Modern Languages, 314 Morrill Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853 USA. Internet: JPL5Qcornell.edu
713
714
Language Learning
Vol. 46, No. 4
1991, 1993; Beretta & Crookes, 1993; Crookes, 1992; Eubank & Gregg, 1995; Gregg, 1989, 1993; Klein, 1990, 1991; Long, 1985, 1990, 1993; Spolsky 1985, 1989, 1990). Presumably, this indicates that the field has attained sufficient maturity, empirical richness, and sophistication that in order t o legitimize