Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T22:12:55.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Past the Anthropocentric: Sociocognitive Perspectives for Tech-Mediated Language Learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 July 2019

Maria Ocando Finol
Maria Ocando Finol*
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Researchers in second language acquisition (SLA) have long debated the nature of human cognition and how it affects second language learning (L2L). On the one hand, and largely dominating the field of SLA, is the cognitive approach, which focuses on the brain as the unit for cognitive analysis. On the other hand, sociocultural theory holds that human cognition is mediated by cultural artifacts. These perspectives present significantly different views on interaction, understanding it as either auxiliary or instrumental in the learning process, or “fundamentally constitutive” of learning (Mondada & Pekarek Doehler, 2004, p. 502). Increasingly concerned with the role of technology in language learning, current computer-assisted language learning (CALL) research demands theoretical frameworks that account for the ecological relationship between learners, the tools they use, and the environments they inhabit. This article raises the issue of how anthropocentric perspectives on technology have permeated the field of CALL until now, inhibiting its development. I suggest the need for CALL to adopt a less instrumental, more determinist (Carr, 2010) view of the role that technology plays in language learning, by engaging in sociocognitive research (Atkinson, 2010) that embraces the transformative power that technology has over cognition.

Type
Short Report
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 39 , March 2019 , pp. 146 - 151
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atkinson, D. (2010). Extended, embodied cognition and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 31(5), 599–622.Google Scholar
Atkinson, D. (2014). Language learning in mind-body-world: A sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 47(4), 467–483.Google Scholar
Bange, P. (1992). A propos de la communication et de l'apprentissage de L2. Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Étrangère-AILE, 1, 53–85.Google Scholar
Benjamin, W. (1996). On language as such and on the language of man. In Bullock, M. & Jennings, M. W. (Eds.), Selected writings, volume I: 1913–1926 (pp. 62–74). Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Carr, N. G. (2010). The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Davies, G., Otto, S., & Ruschoff, B. (2013). Historical perspectives on CALL. In Thomas, M., Reinders, H., & Warschauer, M. (Eds.), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning (pp. 1–38). New York, NY: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Ellis, N., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics: Introduction to the special issue. Applied Linguistics, 27, 558–589.Google Scholar
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285–300.Google Scholar
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (2007). Second/foreign language learning as a social accomplishment: Elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 91(5), 800–819.Google Scholar
Gajo, L., & Mondada, L. (2000). Acquisition et interaction en contextes. Fribourg, Switzerland: Editions Universitaires.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1985). Task variation and nonnative/nonnative negotiation of meaning. In Gass, S. M. & Madden, C. G. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 149–161). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hall, J. K. (1993). The role of oral practices in the accomplishment of our everyday lives: The sociocultural dimension of interaction with implications for the learning of another language. Applied Linguistics, 14, 145–167.Google Scholar
Harare, S. (2016). Socio-cognitive theory approach in second language acquisition: The state of the art. International Journal of Modern Language Teaching and Learning, 1(4), 145–152.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology, and other essays. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Krafft, U., & Dausendschön-Gay, U. (1994). Analyse conversationnelle et recherche sur l'acquisition. Bulletin VALS/ASLA, 59, 127–158.Google Scholar
Lafford, B. (2007). Second language acquisition reconceptualized? The impact of Firth and Wagner (1997). Modern Language Journal, 91(Suppl. 1), 735–756.Google Scholar
Lafford, B. (2009). Toward an ecological CALL: Update to Garrett (1991). The Modern Language Journal, 93, 673–696.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (Eds.). (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (1995). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 108–124.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. New York, NY: Oxford.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/nonnative speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–467). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
McLuhan, M. (1967). This is Marshall McLuhan: The medium is the message. New York, NY: NBC.Google Scholar
Mondada, L., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2004). Second language acquisition as situated practice: Task accomplishment in the French second language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 88, 501–518.Google Scholar
Pekarek, S. (1999). Leçons de conversation: Dynamiques de l'interaction et acquisition de compétences discursives en classe de langue seconde. Fribourg, Switzerland: Editions Universitaires.Google Scholar
Salaberry, R. (1996). A theoretical foundation for the development of pedagogical tasks. CALICO Journal, 14(1), 5–34.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2017). Technology-enhanced SLA research. In Chapelle, C. & Sauro, S. (Eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 444–456). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 38–67.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. (2012). Massively semiotic ecologies and L2 development: Gaming cases and issues. In De Wannemacker, S., Vandercruysse, S., & Clarebout, G. (Eds.), Serious games: The challenge, Vol. CCIS 280 (pp. 18–31). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. (2017, August). Language, learning, the wild, and rewilding. Keynote address at EUROCALL 2017, Southampton, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar