Hostname: page-component-669899f699-2mbcq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-06T20:18:15.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theory Construction in SLA

Complementarity and Opposition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Alan Beretta
Alan Beretta
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There are indications that a determined effort toward theory construction is currently being mounted in SLA (Gregg, 1989, 1990; Long, 1990; Spolsky, 1989). This raises a number of epistemological issues, one of which is the question of multiple theories and lack of convergence (and the related question of distinguishing science from nonscience–and from nonsense). In a field where there are many different therorise, is the relationship between them one of complementarity or of opposition? Are there criteria for appraisal and choice? Issues relating to theory construction have received considerable attention in the literature (e.g., Lightbown, 1984; McLaughlin, 1987). This article aims to build on such initiative asking: (a) Are there multiple theories of SLA? (b) Is it a problem? and (c) what criteria have SLA researchers used to appraise and choose between theories, and how compelling are they? Following this, consideration is given to top-down and bottom-up approaches to SLA theory construction. I conclude by advancing the modest claim that rationality in SLA therory construction is possible, in spite of insistent problems.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , December 1991 , pp. 493 - 511
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abrahamsen, A. A. (1987). Bridging boundaries versus breaking boundaries: Psycholinguistics in perspective. Synthese, 72, 355–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, R. (Ed.), (1981). New dimensions in second language acquisition research. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Andersen, R. (Ed.), (1983). Pidginization and creolization in language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Andersen, R. (Ed.), (1990). Universals. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(2) [Special issue].Google Scholar
Ayer, A. J. (1936). Language, truth and logic. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
Barnes, B., & Bloor, D. (1982). Relativism, rationality, and the sociology of knowledge. In Hollis, M. & Lukes, S. (Eds.), Rationality and relativism (pp. 21–47). OxfordBlackwell.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1986). Hypothesis testing in second-language acquisition theory. Language Learning, 36, 353–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign languange learnig? In Gass, S. M. & Schacter, J. (Eds.). Linguistic perspective on second language acquisition (pp. 41–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bloor, D. (1984). The strengths of the strong programme. In Brown, J. R. (Ed.). Scientific rationality: The sociological turn (pp. 75–94) Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumenthal, A. L. (1987). The emergence of psycholinguistics. Synthese, 72, 313–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, H. I. (1987). Observation and objectivity New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1984). Can we be scientific in applied social science? Evaluation Studies Review Annual, 9, 26–48.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1988). A tribal model of the social vehicle carrying scientific knowledge. In Overman, S. (Ed.), Methodology and epistemology for social science: Selected papers (pp. 489–503). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chalmes, P. S (1987). What is this called science? St. Lucia, Australia: University of Queensland Press.Google Scholar
Churchland, P. S. (1986). Neurophilosophy: Toward a unified science of the mind-brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, I. B. (1985). Revolution in science. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Converse, P. (1986). Generalization and the social psychology of “other worlds.” In Fiske, D. W. & Shweder, R. A. (Eds.), Metatheory in social science: Pluralism and subjectivities (pp. 42–60). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30, 116–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushing, J. T. (1989). The justification and selection of scientific theories. Synthese, 78, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donovan, A., Laudan, L., & Laudan, R. (Eds.). (1988). Scrutinizing science: Empirical studies studies of scientific change. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einstein, A. (1950). Out of my later years. New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1984). Classroom second language development. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1986). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Eysenck, H. J. (1986). Consensus and controversy: Two types of science. In Modgil, S. & Modgil, C. (Eds.), Hans Eysenck: Consensus and controversy (pp. 375–398). Philadelphia; Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1987). Farewell to reason. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Finocchiaro, M. (1988). Galileo's Copernicanism and the acceptability of guiding assumptions. In Dowovan, A., Laudan, L., & Laudan, R. (Eds.), Scrutinizing science: Empirical Studies change (pp. 49–67).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, D. W., & Shweder, R. A. (Eds.). (1986). Metatheory in social science: Pluralisms and subjectivites. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fleck, L. 1979. Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Flynn, S. (1984). A universal in L2 acquisition based on a PBD typology. In Eckman, F. R., Bell, L. H., & Nelson, D. (Eds.), Universals of second language acquisition (pp. 75–87). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A., Bever, T. G., & Garrett, M. F. (1974). The psychology of language. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Frankel, H. (1988). Plate tectonics and inter-theory relations. In Donovan, A., Laudan, L. & Laudan, R. (Eds.), Scrutinizing science: Empirical studies of scientific change (pp. 269–287). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, R. M. (1989). Text, context, and quicksand: Method and understanding in studying the Nobel science prizes. Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, 20, 63–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fuller, S. (1989). Philosophy of science and its discontents. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1989). Language universals and second-language acquisition. Language Learning, 39, 497–534.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Schacter, J. (1989). Introduction. In Gass, S. & Schacter, J. (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 1–9). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gergen, K. J. (1982). Toward transformation in social knowledge. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Giles, H., & Byrne, J. (1982). An intergroup approach to second language acquisition. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 3, 17–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregg, K. (1984). Krashen's monitor and Occam's razor. Applied Linguistics, 5, 79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregg, K. (1989). Second language acquisition theory: The case for a generative perspective. In Gass, S. & Schacter, J. (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 15–40). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregg, K. (1990). The variable competence model of second language acquisition, and why it isn't. Applied Linguistics, 11, 364–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregg, K. (in press). Krashen's theory, acquisition theory, and theory. In Barasch, R. (Ed.), Responses to Krashen. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Griffiths, R. (1989, 11). Pausology and listening comprehension: Theory, research and practice. Paper presented at JALT 15th International Conference on Language Teaching/Learning, Okayama, Japan.Google Scholar
Guiora, A. (Ed.), (1983). An epistemology for the language sciences. Language Learning, 33(5) [Special issue].Google Scholar
Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In Hatch, E. (Ed.), Second language acquisition (pp. 401–435). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for the behavioral sciences. San Francisco, CA: Chandler.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krige, J. (1980). Science, revolution and discontinuity. Brighton, UK: Harvester.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I., & Musgrave, A. (Eds.), (1970). Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamendella, J. (1977). General principles of neurofunctional organization and their manifestations in primary and nonprimary acquisition. Language Learning, 27, 155–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamendella, J. (1979). The neurofunctional basis of pattern practice. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanier, J. E., & Little, J. W. (1986). Research in teacher education. In Wittrock, M. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 527–569). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1983). Second language acquisition: Getting the whole picture. In Bailey, K., Long, M. H. & Peck, S. (Eds.), Second language acquisition studies (pp. 3–22). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1984). The pseudo-science of science? In Brown, J. R. (Ed.), Scientific rationality: The sociological turn (pp. 41–73). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Laudan, L., Donovan, A., Laudan, R., Barker, P., Brown, H., Leplin, J., Thagard, P., & Wykstra, S. (1986). Scientific change: Philosophical models and historical research. Synthese, 69, 141–223.Google Scholar
Laudan, R., & Laudan, L. (1989). Dominance and the disunity of method: Solving the problems of innovation and consensus. Philosophy of Science, 56, 221–237.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. M. (1984). The relationship between theory and method in second language acquisition research. In Davies, A., Criper, C. & Howatt, A. P. R. (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 241–252). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. M. (1985). Great expectations: Second language acquisition research and classroom teaching. Applied Linguistics, 6, 173–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightbown, P. M., & White, L. (1987). The influence of linguistic theories on language acquisition research: Description and explanation. Language Learning, 37, 483–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1985a). Input and second language acquisition theory. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377–393). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1985b). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In Hyltenstam, K. & Pienemann, M. (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language development (pp. 77–99). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1990, 03). The least a SLA theory needs to explain. Paper presented at the 24th Annual TESOL convention, San Francisco, CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCauley, R. N. (1987). The not so happy story of the marriage of linguistics and psychology OR why linguistics has discovered psychology's recent advances. Synthese, 72, 341–353.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Mohan, B. (1986). Response to Ricento: On hypotheses in cross-cultural rhetoric research. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 569–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moyer, D. (1979). Revolution in science: The 1919 eclipse test of general relativity. In Kursunoglu, B., Perlmutter, A. & Scott, L. F. (Eds.), On the path of Albert Einstein (pp. 55–101). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Ochsner, R. (1979). A poetics of second language acquisition. Language Learning, 29, 53–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connell, D. C. (1988). Critical essays on language use and psychology. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (1980). Language and learning: The debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, D. C. (1987). Philosophy, science, and social inquiry. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1965). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1979). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Reber, A. (1987). The rise and (surprisingly rapid) fall of psycholinguistics. Synthese, 72, 325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, J. C. (1984). The secret life of methods. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 7–23.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, A. (1986). Philosophy of science and the potentials for knowledge in the social sciences. In Fiske, D. W. & Shweder, R. A. (Eds.), Metatheory in social science: Pluralisms and subjectivities (pp. 339–346). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Santos, T. (1989). Replication in applied linguistics research. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 699–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumann, J. (1978a). The pidginization process: A model for second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schumann, J. (1978b). Second language acquisition: The pidginization process. In Hatch, E. (Ed.), Second language acquisition (pp. 256–271). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schumann, J. (1983). Art and science in second language acquisition research. Language Learning, 33, 49–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. (1990, 03). The fundamental difference hypothesis: A critical evaluation. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, Eugene, OR.Google Scholar
Selinker, L., & Lamendella, J. (1978). Two perspectives on fossilization in interlanguage learning. Interlan-guage Studies Bulletin, 3, 143–191.Google Scholar
Shweder, R. A., & Fiske, D. W. (1986). Introduction: Uneasy social science. In Fiske, D. W. & Shweder, R. A. (Eds.), Metatheory in social science: Pluralisms and subjectivities (pp. 1–18). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Spolsky, B. (1989). Conditions for second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. (1983). On the variability of interlanguage systems. Applied Linguistics, 4, 143–163.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. (1989). Accounting for style-shifting in interlanguage. In Gass, S., Madden, C., Preston, D. & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Variation in second language acquisition (pp. 13–21). Philadelphia: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. (1990). On variation in interlanguage: A response to Gregg. Applied Linguistics, 11, 392–400.Google Scholar
Van Lier, L. (1987). The classroom and the language learner: Ethnography and second-language classroom research. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Van Lier, L. (1989). Classroom research in second language acquisition. Unpublished manuscript, Monterey Institute of International Studies, Monterey, CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1985). The “pro-drop” parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 35, 47–62.Google Scholar
White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the development of second-language competence. Applied Linguistics, 8, 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1989). Universal grammar and second language acquisition. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wode, H. (1979). Operating principles and “universals” in LI, L2 and FIT. IRAL, 17, 217–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wode, H. (1984). Some theoretical implications of L2 acquisition research and the grammar of interlanguage. In Davies, A., Criper, C. & Howatt, A. P. R. (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 162–184). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Zukav, G. (1979). The dancing Wu Li masters. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar