Article review of ‘What's in a name? Why ‘SLA’ is no longer fit for purpose and the emerging, more equitable alternatives’
University of Graz
Article review of: Anderson, J. 2022. What's in a name? Why ‘SLA’is no longer fit for purpose and the emerging, more equitable alternatives. Language Teaching. [Online]. 55(4), pp.427-433. [Accessed 22 September 2024]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444822000192
In an award-winning paper published in the journal Language Teaching, Anderson (2022) suggested a name change for the discipline Second Language Acquisition (SLA), proposing Additional Language Learning and Additional Language Development as possible alternatives. He described the term SLA as not being sufficiently ‘equitable’ or ‘inclusive’ (Anderson, 2022, p.427) and went so far as to call it ‘a relic of prejudice’ (p.431). While he provided little support for these somewhat hyperbolic claims, he did reiterate some common criticisms that have previously been levelled against the words second and acquisition as used in the term SLA. However, while having some merit, these arguments are not compelling enough to justify a prescriptivist intervention to alter a widely used and commonly accepted term. The article is written for academics who are familiar with controversies and developments in the field of SLA.
Anderson’s objection to the word second is rooted in criticism that dates back decades and relates to the supposed exclusion of multi-lingual contexts (Ellis, 1994; Block, 2003). Anderson argued that second cannot ‘incorporate a third, fourth or fifth language’ (p.430). However, there is considerable precedent in English for second being used to describe groupings of items. For example, if you purchase something at a second-hand shop, it does not rule out that it has had more than one previous owner; meanwhile, an orchestra has an entire section of second violinists; there are even precedents from within the field itself—L2 is commonly understood to mean any language that is learned after the languages acquired as an infant, and English as a Second Language is not renamed English as a Third (or Fourth or Fifth) Language depending on how many languages the learner has previously mastered. Given how common this usage of second is, it is unlikely that anybody would seriously presume that SLA research excludes third or fourth language acquisition.
Anderson’s issue with the word acquisition essentially boils down to objections over its association with the works of certain pioneers in the field of SLA, like Krashen (1976), who emphasized the use of the term to draw a distinction between the process of implicitly gaining linguistic knowledge and an explicit process, labelled learning. These researchers argued that learning was less useful than acquisition—a view that Anderson correctly points out has been challenged; however, as argued previously (Taylor, 2023), it has certainly not been debunked. If it had been, arguments against the term acquisition would be about as pedantic as complaints about using the term ‘sunrise’ in a post-Copernican world.
However, since research into the differences between learning and acquisition, as they relate to explicit and implicit knowledge, is still ongoing, Anderson’s claims as to the inappropriateness of the term acquisition merit a closer look. First, he suggested that learning could encapsulate different processes, including ‘attrition’ (language loss), which acquisition cannot (Anderson, 2022, p.430). However, if learning can encapsulate attrition, it is certainly not the way the word is commonly understood. In fact, the dictionary definition of the word learning is: ‘The acquisition [emphasis mine] of knowledge or skills through study, experience, or being taught’ (Oxford University Press, no date). Secondly, Anderson argued that acquisition implies purely cognitive processes (Anderson, 2022, p.430); however, this is neither supported by common usage—take the socio-cultural process of acquiring a nick-name, for example—nor is it supported by its use in SLA, where acquisition can—in an immersion environment, for example—be the direct result of social interactions. Thirdly, Anderson cited Cameron and Larsen-Freeman (2007) to suggest that acquisition implies completion (mastery) as the norm. However, this is also not how the term is commonly used. Whether one is acquiring wealth, Instagram followers, or information, everybody understands these are ongoing processes.
Anderson further undermined his own call for reform by providing evidence of common usage to support his terms of choice. He argued that one of his proposed terms (additional language learning), was preferable to his others (additional language teaching and additional language development) because it was more attested on Google n-gram by a significant margin. However, if current popularity bestows legitimacy, which arguably it does, it should be noted that second language acquisition is used 88 times more often than additional language learning (Google Books Ngram Viewer, no date), something he failed to mention. Whether or not one believes that language is a skill or knowledge, acquisition is still the more suitable term. A search on Google n-gram reveals that skill acquisition is almost four times as common as skill learning, while acquire knowledge is 30 times more commonly used than learn knowledge and three times more common than develop knowledge (Google Books Ngram Viewer, no date).
However, the debate over which term would be preferable is purely academic unless proposed changes could be universally adopted. It has been noted in some of these calls for change that a shift in such a well-entrenched term would be hard to achieve (e.g. Block, 2003). Furthermore, even if this change were feasible, would it be desirable? Far from being more inclusive, as intended, replacing widely understood terms with new jargon could have the opposite effect if only an elite minority is able to keep up with trends. This could lead to an inner circle that consciously or unconsciously judges those who are too busy—or lack the proficiency in English—to keep up with the latest lexical proclamations.
Changing the term SLA is unnecessary. The word acquisition is semantically broad enough to either be synonymous or distinct from learning, meaning that it will continue being fit for purpose regardless of what future empirical evidence reveals. Meanwhile, researchers who really want to emphasize the fact that more than one language could constitute the first or second languages implied by SLA could easily add a parenthetical <s>, as in Second Language(s) Acquisition. That way the acronym with which we are all familiar could remain the same, leading to less confusion, and allowing hundreds of published works to not suddenly appear obsolete.
Address for correspondence: [email protected]
REFERENCES
Anderson, J. 2022. What's in a name? Why ‘SLA’is no longer fit for purpose and the emerging, more equitable alternatives. Language Teaching. [Online]. 55(4), pp.427-433. [Accessed 22 September 2024]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444822000192
Block, D. 2003. The Social Turn in Second Language Acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Cameron, L. and Larsen-Freeman, D. 2007. Complex systems and applied linguistics. International journal of applied linguistics. [Online]. 17(2), pp.226-240. [Accessed 22 September 2024]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2007.00148.x
Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Books Ngram Viewer. No date. [Online] [Accessed 13 August 2024]. Available from: https://books.google.com/ngrams
Krashen, S.D. 1976. Formal and informal linguistic environments in language acquisition and language learning. TESOL Quarterly. [Online]. 10(2), pp. 157-168. [Accessed 22 September 2024]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/3585637
Oxford University Press. No date. [Online] [Accessed13 August 2024]. Available from: https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/
Taylor, C. 2023. The Justification for Explicit Grammar Instruction Is Overstated. MEXTESOL Journal. [Online]. 47(2), pp.1-4. [Accessed 22 September 2024]. Available from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1397178.pdf