[Xmca-l] Re: L2

["Rémi A. van Compernolle"]

So there are two general strands/lines of questioning in L2 work. 

One is related to how the L2 can change, enhance, modify, etc. higher functions. This is the inner speech question. Martin found some relevant references in an earlier post. I’d also note that people like Gale Stam and Steve McCafferty who explore speech-gesture synchrony address the issue. It seems that even with “native like” L2 proficiency, gestures reveal that inner speech is mediated by the L1. That’s an oversimplified summary of this research, but it’s an important finding. Relatedly, however, gestures appear to participate in internalization processes as private and/or inner speech.

The second strand is less focused on the effect of L2 on psych functions and more concerned with how people gain control over a new semiotic system. In this line of research, we emphasize whatever means are used to mediate this process (concepts, L1, L2, L3, etc., other people, strategies, and so on). I’ve argued in my recent work that in a lot of cases it isn’t the L2 that’s internalized to function intrapsychologically but rather metacognitive strategies subserved by declarative memory systems that are deployed to regulate the deployment of L2 resources. This draws on the neurolinguistic work of Paradis and Ullman. So in this sense L2 development isn’t necessarily about acquiring forms but internalizing other means (aux stimuli in V’s well known triangle) to control L2 use ‘from the outside’.

I attach a recent paper I published with a student in one of our (i.e instructed L2 people) leading journals, Language Learning, in case it’s of interest to anyone out there.

Adam

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2014 LL van Compernolle & Henery - CBPI classroom.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 661950 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20141103/e82e37fb/attachment.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------

Rémi A. van Compernolle
Assistant Professor of Second Language Acquisition & French and Francophone Studies
Department of Modern Languages
Carnegie Mellon University
Baker Hall A60M
412-268-1122



On Nov 3, 2014, at 12:09 PM, jose david herazo <jherazo4@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Martin and all,
> I agree with Remi that the idea of using functional second Language concepts as a form or mediation to guide learners' meaning making is new for the L2 education field.   In my dissertation ( http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/20998/ ) i explored this idea using concepts from systemic linguistics. One or the intriguing things I found Was that, once learners appropriated the explícit explanations (concepts) about how the L2 Worked in the genres we studied, they started to use those explanations during their talk as they planned and assessed their own L2 use. As I see it, concepts provided transformational fuel for my learners to approach their L2 learning tasks in the clasroom differently.
> 
> JOse David
> 
> 
> JOSÉ DAVID HERAZO, PhD 
> 
>> On 3/11/2014, at 7:31, "Peter Smagorinsky" <smago@uga.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> I'm not an L2 researcher (or speaker, for the most part), but I work with quite a few. A few points:
>> 
>> 1. Foreign Language learning is but one of many L2 matters. There is also bilingual education, ESOL, EFL, etc. 
>> 2. The whole field of bilingual education characterizes the areas in which you say there is nothing, at least in the US.
>> 3. There might be ethical problems, at least for US Institutional Review Boards, in studying populations as vulnerable as they ones you describe, especially in getting them to sign consent forms that others are confident that they understand--and many immigrants are reluctant to sign papers they fear might cause them problems.
>> 
>> So, I think you're wrong on this, and hope that's what you're hoping for. p
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Martin John Packer
>> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 6:50 AM
>> To: David Kellogg; xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] L2
>> 
>> Hi David,
>> 
>> I have to teach a class on second language learning this week in my course in Psychology of Language, so I've turned to Lantolf. My university library webpage has been down for maintenance this weekend so I've had limited access to his writing, but what I have been able to read has confused me. In a couple of articles I find reasonable summaries of LSV's ideas, but then Lantolf doesn't get around to applying these ideas to L2! Looking at abstracts in Google Scholar it seems that he's proposing that (1) L2 is learned in the ZPD (what isn't?), (2) L2 is a mediator (what isn't?), and (3) private speech occurs in L2 (okay, that could be interesting). I was expecting him to attribute some role to L2 in the higher functions, or to suggest that L2 mediates in a specific way, or...
>> 
>> What am I missing?
>> 
>> Plus, I have a growing suspicion that most L2 research is conducted on people willingly studying a foreign language in the classroom. Not much, or nothing, on people who are forced to abandon their mother tongue because they live somewhere where school, and/or work, is available only if they speak a dominant language. I'm hoping you'll tell me I'm wrong about this!
>> 
>> Martin
>> 
>> 
>> 
>