Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
332
side dominant or center societies, rather than
being passively affected by globalization, are actively reacting to and participating in it. They are
speaking on their own behalf to the centers of
knowledge construction and power, in order to
promote their interests and the ongoing decolonization process. This remarkable and creative
combination of sociopolitical events and trajectories in mainstream and non-mainstream
research has already seriously eroded the universalist assumptions that have until now determined mainstream theory and method and that
are anchored in Anglo-Euro-American cultural
ontology and epistemology.
The paradigm shift has begun to be felt in SLA
scholarly social spaces through new cognitive science-based theories of language (see Doughty &
Long, 2003; also Atkinson, 2002; Martinez,
2001), including emergentism theory (N. C.
Ellis, 1998; MacWhinney, 1999), and criticalist
sociocultural studies of second language learning and teaching (e.g., Canagarajah, 1999; Tollefson, 1995). The conventional paradigm for
SLA research has come under increasing criticism since the late 1970s for (a) its exclusive reliance on Cartesian, positivistic assumptions about
reality, (b) its experimental modes of inquiry
that cannot incorporate cultural and sociopolitical context into its models, (c) its basis in
structuralist or other problematic linguistic theories, and (d) its inability to produce implications
for pedagogy that actually work for second language teaching, especially in the periphery (i.e.,
third- and fourth-world situations; Block, 1996;
Crookes, 1997; Firth & Wagner, 1997; Jacobs &
Schumann, 1992; Kramsch, 1995; Lantolf, 1996;
Liddicoat, 1997; Pallotti, 1996; Pennycook, 1994;
Rampton, 1997a, 1997b).
However, recent developments have opened
the way for a new synthesis involving a reconsideration of mind, language, epistemology, and
learning, based on the recognition that cognition originates in social interaction and is
shaped by cultural and sociopolitical processes.
That is, cultural and sociopolitical processes are
central, rather than incidental, to cognitive development.
My purpose here is twofold. First, I overview in
brief, outline fashion some of the diverse lines of
research and thinking that converge on a set of
general principles for cognitive development
and social practice, which are still to be understood in full through further research. In being
indicative rather than exhaustive, I highlight
some of the subtleties in issues of social influences and experience in shaping mind and lan-
333
thinking . . . are distributed as much among individuals as they are packed within them (M. Cole
& Engestrm, 1993, p. 1). The discovery of
distributed cognitionsthat people think in conjunction with others, that cognition is socially
constructed through collaboration (Resnick, Levine, & Teasley, 1991; Salomon, 1993)links to
the work that is going on in cognitive anthropology and by standpoint epistemologists on the nature of knowledge construction (see below).
Even Vygotskian theory (1978, 1981; Rogoff,
1990) is subject to the critique of not being social
enough, and as yet continuing to treat the mind
as a container for the transfer of knowledge
(Atkinson, 2002; Brandt, 2000; Watson-Gegeo,
1990).
What have we discovered about language from
cognitive science research? First, research has
discovered no structure in the brain that corresponds to a Language Acquisition Device as argued by Chomsky and others. Language is not
completely a human genetic innovation because
its central aspects arise via evolutionary processes
from neural systems that are present in so-called
lower animals (Bates, Thal, & Marchman,
1991). There can be no pure syntax separate
from meaning, emotion, action, and other dynamic aspects of the mind and communication.
Linguistic concepts, like all other cognitive processes, arise from the embodied nature of human
existence and through experience (Langacker,
1990, 1991). Language develops through the
same general processes as other cognitive skills,
and grammar is a matter of highly structured
neural connections (Churchland & Sejnowski,
1992; Elman, Bates, Johnson, Karmiloff-Smith,
Parisi, & Plunkett, 1996; Plunket & Elman, 1997).
Second, innateness is usually equated with
language universals. However, if we are to be
consistent with cognitive science, emergentism,
connectionism, and cognitive linguistics, what
we take to be universal typically involves universals of common human experience starting after
birth. In other words, it is not just a matter of
what we are born with, but the fact that we human beings occupy a set of environments with
and within which our body-mind has co-evolved
and that present us with common experiences.
These experiences include, as Lakoff and Johnson (1999) phrased it, the conceptual poles of
grammatic constructions, universals of spatial relations, and universals of metaphor (p. 508; see
also Fauconnier, 1997; Koenig, 1998). The rest is
culturally variable (see Chafe & Nichols, 1986); it
is shaped by gender, ethnicity, social class, and
sociohistorical, sociopolitical processes (Chaik-
334
lin & Lave, 1996; Segall et al., 1999; Stephens,
1995) in very powerful ways that affect perceptions, assumptions, language(s), and other understandings of the world.
While some theorists continue to defend or reinvent Chomskys theories, or both (e.g., Chomsky, 1995; Fodor, 1998; Pinker, 1994; White,
2003), biologists and neuroscientists have shown
that a built-in Universal Grammar (UG) or language acquisition structure is unnecessary for explaining language universals. Chomskyian theory failed a major test when McWhorter (1997)
devastatingly critiqued Bickertons (1988, 1990)
Chomsky-based bioprogram model of creole
language formation, showing that, for instance,
the grammatical structures that Bickerton
claimed Surinam Creole speakers had supposedly created from UG turned out to be transferred from the African substrate. Evolutionary
biologist/primatologist Terence Deacon (1997)
convincingly demonstrated that languages have
had to adapt to childrens spontaneous assumptions about communication, learning, social interaction, and even symbolic reference
(p. 109)placing the social in the center of the
linguistic:
The theory that there are innate rules for grammar
commits the fallacy of collapsing the irreducible social evolutionary process [of language evolution and
change] into a static formal structure. . . . The link
from psychological universals to linguistic universals
is exceedingly indirect at best. . . . The brain has
co-evolved with respect to language, but languages
have done most of the adapting. (pp. 121122)
Chomskyian theory is but one account of language in linguistic theory, yet Pinkers (1994)
and Krashens (1985) works have been read by a
wider public, and language teachers at all levels
often assume a Chomskyian perspective (perhaps unconsciously) on language that affects
teaching moments with students, even if they are
attempting to teach according to best practice
that incorporates language use and sociocultural
issues (as modeled or argued in, e.g., Berns,
1990; Kramsch, 1995; Kern, 2000; McGroarty,
1998; or Larsen-Freeman, 2000).
Third, language structure, language use, and
language acquisition are inseparable because experience shapes all our neural networks. These
processes are therefore also shaped by sociohistorical, sociocultural, and sociopolitical processes, because language change, use, and learning occur in social, cultural, and political contexts
that constrain and shape linguistic forms in various ways, and mark their significance. The politi-
335
members are all one family, and thus the
proposition-schema FAMILIES SHARE FOOD
WITHOUT EXPECTATION OF RETURN applies to all of them.
Cultural modelswhich are usually tacitly
understood, and often unconsciouslie at the
heart of cultural identity, ontology, and indigenous and local epistemology. Until very recently,
ontology and epistemology were treated as what
Western philosophy and science had invented,
while everybody else had only a world-view and
commonsense strategies for discovering knowledge needed to survive in the local environment.
Today, scholars from third-world societies and
from indigenous societies living under colonial
conditions in first- and second-world societies are
challenging the privileging of Western ontology
and scientific epistemology. This challenging has
come in the wake of the critique of mainstream
epistemology by third wave feminist scholars
against the Anglo-Euro-American patriarchal positioning of mainstream epistemology.
Epistemology refers to both the theory of
knowledge and theorizing knowledge (Goldman, 1986, 1999). Epistemology is concerned
with who can be a knower, what can be known,
what constitutes knowledge, sources of evidence
for constructing knowledge, what constitutes
truth, how truth is to be verified, how evidence
becomes truth, how valid inferences are to be
drawn, the role of belief in evidence, and related
issues (Gegeo & Watson-Gegeo, 2001; see also
Williams & Muchena, 1991). Social epistemologists (e.g., Fuller, 1988) and feminist epistemologists (e.g., Code, 1991; Grosz, 1990; Haraway,
1988; L. H. Nelson, 1993) recognize with sociologists of knowledge (Bloor, 1991; Dant, 1991;
Stehr, 1994) that epistemological agents are
communities rather than individuals. In other
words, knowledge is constructed by communitiesepistemological communitiesrather than
collections of independently knowing individuals (Gegeo & Watson-Gegeo, 2001, p. 58), and
such communities are epistemologically prior to
individuals who know (L. H. Nelson, 1993, p.
124). Feminist epistemologists, parallel to neuroscientists, recognize the embodiment of knowledge. Grosz (1993) cogently argued that the current crisis of reason in Western culture and
philosophy is a consequence of the historical
privileging of the purely conceptual or mental
over the corporeal, and the inability of Western
knowledges to conceive their own processes of
(material) production, processes that simultaneously rely on and disavow the role of the body
(p. 187). Both of these points are consistent with
336
the new findings of cognitive science and developmentalist research just reviewed. However,
feminists add the additional and crucial insight
that human bodies are not all the same. In particular, Western positivistic research typically assumes a male body and usually a White middleclass heterosexual male experience of and in the
world.
Moreover, the feminist and third-world challenge to Western rationality and normal science
takes all these arguments a step further to challenge the taken-for-granted objectivity on which
much of Western science depends for its claim
that the knowledge it produces is necessarily universal and always superior to all other forms of
knowledge. Particularly relevant to the present
discussion is standpoint epistemology as developed
by feminists, which recognizes that Knowledge
claims are always socially situated (Harding,
1993, p. 54). That is, all knowledge is subjective,
positioned (i.e., from a standpoint, not objective
in a final sense), historically variable, and specific, even when what is constructed turns out to
have universal implications. With the realization
that all knowledge is situated comes the recognition of the importance of who gets to be the
knowledge producers versus those who are only
allowed or able to be knowledge consumers, and
why there is so much power in the hands of those
who control knowledge. Knowledge is political
as well as cultural, and for this reason, researchers must ask, who gets to represent whom?
Typically, it has been White Anglo-Euro-American researchers who study and represent mainly
non-European Others who are not allowed
voice to represent themselves as they wish to be
or are positioned. As Yeatman (1994) put it,
Who must be silenced in order that these representations prevail? (p. 31).
However, the prevailing relations are in a very
early stage of changing, through the new research by third-world scholars writing about
their own cultures ontologies, epistemologies,
and cultural models. Indigenous epistemology refers to an indigenous cultural groups ways of
thinking and of creating, reformulating, and theorizing about knowledge via traditional discourses and media of communication, anchoring the truth of the discourse in culture (Gegeo
& Watson-Gegeo, 2001, p. 58; see also Gegeo,
1994; Gegeo & Watson-Gegeo, 2002). Local epistemology refers to processes of creating knowledge
that are situated in local conditions and relationships and may be partially or wholly shared
across cultural groups. As concepts, indigenous
and local epistemology focus on the process
The recognition that all knowledge is positioned and situated in sociohistorical, sociopolitical contexts brings us to the questions,
What do the new understandings about bodymind imply for context? And how do people
learn?
CONTEMPORARY UNDERSTANDINGS OF
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, SITUATED
LEARNING, AND CONTEXT
The new research has made older cognitivist
theoretical assumptions about development and
learning obsolete. One of the best accounts of
how our understandings have changed is found
in the National Academy of Sciences book, published in 2000, From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The
Science of Early Childhood Development (Shonkoff &
Phillips, 2000). First, by asserting that human
development is shaped by a dynamic and continuous interaction between biology and culture,
the national panel stated that the nature versus
nurture debate is thus scientifically obsolete
(p. 3). As Spitzer (1999) pointed out:
We have demonstrated that the connections between the neurons in a human brain cannot possibly
be genetically determined, because the entire human genome is by far too small to contain the necessary information. Instead, humans learn through
interactions with the environment that change the
connections in our biological brains. (p. 38)
Second, genetics and environment not only affect but are affected by a childs agency in development. The transmission model of develop-
337
ment and socialization is therefore also scientifically obsolete. Not only adults, but also children
are active participants in their own development and help to shape their environment
(Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000, p. 24).
Third, the idea that development is entirely
and necessarily universal with regard to the specifics of stage and trajectory is now obsolete.
The effects of culture on child development are
pervasive, the panel declared. Culture influences every aspect of human development and
is fundamental to what happens (Shonkoff &
Phillips, 2000, p. 25; see also P. J. Miller & Goodnow, 1995). The determination that culture is
formative entails recognizing the influence of
the family and family organization. Today there
is a turn towards seeing the family rather than
the individual child as the unit of analysis. Some
of the leading human development departments
in U.S. universities are changing their names to
reflect this new emphasis. For instance, the department at the University of WisconsinMadison recently changed its name from Human
Development to Human Development and
Family Studies, and faculty have begun collaborative research projects, using qualitative and
ethnographic methods.
Fourth, critical period as a description or
boundary for certain kinds of development is
now a dispreferred term, having been replaced
in cutting-edge research by sensitive period
(Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000, p. 195). Research has
found that the developing brain is open to influential experiences across broad periods of development (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000, p. 183;
see also Barlow, Petrinovich, & Main, 1982).
Drawing on activity theory, critical psychology,
ecological psychology, and cognitive anthropology, Lave (1993) defined learning as changing
participation [and understanding] in the culturally designed settings of everyday life (pp. 56).
She pointed out that cognitivist theories of learning have heretofore claimed that actors relations with knowledge-in-activity are static, that
is, they do not change except when subject to
special periods of learning and development,
and that institutional arrangements for inculcating knowledge are the necessary, special circumstances for learning, separate from everyday
life (p. 12). The weight of evidence, however, is
moving towards sociocultural theories that emphasize learning as ubiquitous, as an aspect of
all activity (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 38). In any
situation, people will learn, even if what they
learn is to fail, an all-too-common consequence
of formal schooling.
338
Underlying the split between older cognitivist
theories and contemporary sociocultural theories of learning is an epistemological gulf. Older
cognitivist theories viewed knowledge as a collection of real entities, located in heads (the container metaphor), and learning as a process of internalizing these entities (what Freire, 1970,
called the banking model of education in which
deposits of prepackaged knowledge are made
into the heads of students). Today some scholars
in education and language teaching are attempting to apply aspects of neuroscience directly,
ahead of the research and without regard to the
complexities of cognitive scientific understandings (see Knudson, n.d., and Wolfe, 2001). In
contrast, sociocultural theories, which are receiving support from the new research, regard knowing and learning as engagement in changing
processes of human activity (Lave, 1993, p. 12).
Even as cognitivist theories have not recognized the heterogeneity of knowledge, they also
do not take into account situated activity and the
fact that conflict is a ubiquitous aspect of human existence (Lave, 1993, p. 15). As we have
seen, power issues cannot be detached from
knowledge, and thus all learning is political in
nature.
Then what is meant by situated cognition and situated learning ? Both terms have wide usage today
in various pedagogical fields, where their meanings are often diluted. Situated cognition refers to
the position that every cognitive act must be
viewed as a specific response to a specific set of
circumstances (Resnick, 1991, p. 4). This framing of cognition challenges experimental psychology and psycholinguistic assumptions that
the research laboratory (or a test-taking situation) is a neutral environment in which valid
findings about peoples skills can be discovered,
measured, or both. Research has shown, for instance, that childrens conversational inexperience, rather than their cognitive incompetence,
can produce inaccurate results about their abilities in an experimental situation (Siegal, 1991).
Research has also shown that adults often attend
to figuring out the social meaning of the experimental situation rather than the cognitive features of the task given them (Perret-Clermont,
Perret, & Bell, 1991). In short, there is no decontextualized, neutral environment: Everything occurs in and is shaped by context.
Situated learning refers to more than the idea
that learning takes place somewhere and through
doing, or that the meaning of activity depends on
social context. Situated learning is a general theoretical perspective on the relational character of
339
2000; Harklau, 1994; He, 1997; Hoyle & Adger,
1998; Kanagy, 1999; Li, 2000; Losey, 1995; Pallotti, 1996; Poole, 1992; Schecter & Bayley, 1997;
Siegal, 1996; Watson-Gegeo, 1992, 2001; Watson-Gegeo & Gegeo, 1994, 1995, 1999a; Willet,
1995; for a review of some of the better LS studies in SLA, see Watson-Gegeo & Nielsen, 2003).
The most exciting development in LS studies in
SLA is the arrival of Bayley and Schecters (2003)
excellent collection of research pieces, most
from a critical, sociopolitical perspective, on
second language socialization in more than 10
bilingual/multilingual sociocultural situations
around the world, in home, school, and community contexts, across the life-span. This volume
sets a new, higher standard for LS research in
SLA and pushes the paradigm shift forward. Although individual authors in the Bayley and
Schecter volume make important statements
about the shifts going on in LS theory and research, an overarching theoretical statement
does not emerge from the book. What I try to do
here, therefore, is move us towards a LS paradigm for SLA by briefly laying out some of the
key premises of LS theory. We need to recognize
that a new paradigm will be socially constructed
by an epistemological community, not individually announced, and that what we are seeking
to build is an open, not a closed, paradigm. In
other words, we are not seeking to construct a
new grid or new walls, we are instead opening up
spaces.
The basic premise of LS is that linguistic and
cultural knowledge are constructed through each
other, and that language-acquiring children
and adults are active and selective agents in both
processes (Watson-Gegeo & Nielsen, 2003, p.
165, drawing on Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986). The
learning of language, cultural meanings, and social behavior is experienced by the learner as a
single, continuous (though neither linear nor
necessarily unparadoxical) process (WatsonGegeo & Gegeo, 1995). Learners construct a set
of (linguistic and behavioral) practices that enable them to communicate with and live among
others (Schieffelin, 1990, p. 15) in the highly
complex, fluid, and hybridized cultural settings
in which they may find themselves and need to
act. This premise coincides with our understandings that language and language varieties adapt
to human circumstances and biology, that culture shapes development (including language
learning), and that language, culture, and mind
interactively shape each other through interactive practices and discourses. Language socialization research offers us an opportunity, as well, to
340
extend Whorfs (1956) principle of linguistic
relativity by examining how, in the process of
learning first, second, and additional languages,
learners also learn multiple representations (ontologies and epistemologies) of the world.
A second premise of LS theory is that all activities in which learners regularly interact with
others in the family, community, workplace, or
classroom are not only by definition socially organized and embedded in cultural meaning systems, but are inherently political. People learn
language(s) in social, cultural, and political contexts that constrain the linguistic forms they hear
and use and also mark the social significance of
linguistic and cultural forms in various ways.
These insights apply to second language learners
as well as to first language learners because learning is ubiquitous, there is no context-free language learning, and all communicative contexts
involve social, cultural, and political dimensions
that affect which linguistic forms are available or
taught and how they are represented. As Bourdieu (1985) argued, there is no disinterested social practice. In fact, the study of language socialization processes allows us to recover how
language forms correspond with the values, beliefs, and practices of a particular group and how
novices can come to adopt them in interaction,
because through language, social structures and
roles are made visible and available (K. Cole &
Zuengler, 2003, p. 99). Discourse organization
then becomes central to understanding in classrooms, for example, the ways that language varieties and forms are used to create expectations,
meanings, and judgments about learners, their
knowledge(s) and indigenous/local/standpoint
epistemologies, and so on, especially through
interactional routines that invite while limiting
agency (Sato & Watson-Gegeo, 1992; Ulichny &
Watson-Gegeo, 1989; Watson-Gegeo & Gegeo,
1999b).
A third premise of LS theory has to do with the
complexities of context essential to analysis. Over
the past decade, SLA research has demonstrated
that social identities, roles, discourse patterns,
and other aspects of context all affect the process
of language learning, including motivation
(Peirce, 1995a) and consciousness (Schmidt,
1990). Conventional SLA research has often
treated aspects of context in ways that are
reductionist and superficial. R. Ellis and Roberts
(1987) approach to context, for example, drew
on Hymes (1974) SPEAKING model, which
Hymes intended as sensitization for researchers
to the multidimensionality of context, but in fact,
R. Ellis and Roberts followed Brown and Frasers
341
ences] from invariant structures to ones that are
less rigid and more deeply adaptive, with structure more the variable outcome of action than
its invariant precondition (p. 17).
Lave and Wengers (1991) formulation speaks
to the relational interdependency of agent and
world, activity, meaning, cognition, learning,
and knowing, and emphasizes the inherently socially situated negotiation and renegotiation of
meaning in the world (pp. 5051). This perspective is important to focusing our attention
on how learners are brought into or excluded
from various activities that shape language learning. The importance of studying access, negotiation, and the roles of second language learners
movement from beginner to advanced second
language speaker status is foregrounded. These
issues have critical importance for linguistic minorities and immigrants, who often face social
and political hostility or exclusion and may react
to that exclusion with resistance. Moreover, if we
were to take Lave and Wengers legitimate peripheral participation model seriously, we would
need to rethink education from the ground up,
including all the assumptions we have about
classrooms as settings for learning.
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES FOR SECOND
LANGUAGE SOCIALIZATION
A language socialization paradigm is eclectic
with regard to research methods and design but
emphasizes ethnographic and other forms of
qualitative research as the key empirical methods. In the past few years, a number of discussions of qualitative and ethnographic methods in
SLA and English as a second language research
have appeared (Davis, 1995; Edge & Richards,
1998; Lazaraton, 1995; Peirce, 1995b; Ramanathan & Atkinson, 1999; Watson-Gegeo, 1990),
but only two so far (Watson-Gegeo, 1992;
Watson-Gegeo & Nielsen, 2003) flow from a LS
perspective. Quality LS research requires a combination of ethnographic, sociolinguistic, and
discourse analytic methods at a minimum, and
often includes quantitative and sometimes experimental methods, as well. However, quantitative and experimental work must be ecologically
valid (M. Cole, Hood, & McDermott, 1978) that
is, incorporate all relevant macro- and microdimensions of context; and, going beyond the
psychologists notion of ecological validity, incorporate whole events and behavior rather than
short strips of time with coding into preset categories (Watson-Gegeo, 1992). LS research is
built on fine-grained longitudinal studies of lan-
342
guage and culture learning in community or
classroom settings, or both, systematically documented through audiotape, videotape, and careful fieldnote records of interaction. Central to
the analysis are tape-recorded naturally occurring interactions that are analyzed for linguistic
and sociolinguistic features (including paralinguistic, kinesic, and suprasegmental features),
participant structures, genres, presentation of
self, indexicality, discourse organization, and
other aspects of interaction. In-depth ethnographic interviews of learners are conducted, focused around their goals, inferences, and other
understanding of interactions in which they or
others participated; emergent patterns in data;
and theoretical issues salient to the research
questions that evolve, grounded-theory style,
from accumulating data and continuous analysis.
(For further discussion of methods in LS research, see Watson-Gegeo, 1992, and WatsonGegeo & Nielsen, 2003.)
CONCLUSION
A language socialization paradigm would
transform SLA research, which is already moving
towards becoming consistent with the new research in the human, social, and neurosciences,
and make it more relevant to learners actual experience (e.g., Kern, 2000). A language socialization paradigm would also transform the way we
attempt to teach languages in classrooms. We
would have to reexamine our pedagogical strategies, the assumptions we make about classroom
organization, lesson structure, and effective materials, including current assumptions about
sociocultural strategies. Our concern with multiculturalism would be radically changed, as well,
from the rather superficial and anemic treatment of cultural variability to a serious and intensive consideration of how our perceptions of the
world are shaped by the interaction between our
embodied experience in the world and the culturally based ontology/ies and epistemology/ies
into and through which we are all socialized in
the course of learning our first language(s) and
culture(s) (however hybridized they may be);
and then (re)socialized or partially (re)socialized in the process of learning a second or third
language and culture.
Moreover, political issues in language, mind,
culture, interaction, ontology, epistemology, and
learning would be foregrounded rather than
noted and then treated as peripheral or ignored
altogether. With criticalist applied linguists and
SLA researchers in sociopolitical perspectives, we
343
the paradigm shift in the human and social sciences that revolutionizes the way we view mind,
language, epistemology, and learning. It will affect how we think about learning languages and
cultures and the values we hold in relation to local/indigenous languages and knowledges, moving us away from instrumentalism towards a genuine recognition and appreciation for differing
ways of being, learning, teaching, and understanding in language teaching. And it will expand how we think about mind, cognition, and
intelligence.
A paradigm shift of the dimensions I have attempted to outline in this article is painful because such shifts shatter the old in the interest of
making room for new growth and new visions. By
definition, paradigm shifts question all that we
hold dear, all that we have assumed, the theories
close to our hearts, the methods we have believed in, the goals we have set for our careers. In
this case, normal science which we have taken to
be the hallmark of our very technologically oriented (and distorted) society is from here on
challenged. It will be a new kind of science that
emerges, far more holistic and open than in the
past, integrating more of human experience and
understanding than in the past. It will incorporate voices and knowings from the periphery of
world power, from standpoints of indigeneity,
hybridity, ethnicity, color, gender, and sexual
orientation. As noted Nobel laureate (chemistry) Prigogine commented (as cited in Jantsch
1980; see Prigogine, 1980):
The world is far too rich to be expressed in a single
language. Music does not exhaust itself in a sequence of styles. Equally, the essential aspects of our
experience can never be condensed into a single description. We have to use many descriptions which
are irreducible to each other. . . . Scientific work
consists of selective exploration and not of discovery
of a given reality. It consists of the choice of questions which have to be posed. (p. 303)
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This revised article was originally presented as an invited plenary talk at the Pacific Second Language Research Forum (PacSLRF), 5 October 2001, in Honolulu, via distance technology. I am indebted to
Kandace Knudson, Matthew C. Bronson, and Sarah E.
Nielsen for our many significant conversations on the
issues and sources in cognitive science and SLA discussed here. I am also grateful to Michele FavreauHaight, Suzanne Romaine, Kathryn Davis, David
Welchman Gegeo, Julia Menard-Warwick, Sally Sieloff
Magnan, and three anonymous reviewers, for their
344
helpful comments on an earlier draft. I dedicate this
paper to Charlie (Charlene) J. Sato, in memory of our
conversations in 1991 when, while working on our
Discourse Processes in Hawaii Creole English project, I first began proposing the ideas developed here,
catalyzed by our synergistic, free-ranging, and wonderfully electric discussions of mind, language, culture,
and epistemology.
REFERENCES
Alcoff, L., & Potter, E. (Eds.). (1993). Feminist epistemologies. New York: Routledge.
Atkinson, D. (2002). Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. Modern
Language Journal, 86, 525545.
Atkinson, D., & Ramanathan, V. (1995). Cultures of
writing: An ethnographic comparison of L1 and
L2 university writing/language programs. TESOL
Quarterly, 29, 539568.
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays
by M. M. Bakhtin. (M. Holoquist, Ed.; C. Emerson
& M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of
Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. (V.
W. McGee, C. Emerson, & M. Holoquist, Eds.,
Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Barlow, G. W., Petrinovich, L., & Main, M. B. (Eds.).
(1982). Behavioral development: The Bielefelt Interdisciplinary Project. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bates, E., Thal, D. J., & Marchman, V. (1991). Symbols
and syntax: A Darwinian approach to language
development. In N. A. Krasnegor, D. M. Rumbaugh, R. L. Schiefelbusch, & M. Studdert-Kennedy (Eds.), Biological and behavioral determinants
of language development (pp. 2966). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Baumgartner, P., & Payr, S. (1995). Speaking minds: Interviews with twenty eminent cognitive scientists.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bayley, R., & Schecter, S. R. (2003). Language socialization in bilingual and multilingual societies. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Berns, M. (1990). Contexts of competence: Social and cultural considerations in communicative language teaching. New York: Plenum.
Bhaba, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. London:
Routledge.
Bhavnani, K.-K., Foran, J., & Kurian, P. (Eds.). (2003).
Feminist futures: Re-imagining women, culture and
development. London: Zed.
Bickerton, D. (1988). Creole languages and the bioprogram. In F. J. Newmeyer (Ed.), Linguistic theory: Extensions and implications (pp. 268282).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bickerton, D. (1990). Language and species. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Block, D. (1996). Not so fast: Some thoughts on theory
345
Doughty, C., & Long, M. H. (Eds.). (2003). The handbook of second language acquisition. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Duff, P. A. (1995). An ethnography of communication
in immersion classrooms in Hungary. TESOL
Quarterly, 29, 505538.
Eckert, P. (2000). Linguistic variation as social practice:
The linguistic construction of identity at Belten High.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Edelman, G. (1992). Bright air, brilliant fire: On the matter of mind. New York: Basic Books.
Edge, J., & Richards, K. (1998). May I see your warrant,
please? Justifying outcomes in qualitative research. Applied Linguistics, 19, 334356.
Ellis, N. C. (1998). Emergentism, connectionism and
language learning. Language Learning, 48, 631
664.
Ellis, R., & Roberts, C. (1987). Two approaches for investigating second language acquisition. In R.
Ellis (Ed.), Second language acquisition in context
(pp. 329). London: Prentice-Hall.
Elman, J. L., Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H., KarmiloffSmith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think:
Conceptual blending and the minds hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in
SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81, 285
330.
Fischer, K. W., Wang, L., Kennedy, B., & Chang, C.-L.
(1998). Culture and biology in emotional development. In D. Sharma & K. W. Fischer (Eds.),
New directions for child development: Vol. 81. Socioemotional development across cultures (pp. 2143).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fodor, J. A. (1998). In critical condition: Polemical essays
on cognitive science and the philosophy of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews
and other writings 19721977. New York: Pantheon
Books.
Fox, N. A. (1991). If its not left, its right: Electroencephalograph asymmetry and the development
of emotion. American Psychologist, 46, 863872.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York:
Continuum.
Fuller, S. (1988). Social epistemology. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Press.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New
York: Basic Books.
Gegeo, D. W. (1994). Kastom and bisnis: Toward integrating cultural knowledge into rural development in the
Solomon Islands. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii.
Gegeo, D. W., & Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (1999). Adult education, language change, and issues of identity
and authenticity in Kwaraae (Solomon Islands).
Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 30 (1), 2236.
346
Gegeo, D. W., & Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (2001). How we
know: Kwaraae rural villagers doing indigenous
epistemology. The Contemporary Pacific, 13, 5588.
Gegeo, D. W., & Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (2002). The critical villager: Transforming language and education in Solomon Islands. In J. W. Tollefson (Ed.),
Language policies in education: Critical issues (pp.
309325). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gegeo, D. W., & Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (2003). Whose
knowledge? The collision of indigenous and introduced knowledge systems in Solomon Islands
community development. The Contemporary Pacific, 14, 377409.
Gibson, J. J. (1982). Reasons for realism: Selected essays of
James J. Gibson (E. Reed & R. Jones, Eds.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in social research.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded
theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Goldblum, N. (2001). The brain-shaped mind: What the
brain can tell us about the mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goldman, A. I. (1986). Epistemology and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Goldman, A. I. (1999). Knowledge in a social world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goodwin, C., & Duranti, A. (1992). Rethinking context: An introduction. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 142). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Gramsci, A. (1978). Selections from political writings
19211926. (Q. Hoare, Ed. & Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
Grosz, E. (1990). A note on essentialism and difference. In S. Gunew (Ed.), Feminist knowledge: Critique and construct (pp. 2240). New York: Routledge.
Grosz, E. (1993). Bodies and knowledges: Feminism
and the crisis of reason. In L. Alcoff & E. Potter
(Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (pp. 187215). New
York: Routledge.
Gumperz, J. J., & Levinson, S. C. (Eds.). (1996). Rethinking linguistic relativity. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the evolution of
society. Boston: Beacon Press.
Halgren, E., & Marinkovic, K. (1995). Neurophysiological networks integrating human emotions. In
M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences
(pp. 137151). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hall, S. (1991). Cultural identity and diaspora. In A. D.
King (Ed.), Culture, globalization and the world system: Contemporary conditions for the representation of
identity (pp. 222236). Binghamton, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic
perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
347
mate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lazaraton, A. (1995). Qualitative research in applied
linguistics: A progress report. TESOL Quarterly,
29, 473504.
Lee, P. (1996). The Whorf theory complex: A critical reconsideration. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Levinson, S. C. (1996). Relativity in spatial conception
and description. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson
(Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 177
202). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levy, J. P., Bairaktaris, D., Gullinaria, J. A., & Cairns, P.
(Eds.). (1995). Connectionist models of memory and
language. London: UCL Press.
Lewis, J. A., & Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (in press). Fictions
of childhood: Toward a sociohistorical approach
to human development. Ethos.
Li, D. (2000). The pragmatics of making requests in
the L2 workplace: A case study of language socialization. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57,
5887.
Liddicoat, A. (1997). Interaction, social structure, and
second language use: A response to Firth and
Wagner. Modern Language Journal, 81, 313317.
Long, M. H., & Doughty, C. J. (2003). SLA and cognitive science. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.),
The handbook of second language acquisition (pp.
866870). Oxford: Blackwell.
Losey, K. M. (1995). Gender and ethnicity as factors in
the development of verbal skills in bilingual Mexican American women. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 635
661.
MacWhinney, B. (Ed.). (1999). The emergence of language. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in
primitive languages. In C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards (Eds.), The meaning of meaning (pp. 296
336). New York: Harcourt.
Martin, J. R. (1997). Analyzing genre: Functional parameters. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.),
Genre institutions: Social processes in the workplace
and school (pp. 89121). New York: Continuum.
Martin, L. M. W., Nelson, K., & Tobach, E. (Eds.).
(1995). Sociocultural psychology: Theory and practice
of doing and knowing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Martinez, M. E. (2001). The process of knowing: A
biocognitive epistemology. The Journal of Mind
and Behavior, 22, 407426.
Mayall, B. (2002). Towards a sociology for childhood:
Thinking from childrens lives. Philadelphia: Open
University Press.
McGroarty, M. (1998). Constructive and constructivist
challenges for applied linguistics. Language
Learning, 48, 591622.
McWhorter, J. H. (1997). Towards a new model of creole
genesis. New York: Peter Lang.
Miller, E. K. (2000). The prefrontal cortex and cognitive control. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 1, 5965.
Miller, P. J., & Goodnow, J .J. (1995). Cultural practices: Towards an integration of culture and de-
348
velopment. In J. J. Goodnow, P. J. Miller, & F.
Kessel (Eds.), Cultural practices as context for development (pp. 516). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Naatanen, R. (1992). Attention and brain function.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nelson, K. (1996). Language in cognitive development:
The emergence of the mediated mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nelson, L. H. (1993). Epistemological communities.
In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (pp. 121160). New York: Routledge.
Ochs, E. (1988). Culture and language development: Language acquisition and language socialization in a Samoan village. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Pallotti, G. (1996). Towards an ecology of second language acquisition: SLA as a socialization process.
In E. Kellerman, B. Weltens, & T. Bongaerts
(Eds.), EuroSLA 6: A Selection of Papers. Toegepaste
Taalwetenschap in Artikelen (pp. 121143). Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij.
Peirce, B. N. (1995a). Social identity, investment, and
language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 931.
Peirce, B. N. (1995b). The theory of methodology in
qualitative research. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 569
575.
Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as
an international language. London: Longman.
Perret-Clermont, A.-N., Perret, J.-F., & Bell, N. (1991).
The social construction of meaning and cognitive activity in elementary school children. In L.
B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.),
Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 4162).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Philips, S. U. (1983). The invisible culture: Communication in classroom and community on the Warm Springs
Indian Reservation. New York: Longman.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct: The new science
of language and mind. New York: William Morrow.
Plunkett, K., & Elman, J. L. (1997). Exercises in rethinking innateness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Poole, D. (1992). Language socialization in the second
language classroom. Language Learning, 42, 593
616.
Porges, S. W. (1995). Orienting in a defensive world:
Mammalian modification of our evolutionary
heritage, a polyvagal theory. Psychophysiology, 32,
301318.
Prigogine, I. (1980). From being to becoming. San Francisco: Freeman.
Quartz, S. R., & Sejnowski, T. J. (2002). Liars, lovers, and
heroes: What the new brain science reveals about how we
become who we are. New York: HarperCollins.
Quinn, N. (1987). Convergent evidence for a cultural
model of American marriage. In D. Holland & N.
Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and
thought (pp. 173194). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Quinn, N. (1997). Research on shared task solutions.
349
guage acquisition (Vols. 12). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Smith, E .E., & Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Solso, R. L., & Massaro, D. W. (1995). The science of the
mind: 2001 and beyond. New York: Oxford University Press.
Spitzer, M. (1999). The mind within the net: Models of
learning, thinking, and acting. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Stehr, N. (1994). Knowledge societies. London: Sage.
Stephens, S. (Ed.). (1995). Children and the politics of
culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Stigler, J. W., Shweder, R., & Herdt, G. (Eds.). (1990).
Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human
development. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Strauss, C., & Quinn, N. (1997). A cognitive theory of cultural meaning. New York: Cambridge University.
Sullivan, F. J. (1995). Critical theory and systemic linguistics: Textualizing the contact zone [electronic version]. JAC, 15(3), 121.
Taylor, J. R. (1989). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes
in linguistic theory. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
Tiller, W. A. (2003a). Conscious acts of creation: The
emergence of a new physics [electronic version].
International Journal of Healing and Caring, Online,
3(1), 123.
Tiller, W. A. (2003b). Towards a quantitative model of
both local and non-local energetic/information
healing [electronic version]. International Journal
of Healing and Caring, Online, 3(2), 140.
Tollefson, J. W. (Ed.). (1995). Power and inequality in
language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tudge, J. (1990). Vygotsky, the zone of proximal development, and peer collaboration: Implications for
classroom practice. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky
and education (pp. 155172). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ulichny, P., & Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (1989). Interactions and authority: The dominant interpretive
framework in writing conferences. Discourse Processes, 12(3), 309328.
Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H.-J. (1996). An introduction to
cognitive linguistics. London: Longman.
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (2000). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vos, T. (2000). Visions of the middle landscape: Organic farming and the politics of nature. Agriculture and Human Values, 17, 245256.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of
higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental
functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144188). Armonk,
NY: M. E. Sharp.
Watson, K. A. (1975). Transferable communicative
routines: Strategies and group identity in two
speech events. Language and Society, 4, 5370.
350
Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (1990). The social transfer of cognitive skills in Kwaraae. Quarterly Newsletter of the
Laboratory of Human Cognition, 22, 575592.
Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (1992). Thick explanation in the
ethnographic study of child socialization and development: A longitudinal study of the problem
of schooling for Kwaraae (Solomon Islands)
children. In W. A. Corsaro & P. J. Miller (Eds.),
New directions for child development: Vol. 58. The production and reproduction of childrens worlds: Interpretive methodologies for the study of childhood socialization (pp. 5166). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (1995). Argument as transformation: A Pacific framing of conflict, community,
and learning. In D. Berrill (Ed.), Perspectives on
argument (pp. 189204). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton
Press.
Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (2001). Fantasy and reality: The
dialectic of work and play in Kwaraae childrens
lives. Ethos, 29, 138158.
Watson-Gegeo, K. A., & Gegeo, D. W. (1986a). The social world of Kwaraae children: Acquisition of
language and values. In J. Cook-Gumperz, W. A.
Corsaro, & J. Streeck (Eds.), Childrens worlds and
childrens language (pp. 109128). Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Watson-Gegeo, K. A., & Gegeo, D. W. (1986b). Calling-out and repeating routines in Kwaraae childrens language socialization. In B. B. Schieffelin
& E. Ochs (Eds.), Language socialization across cultures (pp. 1750). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Watson-Gegeo, K. A., & Gegeo, D. W. (1994). Keeping
culture out of the classroom in rural Solomon Islands schools: A critical analysis. Educational
Foundations, 8, 2755.
Watson-Gegeo, K. A., & Gegeo, D. W. (1995). Understanding language and power in the Solomon Islands: Methodological lessons for educational intervention. In J. W. Tollefson (Ed.), Power and
inequality in language education (pp. 5972). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Watson-Gegeo, K. A., & Gegeo, D. W. (1999a).
(Re)modeling culture in Kwaraae: The role of
discourse in childrens cognitive development.
Discourse Studies, 1, 227246.